![]() |
I've had this once or twice over the years, and I don't think it is very common. Limited to situations where (maybe because of a changed ATC routing, changing winds/weather, etc.) there's a worry about arriving at the destination airport above the maximum landing weight. Better to burn the excess fuel on the ground than to circle somewhere.
|
Originally Posted by shoeless1920
(Post 37760746)
This is probably not the correct Forum, but....
...on Monday I was on a UA CRJ at ORD and as we were taxiing prior to takeoff, we ended up in a holding spot where it was announced that the plane was "a little heavy" so they were going to sit for five or ten minutes and "burn off some fuel." So we sat while the engines were revved up for a while and then we finally resumed our taxiing and all was good. To my recollection, this was my first experience for having to "burn off some fuel" prior to takeoff and I was wondering, how common is this? Thanks everyone - - I think once they were anticipating a much longer delay for getting released for takeoff so had put on extra fuel it turned out they didn't need. |
There was stormy weather at ORD on Monday -- lightning, rain, etc., in fact we were delayed for an hour three times, so weather may have been a factor.
|
The choices in this situation are:
1. Return to gate to offload pax (nonrevs first) 2. Return to gate to offload checked bags 3. Burn fuel Option 3 is usually best. I've even sat for close to an hour burning fuel. |
Routine - you can find other threads about it with the search function.
|
Burning it off by just reving the engines for a bit is a lot better then going back and getting a truck to drain some of the fuel. You had the quick way.
|
Originally Posted by DLASflyer
(Post 37760917)
The choices in this situation are:
1. Return to gate to offload pax (nonrevs first) 2. Return to gate to offload checked bags 3. Burn fuel Option 3 is usually best. I've even sat for close to an hour burning fuel. |
Originally Posted by TonyBurr
(Post 37761188)
Burning it off by just reving the engines for a bit is a lot better then going back and getting a truck to drain some of the fuel. You had the quick way.
|
I wont say "categorically" but 'generally', the FARs only require a fuel dumping system for aircraft that have a lower Max Landing Wt than the Max TO Wt. Also, since fuel is mostly stored within the allowable CG range, "burning off fuel" wont usually help an out-of-range CG.
Therefore, its likely a Max TO limit, maybe due to something being added in the baggage hold that wasnt anticipated when the fueling was ordered/done. |
Originally Posted by drewguy
(Post 37761189)
Is this a max takeoff weight issue, or a max landing weight issue typically?
Originally Posted by Xyzzy
(Post 37761295)
Couldn't they have flown lower or faster (or both) to use up some of that fuel? I'm not sure how that w:)uld work time-wise vs. just sitting with the engines on...
IF they can, you have to get a new flight plan at the lower altitude or longer route to show that you'll land at, or below, MLW.
Originally Posted by huey_driver
(Post 37761456)
I wont say "categorically" but 'generally', the FARs only require a fuel dumping system for aircraft that have a lower Max Landing Wt than the Max TO Wt.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:14 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.