Lax jet dumps fuel on school.

EvilEagle said:
TBH I can't say for sure. In my training at DAL, they didn't make it out to be a big thing (landing overweight) but then again, they didn't make dumping gas out to be a big thing either. Stopping distance is no trivial thing in a widebody, especially when super heavy (as I imagine all 777's are on T/O).
Click to expand...

Roger. Thank you for that insight.

EvilEagle said:
I was just pointing out that no matter what, if someone disagrees with what happened (especially if they are a pilot with only 5% of the story) they will likely be out for blood.
Click to expand...

Heh... Indeed...

;)
 
Heftiger said:
I have no experience with anything bigger than a PA32, but something stands out to me.

Don’t they do calculations for landing distances, v speeds, ect based on the aircraft weight? Not sure how this looks in an emergency. But if they did all these calculations, and then dump fuel on final, aren’t all those numbers now moot? Makes me think it was not on purpose that the fuel was dumped.
Click to expand...
The numbers can only get better. Lighter will mean less runway needed. Yeah, the Vspeed might be a little fast, but not by that much.
 
Velocity173 said:
If these darn things would just run on hydrogen we wouldn’t be having these problems...where’s Henning?
Click to expand...
Last time I checked he was attempting to refurb some old tug boat to be renewable energy liveable as a matter of fact. :D
 
N1120A said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correct, that accident was a cabin fire. But, ATC had cleared them direct in to land, and the crew instead elected to orbit out over the ocean to dump fuel before coming in. Had they gone directly to the airport, would they have landed before it was too late? Who knows...
 
Talked to a friend who flys 777s for and he said the dump was SOP but they use 4,000 ft if able.

Part of the problem in this instance was the crew telling ATC specifically that they weren’t going to dump. Doesn’t appear that they busted sep but it does increase when an aircraft is dumping fuel. An important bit of information to relay to ATC.
 
Velocity173 said:
Talked to a friend who flys 777s for and he said the dump was SOP but they use 4,000 ft if able.

Part of the problem in this instance was the crew telling ATC specifically that they weren’t going to dump. Doesn’t appear that they busted sep but it does increase when an aircraft is dumping fuel. An important bit of information to relay to ATC.
Click to expand...
Ok, I haven’t seen a transcript, but did they say they weren’t going to dump, or they weren’t going to HOLD to dump. Big difference.
 
I would think their would be a "fuel dumping 101 course" for the pilots of aircraft with a dump valve. Lesson one, don't open the valve below 4,000 (?) feet over a populated area or what ever altitude would be a start.
 
Geosync said:
“the crew could have dumped over the ocean”
Click to expand...

WHAAAA???!?!?!? Dump in the ocean? How could you even SUGGEST such a thing? What about all those sea turtles that can't manage to keep straws out of their noses? Better to dump on the kids. They know how to take a shower, at least.
 
PPC1052 said:
WHAAAA???!?!?!? Dump in the ocean? How could you even SUGGEST such a thing? What about all those sea turtles that can't manage to keep straws out of their noses? Better to dump on the kids. They know how to take a shower, at least.
Click to expand...

Seems reasonable. Turtles are a lot more endangered as a species than humans are.
 
PaulS said:
I would think their would be a "fuel dumping 101 course" for the pilots of aircraft with a dump valve. Lesson one, don't open the valve below 4,000 (?) feet over a populated area or what ever altitude would be a start.
Click to expand...
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in commandmay deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
 
smv said:
I think it is widely understood that landing overweight with these big guys necessitates inspections, but is it also true that landing overweight could easily stress the aircraft enough as to cause physical failure of critical structural systems and perhaps cause a crash, regardless how careful they are while landing?
Click to expand...
Certification standards are that the airplane withstands touchdown at 600fpm at max landing weight and 360fpm at max takeoff weight.

Touchdown at no more than 360fpm, which would be a pretty hard landing, and the airplane doesn't experience any excessive forces.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in commandmay deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so? It sounds to me like an extra thousand feet would have made this a non issue. I also think these guys never considered the dumped fuel would make it to the ground and probably feel pretty bad about themselves now. It will be interesting to read the reports about this one, hopefully they will be public.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ok, I haven’t seen a transcript, but did they say they weren’t going to dump, or they weren’t going to HOLD to dump. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Either way, if they didn’t specifically tell ATC that they were dumping, it’s gonna be looked upon unfavorably.

63597E67-8FB4-4650-A6AB-22F025F0AE2C.jpeg
 
Larry in TN said:
Certification standards are that the airplane withstands touchdown at 600fpm at max landing weight and 360fpm at max takeoff weight.

Touchdown at no more than 360fpm, which would be a pretty hard landing, and the airplane doesn't experience any excessive forces.
Click to expand...
That's considerably velocity... wow. Next time you are in your car travel at 5 miles an hour and slam on the brakes. It's a jolt. Or try running into a wall
 
wilkersk said:
My guess is either it was a pretty serious emergency with no time to avoid dumping fuel at such a low altitude, or maybe someone will have some tough questions to answer.
Click to expand...

Agree. Was surprised that they didn’t go out over the Pacific and dump there. Must have declared an emergency. Meanwhile, you can bet the farm that EPA is going to ding Delta big time


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Bell206 said:
FWIW: from what I recall, the ATC directs aircraft to a point to dump and has to okay the dump. In the event of a real emergency, most aircraft just land overweight. I would suspect this may be a technical fault or switchology issue. But if the kids were actually hit with the fuel, wait till the trees/grass start to die to see the real CA response.
Click to expand...

Flight was headed for Shanghai and inevitably was totally loaded with fuel. The MTOW was probably reached and will not work for a landing with passengers aboard


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Velocity173 said:
Either way, if they didn’t specifically tell ATC that they were dumping, it’s gonna be looked upon unfavorably.
Click to expand...

On the playback I watched, they didn't have any audio while they were talking to approach (124.9). And once they were switched to tower, there's only the tower side.

So I guess it's possible they told approach they were going to be dumping.
 
Either you're going to land over weight, or you're going to dump fuel. These guys were dumping fuel, and still landing overweight. Use some common sense, the airplane is flying fine, a few extra pounds of fuel isn't going to change the outcome of the flight. Or, go out over the ocean, and dump down to MLW. Don't dump at 3000agl over a city.

I have a feeling these guys are going to have a long chat on the wrong side of a big wooden desk.
 
Has there been a rash of complaints of jet fuel staining people’s homes, cars, streets ? Or was the fuel reaching the ground in a very fine mist that was discoverable primarily due to the smell ? Just curious..
 
Groundpounder said:
Either you're going to land over weight, or you're going to dump fuel. These guys were dumping fuel, and still landing overweight. Use some common sense, the airplane is flying fine, a few extra pounds of fuel isn't going to change the outcome of the flight. Or, go out over the ocean, and dump down to MLW. Don't dump at 3000agl over a city.

I have a feeling these guys are going to have a long chat on the wrong side of a big wooden desk.
Click to expand...
Remind me again. What are your qualifications?

And probably not.
 
Tantalum said:
Wow okay, I actually didn't mean to strike a nerve.. I did about 6 seconds of Googling and meant to include this: https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-taxes-federal-services-difference-by-state-2019-1 in the first post, as I was curious about N1120A's post about getting the monies back.. but posting on here via phone app is a pain

I digress. I don't *actually* care that much. Someday I'll retire in Montana on a lake
Click to expand...
Sorry Montana is full. Lakes going dry , Taxes are high . ;)
 
Groundpounder said:
ATP, couple of type ratings, 2000 jet PIC.

What are yours, since we're measuring things?

And please tell me what situation(s) justify dumping at <3000 AGL over a city
Click to expand...
ATP, Couple of types, 6,500+ part 121 Jet PIC, 11,000 B-777 time, etcetera.

Any situation where the PIC thinks improving the safety of the flight is concerned.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
ATP, Couple of types, 6,500+ part 121 Jet PIC, 11,000 B-777 time, etcetera.

Any situation where the PIC thinks improving the safety of the flight is concerned.
Click to expand...

I'd ask you how exactly the safety of the flight was improved by dumping a few hundred pounds more fuel, but I know what your answer will be so I won't bother.

Either way, unless you're on fire, there is never a reason to hurry up and do things. Fly the airplane, do the QRH, and then land.
 
Groundpounder said:
I'd ask you how exactly the safety of the flight was improved by dumping a few hundred pounds more fuel, but I know what your answer will be so I won't bother.

Either way, unless you're on fire, there is never a reason to hurry up and do things. Fly the airplane, do the QRH, and then land.
Click to expand...
The only person that can accurately answer that question was on the flight. Everyone else is just guessing, regardless of what’s in their logbook.
 
Great, the qualification card always gets pulled anytime we criticize a professional pilot’s actions. Let’s make it a POA rule that if a member doesn’t have time in said incident / accident aircraft, they can’t post.:rolleyes:

I’ve been flying helicopters for hire for over 20 years and my actions deserve to be critiqued by anyone, with or without experience in helicopters. I welcome it and will give specific references for my actions if they come under fire. If you don’t have ammunition to back up your actions, you shouldn’t be flying for hire.


Granted, I’ve never flown anything that has a dump valve but I have flown with externals. If I were to have a compressor stall and needed to secure an engine, I just wouldn’t jettison tanks simply because I’m on one engine. That would be poor decision making and not IAW the checklist. 91.3 wouldn’t give me authority to override the checklist and make a poor decision either. 91.3 exists so that when meeting the needs of that emergency, you may not be able to adhere to the FARs. It’s not a get out of enforcement action free card. So, the question here is, did they use appropriate actions IAW company policy, checklists and good judgement? Still up in the air in my opinion...and hasn’t yet evaporated. :D
 
Groundpounder said:
Either way, unless you're on fire, there is never a reason to hurry up and do things. Fly the airplane, do the QRH, and then land.
Click to expand...

That's kind of what I was thinking, this is an ETOPS airplane supposed to be able to fly at least a couple hours from land over the ocean and get back to safely land at an airport after an engine loss.
 
Since there are widebody airliners delivered without fuel dump systems, and it's well known that a plane can land at MTOW, I am in the camp of "doesn't make sense to start dumping fuel on final" - especially when you would think they've already done their landing W&B and vRef calculations.., and told ATC they weren't in the need to dump. Certainly appears to have been an afterthought

They lived, and so will the school children, so "all is well"

But to assume that the pilots did everything perfect because no one got hurt, or to assume that nothing can be learned from an event like this, is narrow minded.
 
Tantalum said:
Since there are widebody airliners delivered without fuel dump systems, and it's well known that a plane can land at MTOW, I am in the camp of "doesn't make sense to start dumping fuel on final" - especially when you would think they've already done their landing W&B and vRef calculations.., and told ATC they weren't in the need to dump. Certainly appears to have been an afterthought

They lived, and so will the school children, so "all is well"

But to assume that the pilots did everything perfect because no one got hurt, or to assume that nothing can be learned from an event like this, is narrow minded.
Click to expand...

Watching the scare tv right now (local news) now they are talking to concerned neighbors of Logan. I'm under the approach path to Logan and Manchester NH, OH NO!!!
 
The "I have XXX thousands of hours" is such a dumb "I'm better than you" answer.. Hours means very little, as has been discussed here ad nauseum, and as accidents will prove that people with 100 hrs crash, and people with 20,000 hrs crash, often for stupid things like leaving a control lock in

It's usually career pilots that pull the card too, as some kind of "I'm right by default because I've sat in a plane for more hours than you".. and 5,000 hrs sitting at 40K ft on autopilot with another pilot is a whole different set of experience than someone with 1,000 hrs flying by him/herself at night in a beat up chieftain on some low rent cargo op
 
PaulS said:
Watching the scare tv right now (local news) now they are talking to concerned neighbors of Logan. I'm under the approach path to Logan and Manchester NH, OH NO!!!
Click to expand...
I mean.. mass hysteria and idiocy of the media aside, I don't think it's unreasonable to have some kind of prudence over where you dump fuel. That ought not be some outlandish or "extremist" request
 
Tantalum said:
I mean.. mass hysteria and idiocy of the media aside, I don't think it's unreasonable to have some kind of prudence over where you dump fuel. That ought not be some outlandish or "extremist" request
Click to expand...

We agree, although over my house is fine as long as they are high enough. Also jet fuel will generally not ignite unless it is atomized, just not a good idea to jettison it over populated areas at low altitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top