Talk:Fuel dumping

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

The fuel dump external links from the end of the second to last paragraph no-longer work, Does anyone know what happened to them?

Just pattern like full flaps or whatever to maximize the fuel burn while drawing circles in the sky? 84.173.246.75 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency landings

Is fuel ever dumped prior to an emergency landing either not at an airport or when there is a mechanical failure and the pilot is concerned about possible damage to the aircraft and fuel ignition on landing? I seem to have heard this somewhere but i forget where. Bonus Onus 02:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difference a percentage?

"if the difference between an aircraft's maximum structural takeoff weight and its maximum structural landing weight was greater than 105%"

105% of what? Could someone please clarify this? --RealGrouchy (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is unclear

Yes, this sentence sounds very odd - possible meaningful statement might be that takeoff weight is more than 105% of landing weight (e.g. 106 t at takeoff, 100 t at landing), or even that takeoff weight is by more than 105% bigger than landing weight (e.g 206 t versus 100 t), but landing weight cannot be more that 100% smaller than anything, as it would be negative number. DarkoS (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence has since been changed to show 'if the ratio ... was greater than 105%' - I'm no mathematician but that is not being expressed as a ratio. Would be good if someone was brave enough to fix this sentence and make sense of it. --Ndaisley (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental effects?

What is the environmental effect of all the vaporized fuel in the upper atmosphere? Is this a significant source of VOC pollution? Is there a significant impact on greenhouse gas levels? What is the approximate annual amount of fuel that is dumped world wide? How much of the fuel makes it to the oceans? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not encyclopedic; it currently contains no information on environmental issues. 06:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

From a lay person

I'm sorry to be blunt, but there seems to be a lot of useless information/fluff in this article. I had to read almost until the end to understand what exactly a fuel "dump was". Thanks all the same.

Actually that's NOT the problem. The problem is that there's not ENOUGH information in this article, for instance nobody has said what military aircraft are capable of performing a dump and burn. I know the F/FB-111 is (I've seen them do it at FE Warren) and I know the Phantom II is capable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibby78 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fighters

I guess jettisoning of fuel tanks by fighters would come under the scope of this article too, so should be added. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hazards not addressed in the article

A fuel-dump system built into an aircraft may be a safety-minded component, but it is also a major hazard in and itself. If it opens in mid-flight, due to a human error or technical mishap, the plane and its properly operating engines will be quickly deprived of fuel. Imagine a dump valve stuck open in the middle of the Pacific, leaving a 747 or A380 dry at FL350, with no land in sight.

Fuel leaks, whether via pipe breaks or valve failures, can bleed the entire fuel reserve amazingly quickly. That is how Fedotov and his navigator died in a prototype MiG-31 heavy fighter, even though he was the best and most experienced test pilot in the USSR!

Quite possibly, it would be safer to pack drag chutes in the tail of airliners, then add dump valves to prevent overweight landings and runway overruns. Of course economy dictates drag chutes are a maintenance cost nightmare, even though they would also be lifesaving when landing on runways under torrential rainfall. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the impact on atmospheric chemistry when big amounts of kerosine are released in the atmosphere, maybe even outside the planetary boundary layer in the ree troposphere. This might then be oxidated and impact various trace gases. Is there any information on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.218.113 (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dump rates

I would be interested in how long it takes, more specifically: how much fuel these airliner systems can dump over time. Maybe a few examples could be included. --Cancun771 (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IR decoy

I have read that the dump-and-burn may be used as a decoy for IR missiles. I have no more the source, but I remember the image of a RAAF's F-111.151.29.59.56 (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]