Commercial aircraft which cannot dump fuel

[y_p_w]

I knew it was a lot, but I didn’t know it was that much. This reflects the expected operating environment (short vs. long haul) and also shows why a 747 would not be good for those segments that a 737 operates.

I’d think the only requirement would be to load less fuel for short haul. Japan Airlines and ANA used 747s in two class or all economy short haul domestic. They used to use the 747SR, but later operated the 747-400D. Apparently no winglets since it doesn’t get up to altitude.

The Short-Haul Jumbo Jet: Meet The Boeing 747D

simpleflying.com

Addendum: they apparently went all out on those. No winglets since they don't help much if they don't get up to altitude. And more windows on top because they put passengers there instead of a galley. Not sure if it has crew sleeping quarters. However, I heard the additional passenger and luggage weight is significant with that many passengers, although probably not as much as the fuel weight that Astro cited. How much does the average passenger on a Japanese domestic flight weigh?

 

[George Bynum]

... and also shows why a 747 would not be good for those segments that a 737 operates.

I don't fly, but believe that a lower fuel load is common on short flights. It would give better fuel economy as well.

 

[y_p_w]

I don't fly, but believe that a lower fuel load is common on short flights. It would give better fuel economy as well.

It’s a given that fuel weight adds to fuel consumption. It’s not like a car where the fuel might be less than 5% of the weight.

The 747SR apparently had less fuel capacity as a trade off for more baggage space.

 

[mk378]

I don't fly, but believe that a lower fuel load is common on short flights.

Yes every aircraft has a chart of minimum amount of fuel that must be on board at takeoff versus the weight of the passengers and cargo and the planned flight distance. It is rare to take off with more than that amount of fuel unless planning to turn around immediately at the destination for the return flight without refueling.

The formula of course has extra built in in case of there are headwinds or having to hold before landing or divert to a different airport.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Regardless of the trip time , airlines only board the amount of fuel for the mission ( which includes extra and reserve fuel ).

It costs fuel to carry extra fuel so we never “ fill er up” unless carrying extra fuel ( tanker ) due to lower price which offsets the higher burn to carry it.

 

[y_p_w]

Regardless of the trip time , airlines only board the amount of fuel for the mission ( which includes extra and reserve fuel ).

It costs fuel to carry extra fuel so we never “ fill er up” unless carrying extra fuel ( tanker ) due to lower price which offsets the higher burn to carry it.

I heard about how flight demos are lightly loaded with fuel, which helps with performance. Something about the Blue Angels using only about a quarter of a full tank, and of course no external tank. But they're lightly loaded anyways.

I'm sure they did that with the United 777 demo I saw last weekend. That thing was doing quick ascents, but basically only had about 5-6 people on board. These are from previous years, but it was pretty similar except for the fog last weekend.

 

[ekrampitzjr]

No one's mentioned this, but I'll bet the liability for pollution, groundwater contamination, potential fire from dumping in the wrong spot, etc., from airliners dumping fuel has to be huge. Imagine a jumbo jet dumping a load of fuel into a major city's drinking water reservoir. Who pays for that cleanup? It would have to be the airline.

It wouldn't be surprising to find that some places have made dumping fuel illegal.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

No one's mentioned this, but I'll bet the liability for pollution, groundwater contamination, potential fire from dumping in the wrong spot, etc., from airliners dumping fuel has to be huge. Imagine a jumbo jet dumping a load of fuel into a major city's drinking water reservoir. Who pays for that cleanup? It would have to be the airline.

It wouldn't be surprising to find that some places have made dumping fuel illegal.

I'm pretty sure it just evaporates

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

The dumped fuel vaporizes before it reaches the ground if done at least 2000 feet above the ground.

Its also recommended to be done over unpopulated areas.

Probably less noticeable on the ground versus walking past someone wearing two coats of high powered cheap cologne.

 

[Astro14]

Yes every aircraft has a chart of minimum amount of fuel that must be on board at takeoff versus the weight of the passengers and cargo and the planned flight distance. It is rare to take off with more than that amount of fuel unless planning to turn around immediately at the destination for the return flight without refueling.

The formula of course has extra built in in case of there are headwinds or having to hold before landing or divert to a different airport.

It’s a lot more sophisticated than a chart, which would consider range only.

We flight plan the burn using planned payload, wind forecasts at all altitudes, temperature, known delays/adds for each airport using historical data for that aircraft type at that time of year at those airports, forecast weather enroute (like turbulence that would entail a different altitude for a decent ride), forecast weather at the destination, and alternate as required, known specific delays for that day, daily oceanic track parameters, and expected track traffic, engine failure at the most distant point and the fuel burn required to make a divert airfield when in oceanic airspace, NOTAMS, aircraft maintenance status limitations, as well as adjust the planned Mach to get on time, or close to it.

 

[4WD]

Korean Air plane crashes off runway after thunderstorms thwart multiple landing attempts

A Korean Air plane slid off a runway in the Philippines after making multiple attempts to land in a thunderstorm on Sunday, according to flight tracking and radar.

www.foxweather.com