I don't know about everyone else here, but one of the things I learned in flight training is that your concerns are not only for the airplane and those on it, but for people on the ground as well.
I was on a Southwest flight about 12 years ago that the left engine ate a fan blade at about 10,000' climbing out from OAK over SFO. It took less than a minute to secure the engine, and the pilot immediately turned back to OAK, intercepting maybe a 5-7 mile final. The Delta flight never got above about 7,000'. If it was a very serious emergency, they readily could have made it back with a much shorter routing. The decisions that were made appear to me to have been made to minimize inconvenience for ATC.
They seemed to be expedient and following checklists, right up until they decided it was a good idea to dump thousands of pounds of jet fuel, at low level, over one of the largest cities on earth.
@N1120A keeps parroting the "land at MTOW" assertion.
It can land at MTOW on a single engine? Or does it matter that it's a a single engine operation at that point?
Of course it can. That is the entire point. Remember that landing distance certification NEVER accounts for the effects of reverse thrust. The engines are at idle when you land.
I like the one video where the person is looking straight up at the plane flying overhead at several thousand feet saying “wow, this is going to be bad”.
THAT person is going to be among those suing.
Or they were just concerned that an airline was dumping hundreds or thousands of pounds of fuel over their heads, at a very low altitude. And HEAVEN FORBID a multi-billion dollar corporation like Delta ever take responsibility for anything it does. That's for poor people, right?
East to Monday morning quarterback, I'd like to see what the final investigations reveal. Had they gone out over the ocean to dump fuel and not come back, a la Swiss Air 111, people would be asking why they didn't land asap.
1) SR111 was an onboard fire. That is a totally different situation than a compressor stall. If they had an onboard fire, they'd have made a bee line for the numbers at LAX or even gone to VNY, Pt. Mugu, or any other airport with a runway even close to long enough.
2) They made the decision to proceed with a controlled overweight landing quite quickly, and that was prudent. What wasn't prudent was then deciding to open the dump valve over hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people.
Or the cost to settle with hundreds if not thousands of Los Angelinos.
At first I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt, perhaps a stuck fuel dump valve, or something really serious with the airplane. But as more information becomes available, the actions become more questionable. Starting to smell of bad judgment, and Jet-A.
Exactly. What on earth drives someone to do something like that? If you want to avoid an overweight landing, and feel the aircraft is stable enough to do so, go dump somewhere. If you feel the need to head straight back, the aircraft is certified to land at MTOW and get an inspection. The engine is getting opened up anyway - who cares if Delta is going to have to pay for an airframe inspection?
The point is, they didn't land asap anyway. They were in the air for about 20 minutes after the diversion. A direct route back to LAX would have been less than half that. Yes, disruptive to ATC, but that is what happens in an emergency.
And the professionals at SCT were more than happy to give them anything they wanted. This is part of the job they do so well. They set up on the localizer and flew a smoothly vectored approach.
I will never understand people who defend this.
