Claim: 757s cant dump fuel. (True)

[SR1419]

An blog post on SFGate claims that 757s cannot dump fuel...and thus a plane from SFO bound for Hawaii that developed mechanical problems shortly after take off had to fly around for 4hrs before being able to land.

Is the claim correct?

http://blog.sfgate.com/cmcginnis/2017/02/14/uniteds-4-hour-flight-to-nowhere/

UA1111 departed on time at around 9 a.m. bound for Lihue, Kauai, but experienced a maintenance issue shortly after take off which required a return to SFO.

To make it to Kauai safely (2,540 miles away), a Boeing 757 is loaded down with a LOT of very heavy fuel. It’s so heavy in fact, that the plane cannot land with that much fuel onboard.

In many cases like this, the pilots would quickly jettison the fuel at a high altitude. Once the fuel is offloaded, the plane could return and land. (Jettisoned fuel disperses into the atmosphere and does not come raining down to earth. More about fuel dumping)

However, a Boeing 757 is not able to dump fuel, according to my aviation geek buddies with whom I had a Twitter chat about this.

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping

Long range twin jets such as the Boeing 767 and the Airbus A300, A310, and A330 may or may not have fuel dump systems, depending upon how the aircraft was ordered, since on some aircraft they are a customer option. Three- and four-engine jets like the Lockheed L-1011, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 / MD-11, Boeing 747 and Airbus A340 usually have difficulty meeting the requirements of FAR 25.119 near maximum structural takeoff weight, thus most of those have jettison systems. A Boeing 757 has no fuel dump capability as its maximum landing weight is similar to the maximum take-off weight.

Content from External Source

 

[SR1419]

(Didnt even think to look at WP- thanks)

 

[Gridlock]

A Boeing 757 has no fuel dump capability as its maximum landing weight is similar to the maximum take-off weight.

So what's with the burn-off? Simply preferable to land light due to the issue, or protocols, or..?

 

[Mick West]

So what's with the burn-off? Simply preferable to land light due to the issue, or protocols, or..?

It really didn't look like it was in the air for every long, maybe had to burn off a very small percentage, or might even have simply been holding - either testing or waiting to be slotted back

 

[SR1419]

It really didn't look like it was in the air for every long

Per the article, it was in the air for 4hrs.

 

[Gridlock]

SFO hangs over the water one end doesn't it, maybe the runway length played a part too.

 

[Trailspotter]

Per the article, it was in the air for 4hrs.

4 hrs from gate to gate, including taxing ~46 min: