undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAdrianB17y ago0 comments

They had to expend the fuel as dumping is not always an option, when you have a tail strike you don't take risks at landing, consuming the fuel to reduce weight and minimize the risk of fire is a basic option.

0 comments

FabHK7y ago

Going to 36000 feet was taking a massive risk.

I don’t think we have enough information yet to establish whether excessive weight was a factor.

dotancohen7y ago

Also, in a plane that cannot dump such as the 737, to burn off fuel one would prefer to stay in the thicker lower part of the troposphere. Going to altitude not only risks decompression, but it actually preserves the remaining fuel due to lower drag.

That is not a maneuver a pilot with a known-damaged aircraft would make to burn off fuel.

extrapickles7y ago

On the other hand being higher buys you more time to correct for problems when they occur.

FabHK7y ago

It buys you more time when the engines fail and you turn into a glider. If structural failure occurs, it just takes you longer to fall to the ground.

MertsA7y ago

Not really. If there was a decompression the very first thing that the pilot would do is immediately descend to 10,000 feet. The aircraft is one giant pressure vessel with wings strapped to the sides. Taking that up into thin atmosphere when it might be compromised is a bad idea.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

FabHK7y ago

Going to 36000 feet was taking a massive risk.

I don’t think we have enough information yet to establish whether excessive weight was a factor.

dotancohen7y ago

That is not a maneuver a pilot with a known-damaged aircraft would make to burn off fuel.

extrapickles7y ago

On the other hand being higher buys you more time to correct for problems when they occur.

FabHK7y ago

It buys you more time when the engines fail and you turn into a glider. If structural failure occurs, it just takes you longer to fall to the ground.

MertsA7y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse