Following a technical problem at the left engine, an Airbus A330 from Swiss International Air Lines, which took off from Zurich for Newark, the United States, had to return to its departure airport quickly. But the passengers had to wait five hours before landing. (airlinerwatch.com) 更多...
They couldn't cross the ocean on one engine, and that particular A330 didn't have the fuel dumping option, so they had to fly around to burn off excess fuel to lighten the load on the airframe when they touched back down in Zurich. That plane took off with enough fuel to fly to the east coast of the US, 6+ hours away plus a reserve.
One of Airbus's MAJOR design flaws.... NO ability to dump fuel. Experienced this ourselves after departing KHNL for West Coast and had a serious lightning strike right above the cockpit at FL26.5. Thank God were in a Boeing and did not have to circle for multiple hours just to dump fuel! Seen this many times with Airbus products....
Probably the grandmotherly European Union doesn't want any fuel vapors to reach the ground, where someone might inhale them. Europe can (and does) do what it wants to, but I hate to see their standards affect our standard of living; E.G. most electronic techs in North America avoid use of their lead-free solder, but we must use it to meet their import standards. The Lead-free solder is so miserable it makes electronic circuit boards less reliable for everyone. Therefore more waste in landfills, thanks to the EU.
I flew Swiss last month. Zurich to Cape Town. Awful flight. Very old ,very well used 330 with a $10 paint job. Grumpy crew serving maxed out seating capacity and charging for wine! Their website was only available in Swiss. Delays and chaotic boarding procedures! Bye, Swiss, never again.
This was a design feature of the older A310s, A300s and the very early A330s. As far as I can remember they were certified to land at maximum takeoff weight - in case of an emergency. This of course subject to structural & overweight checks being conducted thereafter. Vertical gradient <360ft/m
So they were in a 5 hour holding pattern, not one continuous 5 hour turn. The article it stated the length was to burn fuel. why couldn't they do a fuel dump?
not every A330 has the dump option, it's was an optional accessory for that model from Airbus. The A350 has it standard. the turns were uniform and repetitive indicating an air traffic control holding pattern out of the way of other jet traffic, the engine was functional but had issues where if they went across the pond and then had a problem with the second engine, their flight would become a cruise.
Thanks. I remember watching a video of a Swiss Air flight on an A340 that had engine trouble, so they did the shudown sequence, and fuel dump to return to the airport. Since the A330 is essentially the twin engine version of the A340 I would have thought it had dump capability too.
but if it's only an option, that would explain the fuel burn then.
If you take a peek at the flightpath, certainly appears to be one heck of a lot of one direction turns which would also reflect an engine issue on one side.
I asked why a fuel dump wasn't possible. 2 reasons, fuel dump system damaged, or fuel dump system not actually installed on aircraft. i know not all aircraft have dump systems. so i was unsure about the 330.
and i can sorta give you something for holding. i guess industry standard terminology for holding pattern is a single oval shape. here the plane did several holding patterns at various locations. so my use of holding pattern was a general, fly in some area for 5 hours this includes turns and straight segments.
I am not more certain as to who is more bothersom. Accountants or the fact that the hippy liberal tree huggers cant wrap their brain around the fact that fossil fuels are in fact produced (initially) with solar power, and are quite dense in energy. I guess solar sourced energy is only solar if it is not older than our idiotic EPA and Greenpiece (spelling on purpose)
It is spot on. They are going to single engines (per wing) based on the cost of fuel (mostly fees and taxes). It is not the capitol purchase of the craft, nor the engine(s), it is the TCO of the item that is 80+% tax...fuel. So, in this instance the craft and people being in the air for five hours (a US based carrier would be sued many times over)...all based on a generator and lack of two (more) engines that were removed thanks to a "Sin Tax" on fossil fuels.Simply look at the RETAIL price of JetA-1 as opposed to the refinery cost....trick question from me (as my family has large stake in the Oil Industry - recently moving ALL production and pumping OUT of the USA - and dropping over 5000 union laborers in the effort).
I'm all for fossil fuels being regarded as solar if you can fix the supply chain problem. Currently the re-order time - millions of years - is a little too long.
Not an issue for our generation not the next eight or nine minimum. I simply do not worry about it...I do not care. I am still trying to hear from the Enviro-Wackos how it is there are any living creatures in Prince Williams Sound.