going to be a interesting landing...

GM

PleasureGlutton
Forum Member
Jan 21, 2000
2,962
5
0
123
Toronto, ON, Canada
Ok, I just got in and heard of this for the first time, and watched the replays on TV. Kudos to the pilots and crew for sure!!!! :clap:

One thing I don't understand though...I'm curious if anyone explained this during the lead up for this tonight. They say they had to circle LAX for 3 hours to burn up enough fuel for the plane to be light enough to land on the broken gear. The plane was bound for NY anyways....why didn't they just fly there instead of circling LA for 3 hours? I mean, I would assume either airport would be equally equipped to handle this sort of situation. Why just circle? These people (some of them at least) are going to be terrified to fly again anytime soon...and they just spent 3 hours in the air going nowhere when they could be home by now with loved ones. :shrug:

Anyways, great to see everyone came out alive.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
GM said:
Ok, I just got in and heard of this for the first time, and watched the replays on TV. Kudos to the pilots and crew for sure!!!! :clap:

One thing I don't understand though...I'm curious if anyone explained this during the lead up for this tonight. They say they had to circle LAX for 3 hours to burn up enough fuel for the plane to be light enough to land on the broken gear. The plane was bound for NY anyways....why didn't they just fly there instead of circling LA for 3 hours? I mean, I would assume either airport would be equally equipped to handle this sort of situation. Why just circle? These people (some of them at least) are going to be terrified to fly again anytime soon...and they just spent 3 hours in the air going nowhere when they could be home by now with loved ones. :shrug:

Anyways, great to see everyone came out alive.

The way I understand it is that the front gear did not retract after takeoff and for whatever safety reasons (that I don't know) they should not fly with the landing gear down, if there is an alternative.
 

BahamaMama

not banned
Forum Member
Dec 6, 1999
3,933
9
0
65
Davenport, Iowa
i can understnad them not going on to NY w/ the gear down, but can't at all figure out why they spent 3 hours BURNING fuel when they could have just dumped it.... (not an unusual practice BTW)

they must have had to wait for TV crews and emergency crews to be in place.....


hmmmm.....after 9-11 did they keep planes in the air that long to land at the nearest available airport for them to land after BURNING off their fuel??

this part is very fishy, but does not take away from the spectacular job that the captain did of putting the plane down!!!
 

RexBudler

Wonder Dog
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2003
14,927
30
0
54
Irvine, California
BahamaMama said:
i can understnad them not going on to NY w/ the gear down, but can't at all figure out why they spent 3 hours BURNING fuel when they could have just dumped it.... (not an unusual practice BTW)

they must have had to wait for TV crews and emergency crews to be in place.....


hmmmm.....after 9-11 did they keep planes in the air that long to land at the nearest available airport for them to land after BURNING off their fuel??

this part is very fishy, but does not take away from the spectacular job that the captain did of putting the plane down!!!
This particular plane isnt capable of dumping the fuel
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
RexBudler said:
This particular plane isnt capable of dumping the fuel

Right. They said that most Boeings can dump fuel, but not most models of Airbus, and this was one that couldn't.
 

BahamaMama

not banned
Forum Member
Dec 6, 1999
3,933
9
0
65
Davenport, Iowa
my mistake......was an A320 :( (that's what i get for watching lost most of the time)

still gotta wonder if they can *fly around* why can't they fly towards the next airport that serves them towards their destination that has a long enough runway and emergency equipment to accomodate them. (not that i have a CLUE as to where JetBlue hubs are) LOL Maybe staying where they were WAS the best option.
 

GM

PleasureGlutton
Forum Member
Jan 21, 2000
2,962
5
0
123
Toronto, ON, Canada
JetBlue is based in New York. Thus my assumption most of the people on the plane were probably from the NY area. I am pretty sure the large majority (if not all) of their flights either take off or land in NYC. I wasn't aware the served LAX though. I was pretty sure most of their routes flew to DC, Boston, Philly, etc.

I agree with you BM, I don't see why they couldn't at least fly ~toward~ NY, but I guess there must be regulations or standards which prevent it. You'd think landing in the middle of the country somewhere at a less-busy airport would have made things a tiny bit easier than having to circle over one of the busiest airports in the country for hours.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top