United fuel leak gusher at EWR

[AmericanFlyer]

FAA proposes fine for United, accusing it of flying a plane not in 'airworthy condition' (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/30/faa-proposes-fine-for-united-accusing-it-of-flying-a-plane-not-in-airworthy-condition.html)

[Blind Squirrel]

Like this one?

United flight almost took off with jet fuel gushing out | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2017/06/14/united-flight-almost-took-off-with-jet-fuel-gushing-out/)

[b1lanc]

Not what I would want to see prior to take-off - UAL and BA seem to be of the same customer service mindset.

United flight almost took off with jet fuel gushing out | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2017/06/14/united-flight-almost-took-off-with-jet-fuel-gushing-out/)

[etudiant]

The video shows the fuel was flowing from what looks like the in flight dump pipe.
I don't know why that would not get picked up by the instrumentation, should there not be a large fuel flow discrepancy?

Separately. considering the social cost of such an event, I'm surprised United does not have a contingency plan for support staff to step in and help manage the aftermath.

[HEMS driver]

UAL still doesn't "get it." Friends don't let friends fly on United.

[rottenray]

Well, I'm not a United fan, but it doesn't look like the plane was on a runway, so, not about to take off.

Had to be some widebody, as most narrowbodies don't have fuel dump ports.

[rotornut]

...the couple were invited into the cockpit where they were given a glass of champagne That definitely solved the problem.

[Fly3]

Looks more like fuel venting from a surge tank.

[g-code]

Definitely looks like it's being vented or the check valve failed.

The story is definitely overhyped. It looks like they aren't even off the ramp/haven't started moving.

Also, why are some passengers getting hotels but not the "heros"?🙄

[Cleared Visual]

Had to be some widebody, as most narrowbodies don't have fuel dump ports.

763 according to several media reports. Flightaware seems to confirm it.

[underfire]

I guess a flight from New Jersey to Venice might be a tip off to the type of plane that it is not!

[MarkerInbound]

I don't know why that would not get picked up by the instrumentation, should there not be a large fuel flow discrepancy?


Fuel flow is measured going into the engine. Hard to say from the video if the engines are running. Not enough spillage to show up on the quantity indicators. Not a 767 person but as said above, either a failed check valve in the dump system or the plane was topped off while cold and as the day's temperature climbed and the hydraulic pumps were turned on preflight the surge tank filled and vented outboard.

[AmericanFlyer]

United flight almost took off with jet fuel gushing out | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2017/06/14/united-flight-almost-took-off-with-jet-fuel-gushing-out/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark)

[PPRuNe Towers]

http://www.pprune.org/north-america/595888-united-fuel-leak-gusher-ewr.html

[Super VC-10]

Even the fuel doesn't want to fly United anymore.

[WingNut60]

Fuel flow is measured going into the engine. Hard to say from the video if the engines are running. Not enough spillage to show up on the quantity indicators. Not a 767 person but as said above, either a failed check valve in the dump system or the plane was topped off while cold and as the day's temperature climbed and the hydraulic pumps were turned on preflight the surge tank filled and vented outboard.

I have noticed fuel flow from the vent pipe on a 747 during acceleration on more than one occasion. I presumed that it was something that could happen normally for a fully-fueled aircraft.
The old CX and SQ long-hauls out of YVR notably took most of the runway to get up and away, frequently trailing a spray from the vent pipe; too much to just be condensation off the wing.
Is there a pressure relief function coming into play there, perhaps?

[hoss183]

I've also seen fuel from the dump ports in a 747 on takeoff. The captain announced shortly after that it was nothing to worry about. I found it slightly strange though. In normal operation valves should be fully closed. I really can't believe theres a simple open overflow pipe like a toilet cistern ;)

[ACMS]

On the 744 it didn't come from the dump pipe, It came from the outboard surge tank vent ( NACA scoops )

Quite common out of LA when the Engineers used to squeeze all the fuel into the tanks they could on 15 hr flights requiring full tanks.....I can't recall exactly what they did to squeeze in an extra tonne or 2 of fuel but after the LAX airport authority complained about fuel spills during taxy out and takeoff they stopped the practice.

Anyway this 767 had a different issue

[WingNut60]

On the 744 it didn't come from the dump pipe, It came from the outboard surge tank vent.


Thanks for that. I have often wondered what I was actually seeing.
To clarify, was that venting controllable, or was it a simple open vent, as suggested by hoss183

[ACMS]

Not controllable at all. Either a fault causing fuel to transfer into then fill the surge tank and over flow out onto the ground or the Engineers worked their magic and fitted in a bit too much Jet A.....
We needed all the fuel we could take on some westbound transpacific flights and the Engineers thought they found a way to squeeze in some more for us.

It worked 90% of the time but 10% of the time some spilled out during taxy, airport authorities don't like Jet A ruining their tarmac.....

[hoss183]

Yeah from memory it was LHR-LAX on BA back in the late 90's that i would see it. So probably as ACMS says, overfill.

[Fbwdude]

Hi,
I brief my crew on day 1 as per company rules about CRM subjects an information is top priority.If a pax is saying something about safety you must go check,not dismiss the info.Arrogance comes to my
mind....

[dixi188]

Used to be a procedure on the A300 to put 200 ltrs. extra into the centre and 1 & 2 tanks for max range. There was a note to depart within 1 hour and avoid taxi turns at speed, to avoid expanding warm fuel venting overboard. I did this a number of times at Sharjah. never had a problem, but some of my colleagues did.

[lambourne]

Even the fuel doesn't want to fly United anymore.

Except UA boarded more people in May than the previous year...even after the good doctor refused to comply with a police command and got himself in the headlines.

Where do you work VC? I suspect your airline may have had its share of publicity issues over the years. If so can we pile on your operation?
http://newsroom.united.com/2017-06-07-United-Reports-May-2017-Operational-Performance

[Capn Bloggs]

If so can we pile on your operation?
Chill, man. T'was a joke, obviously. I thought that was quite clever of VC-10. :D

[donotdespisethesnake]

Except UA boarded more people in May than the previous year...even after the good doctor refused to comply with a police command and got himself in the headlines.

Perhaps, but I wonder how many of those boarded were subsequently "de-boarded".

[Hotel Tango]

Except UA boarded more people in May than the previous year

I submit that's because most had already booked (mostly non-refundable fares) by then! Pity you didn't understand VC10's clever humour (humor for you).

[Super VC-10]

Sorry to disappoint you, lambourne, but I'm not in the aviation industry. Just interested in civil aviation, never claimed to be otherwise.

[roybert]

Same here but I suspect that Lambourne works for United. :ugh:

[salad-dodger]

Works for them? Wow, he bit like he owns United!

[old,not bold]

Well I've been in the aviation industry since joining BOAC Associated Companies in 1969.

What this incident illustrates, as well as many other incidents over the last 12 months, is that the industry has created and is now confronted by a very serious problem.

It seems to have become accepted and normal for cabin crew and handling staff to regard their customers, aka passengers, as a homogenous bunch of fools with an IQ of 50, who are there to be herded and disciplined, under the ever-present threat of offloading if they argue the toss.

This appalling attitude is seen at its most prevalent in the locos, but the legacy airlines, especially BA in Europe, cannot claim to be immune.

I have upbraided someone in another thread who seemed to think it is acceptable to deny boarding to people who "struggled to understand" the basic physics of flight, and then to "chuck them on a later flight, when the problem arose from the carriers stupidity in the first place.

I shudder when I hear passengers referred to as "pax", usually by someone who clearly has a very limited grasp of the basics of aviation, let alone of customer service in an airline context.

It is this attitude that leads cabin crew to scream at an intelligent passenger who sees fuel cascading from a wing to just "Sit Down!".

The airline's pathetic efforts to persuade the passenger who raised the alarm not to be too critical tell us all we need to know about that airline.

It is high time that cabin crew and handling staff are taught that 95% or more passengers understand the technicalities of flight extremely well, and recognise ridiculous bull**** immediately. Indeed, many passengers understand these things a lot better than the average cabin crew, in the UK at least.

So, let's have a little less arrogance from cabin and handling staff and rather more acceptance that if a passenger has a concern, it should be considered very carefully, because the passenger concerned might well know a lot more about flight than they do.

Above all, we have to stop training passenger and handling staff that they can treat passengers like a herd of sheep, and threaten them with off-loading and worse at the slightest sign of dissent.

[spongenotbob]

Why was this thread buried under "North America", where no-one will find it, instead of "Rumours & News", where it was initially posted?

[Super VC-10]

@spongenotbob - two threads were merged into one. Original thread was here, merged thread was at R&N. Maybe a moderator would be kind enough to move this thread to R&N?

[lambourne]

Sorry to disappoint you, lambourne, but I'm not in the aviation industry. Just interested in civil aviation, never claimed to be otherwise.

Perhaps if you get facts in what has taken place versus the social justice warrior mentality you wouldn't sound so juvenile.


If all of those social justice warriors kept to their word wouldn't they have held to their scruples and forfeited those non refundable tickets? They were all taking their business elsewhere. To DL, where pilots slap passengers and CSR's threaten to have children take away from parents or to AA where FA's rip strollers from mothers arms and challenge passengers to fights?

I suppose the Professional Pilot part of this message board doesn't do a very good job of assuring those involved in this forum are as the title suggest.

This from the highly regarded Gordo...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/finance/news/gordon-bethune-stands-comment-united-passenger-dragged-off-plane-172209822.html

[misd-agin]

"I shudder when I hear passengers referred to as "pax", usually by someone who clearly has a very limited grasp of the basics of aviation, let alone of customer service in an airline context."
*************************************************


It's like the people who call homo sapiens 'humans', 'people', 'passengers' or even worse, 'pax'. It just needs to stop!

[lambourne]

Chill, man. T'was a joke, obviously. I thought that was quite clever of VC-10. :D

Really? Where was the <tic> or smiley face?

The armchair aviation experts who have never flown a flight are a barrel of monkeys. There is hardly any corporation that hasn't had an issue of some type. Yet, UA gets the worst treatment by the cranial challenged because they are the click bait, social media justice warriors. It gets really old and it is tiresome. DL, UA, AA, WN all have issues. Maybe if the gonads kicking was spread evenly it wouldn't be such a hot button issue.

As for humor or humour, we are undefeated in our battle against those that choose humour....scoreboard.n<tic>

[lambourne]

I submit that's because most had already booked (mostly non-refundable fares) by then! Pity you didn't understand VC10's clever humour (humor for you).

I submit to you that what you are describing is the equivalent of feeling strongly about and issue, declaring a hunger strike and yet deciding to only take up said cause after you eat your pantry empty......

A person can cancel a nonrefundable ticket (if they decided to actually be true to their word and not ride UA) and use that money for later travel (when one of the other airlines offends them). However, in this instance it was passengers through the door not tickets sold.

How does a DL pilot smacking a passenger in a jetway not get the attention that a mechanical issue on a UA flight gets?