Lax jet dumps fuel on school.
- Thread starter PaulS
- Start date
Tarheelpilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,502
- Location
- North Carolina once again.
- Display Name
Display name:
Tarheelpilot
The 727 is a narrow body and most definitely has a fuel dumping system.
but hey... you be you.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,826
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
What we have here is a culture which magnifies problems, rather than dealing with them. Your kid got a mist of kerosene on him/her. S/he needs to take a shower and change clothes. End of story.
Instead...
Instead...
Tarheelpilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,502
- Location
- North Carolina once again.
- Display Name
Display name:
Tarheelpilot
What you are referencing is present in this thread. It’s crazy. The ignorance and refusal to accept any input from others is also there ... crazy times.
The MD80 series does not have fuel dumping on any version.
Oh, yeah. That's the stuff. Nothing like a good dose of LD-4 to clear up that congestion.
This just sounds like a bunch of whiny garbage and a waste of public resources. I've had a face full of Jet fuel sprayed in my face. Just wiped it off and kept working.
See Delta’s problem is that they were kids at school who didn’t expect or need to get a shower of jet fuel dumped on their heads. Doesn’t matter that some of us in aviation use it to clean parts or take a bath. It’s a toxic liquid purposefully dumped over a populated area. Every lawyer worth a crap can make that case, and they will say “the crew could have dumped over the ocean” which, being directly off the departure from LAX, is a pretty easy case to make. The defense will be “no time, we had a major emergency and needed to turn around ASAP”. Then response will be “not major enough that you had time to bypass Burbank and get in line for LAX again”. And, the final blow, is “so, you chose to jettison the fuel over a known populated area, rather than just land the aircraft heavy and risk fuselage damage?
Of course, Delta knows what they’re facing so they’ll dish out some cash to make it go away. No real injuries so a little bit of cashola now can prevent the scum lawyers from building a fake case. You better believe people were running over there, splashing their arms with car gas, flopping to the ground moaning. Gotta get in on the action.
Of course, Delta knows what they’re facing so they’ll dish out some cash to make it go away. No real injuries so a little bit of cashola now can prevent the scum lawyers from building a fake case. You better believe people were running over there, splashing their arms with car gas, flopping to the ground moaning. Gotta get in on the action.
donjohnston
Pattern Altitude
Listening to the exchange on the radio, it sounds like they were planning on landing overweight. I wonder if there was some cockpit miscommunication?
vkhosid
Cleared for Takeoff
Post the atc link(s)?
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,926
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
Thank you. Jeez, finally the voice of reason. I know all the internet supermen here drink a half a cup of Jet-A in their morning coffee before they go to work, but come on. @Geosync is exactly right. Fuel is toxic. Kids had fuel dumped on them. I’m sure some of them reacted poorly to it.
When I first read it, I was thinking maybe a fire in the cockpit/cabin. That’s the only thing that really scares the crap out of me and would force me to make an immediate return to the airport. Maybe that and one engine failure with the other running rough. Then I read “compressor stalls.” Meh. If it was both engines stalling, that would get my attention. One... who knows.
In my previous life, I’ve dumped a lot of gas. Literally dozens of tons of fuel. Granted, very few times was due to an emergency. But, even then, we’d go to a designated dumping area/unpopulated area/over water, and make sure we were above 10,000 feet. At 10,000 feet, the fuel atomizes before it reaches the ground. There’s no way I’d be dumping at 2,000’ over a city unless I absolutely needed to for safety.
I’m guessing that these guys had some confusion in the cockpit about what they needed/wanted to do. I have the feeling someone made a mistake. We probably will never know because Delta will pay out before this goes to court, I’m sure. We’ll see.
Edit: I went and looked at my old 777 FM to see what it said about fuel dumping.
So, the FM says to consider jettisoning fuel about 4,000 feet.
Then I looked at the altitude history of the flight. It shows that they were at 7,000 for a majority of the return. That kind of lead me to believe that maybe it wasn’t as bad as I had thought.
But then, I looked at where this school is, expecting it to be north of LA under the downwind track for the return to LAX. It’s on a 12 mile final.
These guys were at 2,500 feet dumping fuel on final. That’s not a good look.
Attachments
Last edited:
Lindberg
Final Approach
Improved but still bad.
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-11-15/nox-pollution-los-angeles-air-quality
I was in LA proper last week after managing to stay away for awhile. I'd take the bad smog over the inescapable homeless encampments.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
I just made the mistake of reading some of the comments to the FAA tweet. That was more toxic to brain cells than jet fuel could ever be. 
Last edited:
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
A major cooperation doesn't get to dump fuel on school children and then just say "go take a shower."
They will pay a price here, and honestly, they probably should unless an emergency mandated it. We don't live in a world where someone can dump fuel on people and then say tough luck.
They will pay a price here, and honestly, they probably should unless an emergency mandated it. We don't live in a world where someone can dump fuel on people and then say tough luck.
Busflyer
Line Up and Wait
In a 777, you’re not going to BUR single engine. I would have gone back to LAX.
Zeldman
Touchdown! Greaser!
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,926
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,179
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
What’s your point?
In an emergency, the Captain can do whatever he needs to do to get his passengers on the ground as safely as possible. When a loss of an engine is involved, he is mandated to get the airplane on the ground as SOON as practical. So holding is pretty much not an option.
Landing over weight isn’t a huge deal in itself, it just involves an inspection. Which inspection is dependent upon just how overweight the airplane is.
In an emergency, the Captain can do whatever he needs to do to get his passengers on the ground as safely as possible. When a loss of an engine is involved, he is mandated to get the airplane on the ground as SOON as practical. So holding is pretty much not an option.
Landing over weight isn’t a huge deal in itself, it just involves an inspection. Which inspection is dependent upon just how overweight the airplane is.
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,630
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
If they were at 7K feet, they could have reasonably believed that the fuel would evaporate. In which case, tough luck, 'cuz I doubt that there will be any long-term consequences (I've had mouthfuls of kerosene and diesel fuel, and actually swallowed gasoline. My body quickly 'unswallowed' it.) If there is legal action, I predict that the only winners will be the plaintiff's attorneys.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,247
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
They seemed content not to dump fuel. Okay, and totally understood. As I understand it many aircraft don't even have fuel dump capabilities http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/faqs/fueldump.pdf GET BACK SAFE! is the main priority when you're cranking on just one engine.. and who knows what other damage / issue the bad one may have
So the decision to dump fuel at low altitude on final is a perplexing one.. was my point. Unfortunately the most relevant part of the audio is missing, when the actual dump happened
They got back safe, and that's the most important part, and like most here I chock this up in the "it's not that big of a deal" category, but as geosync noted above it has very bad optics"jet fuel dumped on school children" is way up there in the clickbait category. It's too bad the most relevant part of the recording is missing, if anything for curiosity's sake
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,179
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
“Think of the Children.” What a bunch of hogwash. The crew had no idea there was a school under them when they were dumping fuel. And in an emergency it shouldn’t even be considered.
20/20 hindsight and Monday Morning Quarterbacking alive and well. The crew did what they thought had to be done to meet the emergency. That is really the bottom line. 300 plus people on the airplane as opposed to a handful on the ground.
20/20 hindsight and Monday Morning Quarterbacking alive and well. The crew did what they thought had to be done to meet the emergency. That is really the bottom line. 300 plus people on the airplane as opposed to a handful on the ground.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,573
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Did they shutdown the affected engine? They were maintaining level flight on one engine? Why not hold and dump? Is SE “land as soon as possible” in the 777 at this weight?
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,926
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
Come on, Greg... I respectfully disagree. You know as well as I do, absent maybe an inflight fire, there is nothing in a modern passenger aircraft that is going to cause you to have to do an immediate return to the airport. Especially not a engine with a compressor stall.
In my option, these guys rushed. You know that’s pretty much the cardinal sin in handling a problem in one of these aircraft. What’s the big rush? Go out over the water, hold, run the checklists, talk to the company, run the landing data, dump fuel if you need to, load the box, brief the approach, etc. THEN tell ATC you’re ready to come in. The fact these guys had to ask to be extended another three minutes before they can turn in should be a major red flag that they were rushing. Also, ATC asked them twice if they needed to go out and dump fuel, and both times they said no. Then on final they think it’s a good idea to start adjusting their gross weight?
You and I both know better than that.
Brad Smith
En-Route
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,057
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad Smith
If I'm a passenger aboard an airliner operating on one engine and the Captain deems a fuel dump necessary AT ANY POINT, then by all means dump away! He's the one flying the plane, not the lawyer looking to make a buck by sensationalizing a relatively minor event. BTW, diesel was used to prevent infection on scrapes and cuts in the past, both on animals and humans. http://dairydevo.com/mama-get-diesel-fuel-ive-cut-leg-plum-off-time/
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,247
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Much more eloquently posted than what I've been thinking.. and from more an expert (I assume). I was under the impression the 777 can fly for hours on one engine, seems 20 minutes to dump fuel, etc., like you posted above would have been prudent. Outside of the "think of the children" stuff and straw man some people are painting, it seems poorly executed. Being alive and on the ground is great, but it shouldn't be the only measure of a job well done
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,630
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
I think that the cardinal sin would be not acting quickly enough.
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,926
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
No, it really isn’t. Like I said above, rushing usually creates more problems than it solves. For 90% of the airplane emergencies that an airline pilot is going to face, nothing has to be done immediately. In fact, we don’t even secure an engine fire until we’re at least at 1,000 feet. It just burns until we get there. We don’t even acknowledge the fact we have a fire, except for silencing the warning.
In Air Force pilot training, we’re taught that the first step in any aircraft emergency is to “wind the clock.” Yes, we still had wind up clocks and although a little tongue-in-cheek, the point is to not do anything right away. Just reach up, give the clock a couple a winds and think about what needs to be done.
Or, as I used to tell my students “just don’t do something, sit there!”
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,179
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
121.565(a) seems pretty clear to me.
If he was in a real hurry to get on the ground, he would not have accepted a routing to nearly over Chino before pointing back to LAX. The decision to dump fuel came late, the question is why.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
All transport category twins have to be certified to climb out safely in a single engine within certain parameters, and they calculate that into their takeoff roll every time they depart an airport.
A 777 is fully capable of landing safely at MTOW, and doing so in approximately half the length of the runway they were landing on. The reason they went so far out appears to have been their running of checklists and the need for a longish final to slow the aircraft down properly.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,242
- Location
- Southeast Tennessee
- Display Name
Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
Was the other engine running smoothly and normally? All indications normal? That will answer some questions I'd think.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
Not only was the other engine running normally, according to their transmissions, the problematic engine was brought under control and the aircraft was under control.
And this leaves out the key thing - a 777 can be landed safely at MTOW, which they weren't at, in less than 6000' with a 5000' density altitude (They were landing in about a 100' density altitude). So what if they needed to do an overweight landing? The airplane is getting a major engine inspection anyway.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,573
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I think the wording is a bit gray in 121.565 and the 777 emergency procedures. “Nearest suitable airport” Is that without delay?
Last edited:
Mike I
Line Up and Wait
If the plane was at MTOW, what would the SE go-around performance be like?
Ravioli
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Messages
- 8,021
- Location
- Somewhere else
- Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
CNO is 38.4NM from LAX. That's a long way to go in a 777. About 10 mins I'd guess.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
Taking a long final with an overweight, but under control airplane is a good move. The only really suitable airports for the airplane in the area were LAX and ONT. SBD has enough runway, as does LGB, but the proximity and orientation clearly made LAX the best choice. There's no question that they made the right decision as far as airport to land at. The problematic decision is low level fuel dumping over a massively populated area.
1) It wouldn't have been at MTOW, because it already burned fuel on departure.
2) Here's a link to a 777 emergency procedures checklist. It would be more than enough to go around at LAX on a 15 degree day. https://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/b777/b777nonnormalprocedures.pdf
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,573
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Not doubt it was the correct airport, but those who will be looking to point blame are going to bring up two important questions. 1) Does the emergency require going to that airport without delay and 2) Is dumping fuel part of the EP for that emergency.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
1) Engine failure on a twin generally requires landing without delay and 2) The 777 is certified to land overweight, up to MTOW, in emergency situations. That said, the aircraft is certified for ETOPS, which means it is certified to fly on a single engine 3+ hours away. If you are going without delay, you don't start dumping fuel on a straight in final over a densely populated area. The handling is going to change, let alone what you are potentially doing to the people below. They had twice the runway they needed for an MTOW landing.
The other thing I don't get is why bother with the dump anyway? The aircraft is going to have the engine torn down, so it isn't like they'll be getting it back on the line faster by avoiding an overweight landing inspection.