Delta emergency @ LAX, dumps fuel on school playground.

[bnt]

LA Times report (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-14/plane-dumps-fuel-on-students-on-school-playground-en-route-to-lax-officials-say):
An airplane returning to Los Angeles International Airport on Tuesday morning dropped jet fuel onto a school playground, striking several students at Park Avenue Elementary School in Cudahy, officials said.

Delta Flight 89 had taken off from LAX and was en route to Shanghai when it turned around and headed back to the L.A. airport.

I expect the investigation will tell us whether the pilot really had to do that. It's not a common occurrence, thankfully.

[DaveReidUK]

I expect the investigation will tell us whether the pilot really had to do that.

I would imagine that an investigation into whether a pilot really had to dump fuel on a school won't take long ...

[lomapaseo]

I would imagine that an investigation into whether a pilot really had to dump fuel on a school won't take long ...

How does one aim for a school, and not hit an orphanage by mistake?

[PAXboy]

The schools are all marked as Waypoints - makes it much easier to hit them accurately.

[Airbubba]

And the environmental impact of unburned aerosol fossil fuel hydrocarbons versus a crater with molten aluminum and bio-waste will be explored by a California committee.

The incident hit a nerve in the community. Environmental injustices have long taken place in southeast Los Angeles County. For years, activists and residents fought for the closure of a battery recycling plant in the industrial city of Vernon because it emitted cancer-causing arsenic and lead, a potent neurotoxin, into nearby cities.

It was only five years ago that the plant was closed.

In the 1990s, Park Avenue Elementary School was closed for eight months because tar-like petroleum sludge began to seep up from the ground. The school was built on an old city dump site that contained petroleum-contaminated soil and several pockets of tar-like petroleum sludge.

“Why is it always our communities having to deal with the brunt of these issues?” Alcantar said.

The incident with the jet-fuel dump has raised questions about environmental safety and the flight path over Cudahy and other cities.

“Sadly, our entire community has been adversely impacted by this incident, including dozens of children. I am calling for a full federal investigation into the matter, and expect full accountability from responsible parties,” Cudahy City Council member Jack Guerrero said.


https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-14/plane-dumps-fuel-on-students-on-school-playground-en-route-to-lax-officials-say

[Geosync]

We don't know the nature of the emergency. But the plaintiff attorneys for the kids doused in Jet A will say the pilots could have dumped fuel over the great blue Pacific, Or just landed overweight and damaged the aircraft instead raining it down upon the poor children of East LA. No serious injuries or fatalities, so Delta will settle quietly and quickly to get ahead of it.

[cthruit]

According to FlightAware, DL89 descended below 6000' MSL before turning south on base leg of return to LAX. ADS-B reported altitude at commencement of westbound leg (final approach) was ~4800' MSL. Looks like about 2400' MSL when passing approximate position of school. Whoops! OF COURSE, one would need to know the exact nature of the emergency to determine if this was necessary or not.

[OldnGrounded]

But the plaintiff attorneys for the kids doused in Jet A will say the pilots could have dumped fuel over the great blue Pacific . . .

Yes, they will, and Delta will need a really convincing answer explaining why they could not. I'm sure everyone here has a clear mental picture of the location of LAX and its environs.

. . . Or just landed overweight and damaged the aircraft instead raining it down upon the poor children of East LA.

No, the attorneys won't say anything like that, and you probably know it.

No serious injuries or fatalities, so Delta will settle quietly and quickly to get ahead of it.

Yes, as is appropriate.

[OldnGrounded]

And the environmental impact of unburned aerosol fossil fuel hydrocarbons versus a crater with molten aluminum and bio-waste will be explored by a California committee.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-14/plane-dumps-fuel-on-students-on-school-playground-en-route-to-lax-officials-say

That's hardly, the binary choice, here. Some people really need to get a grip.

[ACMS]

Must have been an very urgent need for it...........otherwise it’s a bit odd to dump there!!

It won’t kill anyone landing overweight....

[cthruit]

From CNN: "Flight 89 experienced an engine issue, requiring it to return to LAX," said Delta Air Lines spokesman Adrian Gee. The flight path of the aircraft was over a very densely populated area. If it is eventually determined that an immediate return wasn't necessary and that the aircraft could have stayed above the minimum recommended altitude of 6000' AGL for the jettison... look for hundreds of people to file claims. I'm sure personal injury lawyers all over L.A. are out scouting for plaintiffs already.

[Smilin_Ed]

"Or just landed overweight and damaged the aircraft...".

And then burn up the brakes, blow several tires, run off the end of the runway and kill/injure multiple passengers and crew.

[cthruit]

A plausible scenario is setting fuel jettison to MLW with the intention of reducing landing weight as much as possible, but willing to accept an overweight landing. Then, forgetting to terminate the jettison as the aircraft descended because of a very busy cockpit.

[Loose rivets]

I did all the adverse-chemical things blokes do when I was younger. Sucking petrol to get a siphon, wiping my hands with thinners. Just couldn't see it would hurt. I'm paying a very heavy price now by being allergic to a broad spectrum of chemicals. May not be connected but I would not want the science tested on children. It is vital they never, not once, breath in a significant mist of aviation fuel.

I suppose there's a reason they descended when they did. I recall on my last ever sim ride refusing a decent unnecessarily early. Altitude is money in the bank, especially on one engine.

[NWA SLF]

Its a 777-200ER with RR Trent engines and should have no problem with an overweight landing except for needing an inspection following the landing - unless the problem was more than an engine. cthruit's response is the most logical I've read - forgot to quit dumping when they came back for a landing after having dumped fuel in the assigned area. They did manage to dump the fuel on several schools, possibly because at that time of day students were out playing while workers were - well, working, or out commuting. OMG the potential for disaster sucking jet fuel into the engine compartment and onto a hot engine. But then again knowing jet fuel is not all that volatile, the reason it was still in droplets as it dumped on the people below, such a happening extremely remote.

[Airbubba]

Listening to the tapes at LiveATC.net...

DL89 LAX-PVG reported compressor stalls on the right engine climbing to 8000 feet high speed approved and said they needed to return to the airport. Was asked if they needed to hold or dump fuel, they said no, they had the engine back under control, it was 'not critical'.

Said they would slow to 280 knots, request 25R for length. SOB's 181, fuel 12+00. When asked if they wanted equipment standing by they said no, uh, I mean yes, we'll plan to pull off the runway. Fuel later given as 209.8 (if you give it as time they always seem to want it in pounds and vice versa is my experience ;)), approach speed 157 knots.

Vectors ILS 25R, they taxi clear of the runway, call ARFF on 127.85, everything looks good, they taxi to the gate. Brake temps must have looked OK I guess. No mention of a fuel dump or engine failure on final that I hear but as always, the LiveATC.net online scanners miss some transmissions with traffic on other channels.

[MurphyWasRight]

A plausible scenario is setting fuel jettison to MLW with the intention of reducing landing weight as much as possible, but willing to accept an overweight landing. Then, forgetting to terminate the jettison as the aircraft descended because of a very busy cockpit.
Seems likely explanation.

How much additional fuel would they have been able to dump if they deliberately continued dumping after going below the min allowed dump height?
I am guessing that it would not be enough to make all that much difference.

At least they (apparently) terminated the jettison before landing, that could have been interesting.

The hazard of an overweight landing is a lot less than a high speed rejected takeoff and as others have pointed out would require an inspection with worst case possibility of a some repairs.

[Clay_T]

There's a firsthand account and a pic over at The War Zone over on TheDrive[dot]com.

[Shamelessly plagiarized from Noelcarry's post there.]

I was in my backyard today when I heard an aircraft overhead with its engine screaming at full power, which got my attention as I've never heard that before (I used to work in air ops for 10 years so am quite aware). I looked up and saw that Delta plane flying a bit far south (off normal approach track) and way lower than normal...and dumping fuel (as the pic shows). I got a pic of it. Whole area smelled of jet fuel for about 2 hours afterwards.

It's in the 'Mysterious Navy Cube story.'
I'm still too new to post links.

[b1lanc]

Video of alleged fuel dumping below. If that is the aircraft in question, pretty low over a densely popluated area (all of LA fits that bill). Given the population density, one might estimate a million law suits or more as other jump on the legal train.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/14/delta-jet-dumps-fuel-on-school-playground-before-emergency-landing-at-lax/


Airb, you might be right. It is California after all.

From avherald:
"A Delta Airlines Boeing 777-200, registration N860DA performing flight DL-89 from Los Angeles,CA (USA) to Shanghai Pudong (China) with 181 people on board, was climbing out of Los Angeles' runway 24L when the crew stopped the climb at 8000 feet reporting right hand engine (Trent 892) compressor stalls, they needed to return to LAX."
181 pax?

[OldnGrounded]

The L.A. Times story:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-14/plane-dumps-fuel-on-students-on-school-playground-en-route-to-lax-officials-say

Very bad P.R.

[OldnGrounded]

Airb, you might be right. It is California after all.

So, would the locals where you live be unconcerned if their elementary-age kids were doused with Jet A? Come on, folks, let's not get carried away with our prejudices.

[Havingwings4ever]

How close to MTOM do you think this triple was? Assuming full pax and 12 hr flight time. I am not familiar with that a/c, only 767/74.

[Airbubba]

FAA media statement on the fuel dump.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x670/eorplprwaaebyjr_f2f544cdfc635c2c69178ca7ae9103f49558d0ca.jpg

[b1lanc]

Partial ATC recording.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIA90evz8gs

[ferry pilot]

Try and repeat this more than once. You don't drop fuel on a school you fool

[Servo]

C'Mon we all know it wasnt fuel. It was chemtrails. Get them whilst they are young. :E

[moosepileit]

Just needed a bucket of MJU-10s and it could have been urban renewal.

[Ixixly]

My money is that someone forget to end the jettison as they went back over land again :P

[Airbubba]

Partial ATC recording.

Pretty close to what I got from scrubbing the recordings. I heard 'twelve plus zero zero' for the first fuel report, VAS transcribed it as 212.0.

VASAviation commented:

3 hours working non-stop editing this video to have it up as soon as possible. Unfortunately I was unable to pick some frequencies and communications but the most important exchanges were recorded.

The 124.9 approach freq that VAS couldn't find is listed on LiveATC as KLAX Final App (North/South). The ARFF freq was a tower helo freq of 127.85. No mention of fuel dump or an engine failure that I heard.

Good job as usual VASAviation! :ok:

[FrequentSLF]

USA a country of litigation, now all California attorneys will look for a class actions, people will forget that landing overweight might have caused some serious injuries, however where in the rest of the world attorneys are advertising on television to claim compensation from weed killers to road accidents?

[misd-agin]

Continuing to dump fuel at 2,800’ (previous posters altitude/ground track comparison) vs stopping at 5000’/6000’ is only about 20,000 lbs weight difference. They wouldn’t have been within 20,000 lbs of their limiting landing weight.

[CW247]

Advised doesn't need to dump fuel and engine under control and not critical. Yet dumped fuel and rushed the approach. That's not how we do it in the sim.

[The Golden Rivet]

Could it be something other than a fuel dump but a fuel control issue, most aircraft engine valves are fuel pressure controlled so compressor stalls, vsv issue fuel leak, HMU/fcu problem ?

[Cloud Cutter]

Could it be something other than a fuel dump but a fuel control issue, most aircraft engine valves are fuel pressure controlled so compressor stalls, vsv issue fuel leak, HMU/fcu problem ?

Would that not cause fuel to spray from the affected engine, rather than both dump valves at the wing tips?

[nonsense]

And the environmental impact of unburned aerosol fossil fuel hydrocarbons versus a crater with molten aluminum and bio-waste will be explored by a California committee.
I would think that in California, the environmental impact of unburnt aerosol fossil fuel would be considered less than that of burnt fossil fuel?

[Havingwings4ever]

Maybe thats not how you do it in the sim, on the usual... Maybe they hit a flock of birds, screwed up eng 2, maybe the crew saw birds going to eng 1 and it was bit acting up, would be enough for our crews to hit the emergency dump, esp when heavy. Happened to me on a MD11, hitting the emergency dump at low altitude saved us from making a hole in the ground(BOG).

[retired guy]

Does anyone in this thread actually fly a long haul commercial jet? I often wonder at some of the comments?
people seem to make statements rather than ask questions for the experienced aviators to answer eg “ some kids doused in fuel is better than a smoking hole”!

1 overweight landings even up to max takeoff weight are approved in an emergency. Example fire on board.
all that’s required is an inspection.
2 dumping fuel gets you down to max landing weight , or near it, and is recommended if possible.
3 dumping should be conducted at higher altitudes >6ooo ft and over non built up areas and in a straight flight path
4 weight is not critical to safety generally unless on a short limiting runway. On a large jet 2 tones of weight = approx 1 knot.
In short the decision to land overweight depends on the severity of the emergency and the runway length/conditions.
I can think of no excuse at all for dumping so low as shown in the video.
As for the hypothesis that “they forgot”- well OMG. Has pilot training/skills set really sunk that low? I know that in the next 25 years 500,000 pilots are required mainly in developing world. Now there’s a challenge.
R Guy

[retired guy]

Maybe thats not how you do it in the sim, on the usual... Maybe they hit a flock of birds, screwed up eng 2, maybe the crew saw birds going to eng 1 and it was bit acting up, would be enough for our crews to hit the emergency dump, esp when heavy. Happened to me on a MD11, hitting the emergency dump at low altitude saved us from making a hole in the ground(BOG).
Good day Wings4
can you elaborate on the rationale that “hitting the dumps saved a smoking hole”.its an unusual scenario?
cheers
Apologies- I’m an older retired guy and maybe becoming a bit forgetful​​​​​​!

[Bergerie1]

From another old retired guy - I have landed at near max weight after what we thought was a fire on board. The landing was a non-event, only at an appropriately faster speed and with no damage at all. I agree with retired guy, there is a lot of foolishness on this thread.

[lcolman]

Does anyone in this thread actually fly a long haul commercial jet? I often wonder at some of the comments?
people seem to make statements rather than ask questions for the experienced aviators to answer eg “ some kids doused in fuel is better than a smoking hole”!

1 overweight landings even up to max takeoff weight are approved in an emergency. Example fire on board.
all that’s required is an inspection.
2 dumping fuel gets you down to max landing weight , or near it, and is recommended if possible.
3 dumping should be conducted at higher altitudes >6ooo ft and over non built up areas and in a straight flight path
4 weight is not critical to safety generally unless on a short limiting runway. On a large jet 2 tones of weight = approx 1 knot.
In short the decision to land overweight depends on the severity of the emergency and the runway length/conditions.
I can think of no excuse at all for dumping so low as shown in the video.
As for the hypothesis that “they forgot”- well OMG. Has pilot training/skills set really sunk that low? I know that in the next 25 years 500,000 pilots are required mainly in developing world. Now there’s a challenge.
R Guy

Forgetting is pretty easy in a high workload environment. Its pretty easy to reach task saturation when you're dealing with an engine failure over a populated area in very busy airspace at a congested airport.

This can happen to anyone at any time, just takes a single task more than you can deal with and this has happened in the past to very experienced air crew, eastern 401 is an example of this, unfortunately there the pilots forgot to aviate first.

[ETOPS]

In response to Retired Guy

You are quite right in your comments - and I have actually made an overweight landing in a B767-300. Large fleet with a few early examples not fitted with fuel dump. Followed the procedure in the QRH as the alternative was a long time at low level trying to burn off the excess fuel. It was a non-event and aircraft was cleared after inspection.

Reckon they rushed this and managed to forget the dump switch.......

[AmuDarya]

I know Jet-A has a relatively high flashpoint, but still, if that low-altitude dumping had resulted in relatively concentrated spray landing on some backyard barbecues, the results would have probably been lively. Good thing it didn't happen on the Fourth of July.

[Twitter]

We once had engine failure at MTOW in a large military aircraft at a base in Norfolk which required a “heavyweight circuit” and visual approach on half the engines.
As practised in the sim, we dumped fuel down to MLW from 1,500 feet on the downwind.
It was a Monday morning, which in those days was washing day - sheets hung out to dry etc. and it didn’t take long for the calls to the police station. Mates driving in to work stopped smoking I was told.
Landing went OK in a crosswind. RAF put a small piece in the Anglian Times to explain the case and there it ended.
Bit different today...

[Onceapilot]

So, how about a little common sense here? Yes, a low alt fuel dump is an uncommon scenario that is normally unacceptable and merits public concern. However, it could result from a whole spectrum of flight problems, many of which are a normal operating risk in abnormal situations but, some scenario's could include mistakes or inadvertent actions. The investigations will establish the truth of the circumstances. So, little point for posts that say "no reason for" or "you don't have to do that" etc, because there could be. The investigation will show...!

OAP

[retired guy]

Forgetting is pretty easy in a high workload environment. Its pretty easy to reach task saturation when you're dealing with an engine failure over a populated area in very busy airspace at a congested airport.

This can happen to anyone at any time, just takes a single task more than you can deal with and this has happened in the past to very experienced air crew, eastern 401 is an example of this, unfortunately there the pilots forgot to navigate first.
Dear Icolman
I think that you have hit the target. If you believe that it is acceptable to become task saturated in a simple engine failure scenario with a bit of fuel dumping, as a properly trained commercial pilot, then I can see why there are so many comments on these forums puzzled about why things go wrong. I am sure that your view is sincerely held and that many share it. I do not.
Dealing with task saturation is probably the most important part of flight training and if you cannot do it, better find a new job. The scenario above should not even raise the heartbeat. The Lionair and ET are much more difficult given the two emergencies of Loss of Airpspeed and then MCAS induced Runaway Stab. Coupled with multiple warnings and stick shaker. But the day before the Lionair, the crew did fly the same plane with the same faults for two hours to a safe landing just like that. With all those problems.
But, and of course it is only a view, the MAX crashes were manageable from a task saturation standpoint. Deal with the bigger problem first, then the next, methodically and calmly. As per QF out of Singapore with I think over 60 separate warnings and many many procedures to be worked on a plane partially crippled.
I will try to fly, as I always have done, with pilots who do not become task saturated. Think of the BA 747 with 4 engines out over Jakarta. The Captain has time to address the passengers calmly on the PA and advise them of the situation and the crew then proceeded over the next 20 minutes to relight alll the engines and land at an airport surrounded by mountains with no GPS and no moving maps - just paper charts from a folder. An airport totally unfamiliar and challenging too. Now that IS a task, but not overloaded.
Cheers and thanks for your comments.
R Guy

[retired guy]

In response to Retired Guy

You are quite right in your comments - and I have actually made an overweight landing in a B767-300. Large fleet with a few early examples not fitted with fuel dump. Followed the procedure in the QRH as the alternative was a long time at low level trying to burn off the excess fuel. It was a non-event and aircraft was cleared after inspection.

Reckon they rushed this and managed to forget the dump switch.......

Quite so. Can't think of any other reason. On the shortfall fleets with no dump we see time and time again planes holding with quite serious problems for over an hour or two "to reduce weight". I get a daily bulletin from AV Herald and it happens every day. Why do they do this? Get the thing on the ground and sort out the failure there if you can. A 2 hours hold = 4 knots on a 737!. As always runway performance needs consideration too. I have dumped over Nice and Antibes = 60 tonnes. But we didn't go it over the beach. Imagine. Mon Dieu!
R Guy

[Maninthebar]

We once had engine failure at MTOW in a large military aircraft at a base in Norfolk which required a “heavyweight circuit” and visual approach on half the engines.
As practised in the sim, we dumped fuel down to MLW from 1,500 feet on the downwind.
It was a Monday morning, which in those days was washing day - sheets hung out to dry etc. and it didn’t take long for the calls to the police station. Mates driving in to work stopped smoking I was told.
Landing went OK in a crosswind. RAF put a small piece in the Anglian Times to explain the case and there it ended.
Bit different today...

Not so much time as location methinks - population density in rural Norfolk would be lower than in Los Angeles, albeit that they might have more fingers per head of population

[retired guy]

So, how about a little common sense here? Yes, a low alt fuel dump is an uncommon scenario that is normally unacceptable and merits public concern. However, it could result from a whole spectrum of flight problems, many of which are a normal operating risk in abnormal situations but, some scenario's could include mistakes or inadvertent actions. The investigations will establish the truth of the circumstances. So, little point for posts that say "no reason for" or "you don't have to do that" etc, because there could be. The investigation will show...!

OAP
You are quite right Onceapilot. We always need to wait, sometimes for years as in AF Concorde, for the truth. Sometimes we never get it officially due to geopolitical matters. But in these pages we can of course discuss possible scenarios. Teheran last week, I wrote "missile" as the only logical reason for a 737 to crash in those circumstances. And that was a couple of hours after. That is not to say I was definitely right, but I said "Sherlock Holmes says 'eliminating the impossible / improbable and your are left with the answer". It was highly improbable for a new 737 from a good airline to explode in that situation.
So I think its ok here to speculate on possible causes of any situation or we would never say anything.
Cheers
R Guy

[michael1994]

Hmm, pilots aren't there to fly the plane !!, the plane does that itself 99% of the time, they are there to respond to unusual situations and emergencies, so they better be bloody good at it and practice a lot.
Re: the BA captain who's 4 engines failed due to volcanic ash (see above). He also landed with virtually no forward visibility due the the windscreen being sand blasted.

[libellegeoff]

I suspect this has been coming for a while. How and where to dump fuel.
Dumping fuel, to avoid an overweight landing, and hence the subsequent inspection is USUALLY an economic decision.
I sure there will be some guidelines drawn up.

Is it critical to the safe landing of the A/C to dump fuel ? if yes, carry on...it's a balance of risk to people on board vs people on the ground ( military pilots often bale out late after they have steered their A/C clear of built up areas, ultimately the pilots choice )
If not, then it's an economic question. and you have to ask, with respect to your current altitude and location, is it safe and appropriate to dump fuel now ? ( with respect to potential ground hazard )

[lcolman]

Dear Icolman
I think that you have hit the target. If you believe that it is acceptable to become task saturated in a simple engine failure scenario with a bit of fuel dumping, as a properly trained commercial pilot, then I can see why there are so many comments on these forums puzzled about why things go wrong. I am sure that your view is sincerely held and that many share it. I do not.
Dealing with task saturation is probably the most important part of flight training and if you cannot do it, better find a new job. The scenario above should not even raise the heartbeat. The Lionair and ET are much more difficult given the two emergencies of Loss of Airpspeed and then MCAS induced Runaway Stab. Coupled with multiple warnings and stick shaker. But the day before the Lionair, the crew did fly the same plane with the same faults for two hours to a safe landing just like that. With all those problems.
But, and of course it is only a view, the MAX crashes were manageable from a task saturation standpoint. Deal with the bigger problem first, then the next, methodically and calmly. As per QF out of Singapore with I think over 60 separate warnings and many many procedures to be worked on a plane partially crippled.
I will try to fly, as I always have done, with pilots who do not become task saturated. Think of the BA 747 with 4 engines out over Jakarta. The Captain has time to address the passengers calmly on the PA and advise them of the situation and the crew then proceeded over the next 20 minutes to relight alll the engines and land at an airport surrounded by mountains with no GPS and no moving maps - just paper charts from a folder. An airport totally unfamiliar and challenging too. Now that IS a task, but not overloaded.
Cheers and thanks for your comments.
R Guy

Dear R Guy,

Totally agree that task saturation is something for a flight crew to manage. I also agree that better training, better CRM and better planning will help mitigate the effects of this.

However, having said this; it is simply a reality that every human is different and has different levels of tolerance to task saturation including how they individually process excess tasks and information.

You are also right in pointing out the incredible job that the BA9 crew did, but there were also 3 crew in the cockpit dealing with that.

In a large number of emergencies, excellent crm or excess crew played a part in the positive outcome of said emergency.

The whole MCAS debacle really highlights this, the Lion air crew who encountered this first had 3 crew in the cockpit that day. This left someone free to troubleshoot while the other 2 controlled the aircraft and kept it within the flight envelope. The next crew didnt have adequate CRM or capacity to deal with the issue and continue to fly.

My belief is that task saturation can happen to anyone and can be trained for, it just takes will and recognition that this can happen to anyone.

Luckily in this case, the flight landed safely with some very minor injuries on the ground. Dont get me wrong, the best result would have been that no one was affected except for a delay, but this is an issue that we should recognise and train to recognise.

Safe skies!

Luke

[retired guy]

From another old retired guy - I have landed at near max weight after what we thought was a fire on board. The landing was a non-event, only at an appropriately faster speed and with no damage at all. I agree with retired guy, there is a lot of foolishness on this thread.
Dear Bergerie

I think you are right and not just in this thread. I think that some readers find it hard to determine which posts are simply idle conjecture or even pure nonsense (which is ok if the writer is actually seeking an answer) from what is often clearly the view of someone who has actually done whatever is being discussed in the real world .

I remember a thread about stalling some time ago. Now it just happens that I have stalled all the Boeing models at Seattle and on UK airtests many times. (Except 777). Right back to the stick shake and actual airframe buffet and nose drop. Not maYet when I made a couple of points I was shot down verbally by people who I don't think have ever flown a plane at all, let alone stall one! I can usually tell if someone posting here has a grip on the subject and respect their experience and learn from it. And even daft questions are good to get a subject off the ground, so as to speak. I enjoy these forums very much and they are a fertile ground for discussion. I have learned so much about for example, the 737 STAB trim system from the likes of Peter Lemme and other contributors who clearly are very learned on their specialist subject. Long may it continue.

Cheers
R Guy

[nonsense]

I know Jet-A has a relatively high flashpoint, but still, if that low-altitude dumping had resulted in relatively concentrated spray landing on some backyard barbecues, the results would have probably been lively. Good thing it didn't happen on the Fourth of July.

Flashpoint is about the volatility of the fuel; the temperature above which sufficient vapor will evaporate off the surface to form a flammable mix with the surrounding air. In the case of kerosene, that temperature is about 36degC.

Upper and lower flammable limits are the proportion of fuel to air which will ignite. If you adjust a petrol carby particularly too rich, for example, then the resulting mix simply won't ignite. The range for kerosene is roughly 0.6% to 5% kerosene in air.

So if you can achieve a cloud of a bit over 0.6% kerosene in air, you have the potential for a fireball.
Air has a density of about 1.2kg/m^3 at STP, liquid kerosene is about 0.8kg/litre. One litre of fuel dispersed into one hundred cubic metres of fresh air would do nicely.

I have no idea what discharge rates in either litres or kg per second are achieved, so I'll leave space on the back of my envelope for someone else to continue... Given an airspeed and a discharge rate, you can get the cross sectional area of a path through space left filled with a flammable mix.

[retired guy]

[QUOTE=lcolman;10663392]Dear R Guy,

Thanks for that excellent reply..... Some good stuff there. May I comment on each for clarity?
Totally agree that task saturation is something for a flight crew to manage. I also agree that better training, better CRM and better planning will help mitigate the effects of this.
Agreed. That is why pilot training is paramount.

However, having said this; it is simply a reality that every human is different and has different levels of tolerance to task saturation including how they individually process excess tasks and information.
During pilot selection and the CPL course, those who do not have the tolerance for multi tasking and task saturation normally don't get through. Or should not. You have to be "the right stuff" much more than academic ability which is why airlines don't set a high academic bar for entrants. But a very high personal and emotional skill set.

You are also right in pointing out the incredible job that the BA9 crew did, but there were also 3 crew in the cockpit dealing with that.
Most crews world wide are 2 crew, if not all now. The new style of training reflects that and the procedures carefully devised so that each crew member works as a team. There was very little teamwork/CRM in some recent events which didn't end well. AF 447? Air Asia SFO? And more recent?

In a large number of emergencies, excellent crm or excess crew played a part in the positive outcome of said emergency.
Ii would say ALL are the result of excellent CRM.
The whole MCAS debacle really highlights this, the Lion air crew who encountered this first had 3 crew in the cockpit that day. This left someone free to troubleshoot while the other 2 controlled the aircraft and kept it within the flight envelope.
I agree if the Batik Airways guy hadn't been there it may have ended differently, but he seemed to know what to do. Training?
The next crew didnt have adequate CRM or capacity to deal with the issue and continue to fly.
Agreed. This is the problem. Boeing are now agreeing with what some on these forums have been saying for a year - training required!
My belief is that task saturation can happen to anyone and can be trained for, it just takes will and recognition that this can happen to anyone.
If you select the right sort of person after a rigorous selection procedure, and then train them thoroughly I agree with you . But not anyone can be trained. They have to have the right characteristics to be trained and emotionally stable. Which brings us to a growing problem. Airlines short of pilots starting their own Flight Academy!
Talk about marking your own homework.

Luckily in this case, the flight landed safely with some very minor injuries on the ground. Dont get me wrong, the best result would have been that no one was affected except for a delay, but this is an issue that we should recognise and train to recognise.
Yes. It is a bit of a storm in a teacup except for the massive litigation which will now ensue. Anyone within ten miles of the flight path will develop symptoms! In Ireland the whole country would. (You may not know that Ireland is the "combo" leader in the world.)
Safe skies!

R Guy

[Hot 'n' High]

........ Given an airspeed and a discharge rate, you can get the cross sectional area of a path through space left filled with a flammable mix.

Seem to recall the Aussies used it regularly as a "party piece" with their F111's! :ok: End of Thread Drift! :=

[Dani]

There is a lot of discussion going on with unclear content:
Of course you can land the thing overweight, as you can damp part of the fuel and land later. It all depends on the situation.
If you have a compressor stall there is no hurry to land. You save the engine (reduce or cut it off). In this scenario you are under no time pressure, you go circle somewhere, handle the engine, dump fuel, prepare to land and do it so.
If you have more than a compressor stall, some fancy red warnings, even problems with the other engine (bird strikes?) you have some red ASAPs on your screens and hurry to land. There you might want to land a bit quicker, and if you are in doubt of your landing performance (flaps struck too?, hydraulic problems?) you might want to be a bit lighter than you are presently. So hitting the emergency dump switch might be a great idea, even if you are 500ft to the ground or overflying a kindergarden. Depends on your actual performance. If your V/S shows less than zero, you come to the conclusion very soon.
What these DL guys here mixed probably are these two scenarios. Because eighter you are in a hurry or you are not. Like their wives are also not partly pregnant. They eighter are or they are not. So eighter you declare a full emergency, dump fuel and rush to the ILS, or you take your time, solve all problems, have a chat with maintenance department and dispatch office, explain the passengers and do a comfortable approach where you think is best.

All other discussion is useless and creates confusion.

Dani

[cannot]

Every checklist for fuel dumping states terminate the dump procedure before final landing preparations
you do not want to land still dumping fuel , it increases the chances of a fire not a good idea .
looks like the crew forgot to terminate dumping

[Uplinker]

We had to dump fuel and return to land after take-off from Sanford some years' ago. Instead of sending us out over the sea, the place ATC told us to hold and dump was over a large lake area with some dwellings around. Seemed odd to me.

[Pearly White]

We once had engine failure at MTOW in a large military aircraft at a base in Norfolk which required a “heavyweight circuit” and visual approach on half the engines.
As practised in the sim, we dumped fuel down to MLW from 1,500 feet on the downwind.
It was a Monday morning, which in those days was washing day - sheets hung out to dry etc. and it didn’t take long for the calls to the police station. Mates driving in to work stopped smoking I was told.
Landing went OK in a crosswind. RAF put a small piece in the Anglian Times to explain the case and there it ended.
Bit different today...
Were you in a Victor? I was an Air Cadet on a gliding course at RAF Swanton Morley in the late 60s, we'd just got a few gliders up in the circuit when a Victor came over our airfield dumping fuel. Our CO drove to the tower to use the phone - we could hear him half a mile away. Tearing the CO a new one at whatever RAF base North of the Wash where the Victor was heading. "Do you know my aircraft are made of wood and fabric and held together with glue? Your bloody Victor has just dumped solvent all over my cadets. It's a wonder the bloody wings haven't fallen off!"

Nobody suggested we shouldn't have breathed the stuff in... I still love the smell of Jet A1 in the morning. And the Victor sounded awesome.

[Dilbert68]

In the audio recording I heard, they never asked to dump fuel. If they had, they would have been vectored west to dump over the ocean.

What the hell were they dumping fuel for at all??? The aircraft was under control and they did not ever ask ATC to dump fuel so they should never have started.

Get out your checkbooks Delta, the lawyers are going to have a field day with this. Anybody else out walking their dog under the approach path of 25R when this happened? I was and it was traumatic, pay up Delta.

[ropetow]

Every checklist for fuel dumping states terminate the dump procedure before final landing preparations
you do not want to land still dumping fuel , it increases the chances of a fire not a good idea .
looks like the crew forgot to terminate dumping


At what point would the crew get a (further) EICAS reminder that they were still dumping - is it possible to empty the wing tanks completely and not notice?

[lcolman]

[QUOTE=lcolman;10663392]Dear R Guy,

Thanks for that excellent reply..... Some good stuff there. May I comment on each for clarity?
Totally agree that task saturation is something for a flight crew to manage. I also agree that better training, better CRM and better planning will help mitigate the effects of this.
Agreed. That is why pilot training is paramount.

However, having said this; it is simply a reality that every human is different and has different levels of tolerance to task saturation including how they individually process excess tasks and information.
During pilot selection and the CPL course, those who do not have the tolerance for multi tasking and task saturation normally don't get through. Or should not. You have to be "the right stuff" much more than academic ability which is why airlines don't set a high academic bar for entrants. But a very high personal and emotional skill set.

You are also right in pointing out the incredible job that the BA9 crew did, but there were also 3 crew in the cockpit dealing with that.
Most crews world wide are 2 crew, if not all now. The new style of training reflects that and the procedures carefully devised so that each crew member works as a team. There was very little teamwork/CRM in some recent events which didn't end well. AF 447? Air Asia SFO? And more recent?

In a large number of emergencies, excellent crm or excess crew played a part in the positive outcome of said emergency.
Ii would say ALL are the result of excellent CRM.
The whole MCAS debacle really highlights this, the Lion air crew who encountered this first had 3 crew in the cockpit that day. This left someone free to troubleshoot while the other 2 controlled the aircraft and kept it within the flight envelope.
I agree if the Batik Airways guy hadn't been there it may have ended differently, but he seemed to know what to do. Training?
The next crew didnt have adequate CRM or capacity to deal with the issue and continue to fly.
Agreed. This is the problem. Boeing are now agreeing with what some on these forums have been saying for a year - training required!
My belief is that task saturation can happen to anyone and can be trained for, it just takes will and recognition that this can happen to anyone.
If you select the right sort of person after a rigorous selection procedure, and then train them thoroughly I agree with you . But not anyone can be trained. They have to have the right characteristics to be trained and emotionally stable. Which brings us to a growing problem. Airlines short of pilots starting their own Flight Academy!
Talk about marking your own homework.

Luckily in this case, the flight landed safely with some very minor injuries on the ground. Dont get me wrong, the best result would have been that no one was affected except for a delay, but this is an issue that we should recognise and train to recognise.
Yes. It is a bit of a storm in a teacup except for the massive litigation which will now ensue. Anyone within ten miles of the flight path will develop symptoms! In Ireland the whole country would. (You may not know that Ireland is the "combo" leader in the world.)
Safe skies!

R Guy

Can't agree more with what you're saying!

Wouldn't be surprised if ireland was affected by this event:}

[Twitter]

Were you in a Victor? I was an Air Cadet on a gliding course at RAF Swanton Morley in the late 60s, we'd just got a few gliders up in the circuit when a Victor came over our airfield dumping fuel. Our CO drove to the tower to use the phone - we could hear him half a mile away. Tearing the CO a new one at whatever RAF base North of the Wash where the Victor was heading. "Do you know my aircraft are made of wood and fabric and held together with glue? Your bloody Victor has just dumped solvent all over my cadets. It's a wonder the bloody wings haven't fallen off!"

Nobody suggested we shouldn't have breathed the stuff in... I still love the smell of Jet A1 in the morning. And the Victor sounded awesome.

Couldn't possible say Pearly - late 60s sounds about right...

[halas]

My reasoning has always been, if you have time to jettison, you have time: there is no rush.
In the video, the crew advised ATC they had the engine back.
my analysis would be: No continuation with engine problem.
There is no rush. You Have 14hrs of gas to decide.
Talk to the company and keep it or dump it, but it’s your call, not theirs.
Tell ATC. The weather is good, home ground advantage.

halas

[pilotmike]

Get out your checkbooks Delta, the lawyers are going to have a field day with this. As
As children at a school were amongst the victims, presumably the lawyers will be looking to take class action?

[knackered IV]

Agree with your comments RG, but maybe we can set the record straight with regard to "Air Asia SFO". I don't think AIr Asia need to be lumbered with that accident unnecessarily, they cop enough flak as it is. I know you meant Asiana.

[CW247]

Exactly halas. Given all the evidence, which is: the calmness of their voices; stating things were under control; then replying in the negative to the question from ATC about fuel dumping, they still did it. If there's another factor here, it is VERY DIFFICULT to see as even on approach there is nothing from them indicating a deteriorating situation. They dumped fuel without advising ATC (and probably the cabin crew and passengers too?), at the wrong level, in an area of high density traffic (what about airmanship?) and over a populated area all due to a rushed approach. The only escape will be that those valves opened by themselves. And yes I have some time on that type.

[UltraFan]

Interesting. So it was okay to dump fuel on Kyrgyz children near Manas airbase for a decade, yet when it happens in LA, it's suddenly a tragedy? Very interesting.

[BFSGrad]

Here’s a few questions:

1. From what I’ve read, the injuries were described as “no serious injuries,” or “minor skin and lung irritation” (sounds like what I endure in a typical weekend of yard work). What would be the basis of a lawsuit? Emotional distress?

2. Does the FDR record the position of the fuel dump valves or the status of the fuel dump command/switch?

3. Do you think the Delta marketing department is reconsidering the decision to paint “DELTA” in giant letters on the bottom of their aircraft?

[aterpster]

We don't know the nature of the emergency. But the plaintiff attorneys for the kids doused in Jet A will say the pilots could have dumped fuel over the great blue Pacific, Or just landed overweight and damaged the aircraft instead raining it down upon the poor children of East LA. No serious injuries or fatalities, so Delta will settle quietly and quickly to get ahead of it.
I don't believe Delta will be able to get ahead of this one. It's all over the news. Even an article about it on Page 3 of the Wall Street Journal. The FAA's Western-Pacific Regional spokesman made a public release that all but accuses the captain of an FAR violation.

[aterpster]

Interesting. So it was okay to dump fuel on Kyrgyz children near Manas airbase for a decade, yet when it happens in LA, it's suddenly a tragedy? Very interesting.
I don't believe this is about LA. This is about airspace and airports under FAA jurisdiction. The State of California has no standing in this issue.

[neilki]

I don't believe this is about LA. This is about airspace and airports under FAA jurisdiction. The State of California has no standing in this issue.
Have you been to CA?? The State has its own set of required notifications and placards on products made of plastics for example.
Regardless of what you think about the states concerne may be, while not a betting man.....

[misd-agin]

Does anyone in this thread actually fly a long haul commercial jet? I often wonder at some of the comments?
people seem to make statements rather than ask questions for the experienced aviators to answer eg “ some kids doused in fuel is better than a smoking hole”!

Our guidance is different -

1 overweight landings even up to max takeoff weight are approved in an emergency. Example fire on board.
all that’s required is an inspection.

1. agreed

2 dumping fuel gets you down to max landing weight , or near it, and is recommended if possible.

2. fuel jettison *if necessary*. Given #1 it's often not necessary.

3 dumping should be conducted at higher altitudes >6ooo ft and over non built up areas and in a straight flight path

3. our guidance is 'not in a circular pattern'. Straight flight path is not required.

4 weight is not critical to safety generally unless on a short limiting runway. On a large jet 2 tones of weight = approx 1 knot.

4. on the 777 approach speed reduction is 1 kt per 7,000 lbs. Roughly 3 tonnes.

In short the decision to land overweight depends on the severity of the emergency and the runway length/conditions.
I can think of no excuse at all for dumping so low as shown in the video.

5. agreed. You're going to reduce your approach speed 2-3 kts for the additional time they dumped below 5000'? Every minute of dump from the center tanks if reducing your approach speed by approx. .8 kts. Each knot of additional approach speed is less than 100' of required landing distance (actual distance is .6 of required). The math works out to an increased distance of approx. 35' per knot actual and 60' per knot required landing distance. Aimpoint alone with be a bigger factor in the actual landing distance used. They gained a reduction of approx. 150' actual distance used and reduced their required landing distance by approx. 150'.

As for the hypothesis that “they forgot”- well OMG. Has pilot training/skills set really sunk that low? I know that in the next 25 years 500,000 pilots are required mainly in developing world. Now there’s a challenge.
R Guy

I'd go with 'they forgot' is hopefully more likely than "we thought dumping below 5,000' was required or a good idea." (reference #5). The Captain on that flight started training in the 1970's or at worst the early 1980's. My Delta buddies who started flying in the mid 1980's aren't senior enough to fly the 777 as Captain. Someone missed the ball with the low altitude dump but given my answers to #1, #2, #4, and #5 it's overkill and losing sight of the big picture.

The issue of fuel dumping, especially near the airport at low altitude or an immediate return scenario, has been brought up numerous times in training. Reference #1, #2 with #5 as the math for #1 and #2.

[misd-agin]

Here’s a few questions:

1. From what I’ve read, the injuries were described as “no serious injuries,” or “minor skin and lung irritation” (sounds like what I endure in a typical weekend of yard work). What would be the basis of a lawsuit? Emotional distress?

2. Does the FDR record the position of the fuel dump valves or the status of the fuel dump command/switch?

3. Do you think the Delta marketing department is reconsidering the decision to paint “DELTA” in giant letters on the bottom of their aircraft?

Re:#2 - the video shows the status of the dump valves - open over the school, shut after passing the school.

[OldnGrounded]

I don't believe Delta will be able to get ahead of this one. It's all over the news. Even an article about it on Page 3 of the Wall Street Journal. The FAA's Western-Pacific Regional spokesman made a public release that all but accuses the captain of an FAR violation.

Delta is definitely not going to get ahead of this and settle quietly. The possibility of the PIC being found in violation is pretty high and that regulatory development will strengthen the case(s) the plaintiffs' attorneys bring.

The story is still front-page news in the L.A. Times. At least four schools were affected to some extent:

Jet fuel dumped on school children sparks questions, outrage (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-15/jet-fuel-dump-on-cudahy-school-children-sparks-outrage-anger)

Those who see this as a minor mishap that will quickly be forgotten clearly don't understand that the average parent doesn't view Jet A rainfall as casually as the average aviation worker.

[4runner]

Must have been an very urgent need for it...........otherwise it’s a bit odd to dump there!!

It won’t kill anyone landing overweight....

aaaaaaand the keyboard Captain of the Year award goes to....ACMS!!! A big round of self congrats.

[Mk 1]

.
Jet fuel (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-15/jet-fuel-dump-on-cudahy-school-children-sparks-outrage-anger)dumped on school children (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-15/jet-fuel-dump-on-cudahy-school-children-sparks-outrage-anger) sparks (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-15/jet-fuel-dump-on-cudahy-school-children-sparks-outrage-anger)questions, outrage (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-15/jet-fuel-dump-on-cudahy-school-children-sparks-outrage-anger)


Either the black humour dad joke of the year or journalistic standards are slipping further...

[UltraFan]

1. From what I’ve read, the injuries were described as “no serious injuries,” or “minor skin and lung irritation” (sounds like what I endure in a typical weekend of yard work). What would be the basis of a lawsuit? Emotional distress?
Have you checked the flag on the townhall lately? The basis of the lawsuit will be the lawyer gets 30% of the settlement. A few years ago, a woman sued an automaker (Chrysler I think) because her hand was burnt by hot gases escaping the airbag that saved her life in a car crash that she caused. Another lady successfully sued a bookstore for tripping over a child and bruising her shin, despite the fact that the child was her own. Emotional distress is more than enough basis for a lawsuit, but in this particular case, it may be endangering a minor, exposing minors to toxic substances... reckless flying? But the main basis will be the Delta's desire to quickly put an end to the story through NDA settlements. Corporate attorneys vs. personal injury lawyers - sulfur in the air.

[Miles Magister]

Main problem was that they did not have an old fashioned flight engineer on board

[wiggy]

At what point would the crew get a (further) EICAS reminder that they were still dumping - is it possible to empty the wing tanks completely and not notice?

The dump system on a T7 will default to dumping the fuel down to get you to structural max landing weight and will then automatically stop.

You can override the system to dump to a lower quantity for whatever reason but the 777-200 system I am aware of stops dumping when the wings get down to just over 5 tonnes aside...so no, you can’t empty the wing tanks.

As for EICAS etc...if they had actioned the Fuel Jettison ECL, left it “open” (I.e. didn’t override it) whilst dumping continued I’m pretty sure the crew get a subtle hint that a Non-Normal checklist was in progress when they did the “Descent Checklist” from the ECL....

I’m not a trainer, I’m probably wrong but I think if you get past that point (I.e. close the descent checklist, declaring it “complete” ) with dumping still going on, I don’t think you get anyone hints but am open to correction.

[Airbubba]

Does anyone in this thread actually fly a long haul commercial jet? I often wonder at some of the comments?
people seem to make statements rather than ask questions for the experienced aviators to answer eg “ some kids doused in fuel is better than a smoking hole”!

My cousin is a van driver and he knows some pilots if that counts.

I have learned so much about for example, the 737 STAB trim system from the likes of Peter Lemme and other contributors who clearly are very learned on their specialist subject. Long may it continue.


As you probably know, Peter Lemme had a few of his posts removed. Perhaps one of the mods didn't like his ADS-B analysis. He no longer contributes here, his last post was three years ago.

Boeing has a classic article about the decision whether to dump fuel or land overweight. I believe a version of this paper has been around for at least three decades. The verbiage in this article finds its way into many airline ops and training manuals. I'll attach a .pdf of Boeing's 'Overweight Landing? Fuel Jettison? What to Consider' to this post.

Delta had compressor stalls on a B-762 out of LAX in 1987. It was the tail end of the Sky-God cowboy era and before that new-fangled CRM had taken hold in the training building off Virginia Avenue. Without a checklist or comment, the captain reached over to turn off the EEC switches which at that time were on the center pedestal. He had a little finger trouble and shut down both engines instead.

The RAT popped out, they got both engines relit (below 1000 feet :eek:)) and after consulting Flight Ops in ATL (Captain Alger?) they pressed on to CVG with the RAT merrily humming away.

Like everyone else, I'm puzzled why Delta 89 would dump fuel on final even if they had lost an engine. It looks like you have to deliberately arm the jettison system and then open the nozzles to get the dump going. Any Triple drivers care to comment? wiggy, I see you just did, thanks.

[OldnGrounded]

Either the black humour dad joke of the year or journalistic standards are slipping further...

I suspect the former. The subeditors who write headlines have a boring job and tend to find amusement where they can.

[Spooky 2]

At what point would the crew get a (further) EICAS reminder that they were still dumping - is it possible to empty the wing tanks completely and not notice?


The fuel jettison system will automatically dump down to MLW when activated and the system dumps out of the center tank first. No it's not possible to empty the wing tanks during fuel jettison and lastly when dumping the EICAS has a visual display to alert you of the dump in progressive's and as i recall time remaining.

Unless you really like flying around over the water on a single engine, the recommended action is to land as soon as possible. I have flown that arrival routing at least 1000 times in evrything from the DC6 to the 777, and frankly I haver noticed any schools, to busy looking for traffic.

[BFSGrad]

Main problem was that they did not have an old fashioned flight engineer on board
For a flight of this duration (14 hrs), would there have been more than two pilots aboard? During departure, would they be on the flight deck (jump seats) able to assist the PIC/FO?

[anson harris]

Unless you really like flying around over the water on a single engine, the recommended action is to land as soon as possible.

I don't fly it anymore so my memory might be a bit hazy, but doesn't the Engine Surge/Stall QRH say "plan to land at the nearest suitable airport"?

[Airbubba]

For a flight of this duration (14 hrs), would there have been more than two pilots aboard? During departure, would they be on the flight deck (jump seats) able to assist the PIC/FO?

Yes, there would be two relief pilots type rated in the plane in the cockpit for takeoff and landing.

[blind pew]

The kit I flew had stand pipes on the jettison pump feeds which were a fair bit above the bottom of the tanks so that you could only jettison down to a certain level.
There was an infamous incident ex LAX which landed in Manchester where the guys put out a mayday after the cross feeding checklist was changed to use the jettison pumps and the heavy crew erroneously believed they were going to loose a second and third donk of final approach due to fuel starvation. As it was there is a safety feature which allowed the tank with fuel to suction feed iirc.

[Modular Halil]

We don't know the nature of the emergency. But the plaintiff attorneys for the kids doused in Jet A will say the pilots could have dumped fuel over the great blue Pacific, Or just landed overweight and damaged the aircraft instead raining it down upon the poor children of East LA. No serious injuries or fatalities, so Delta will settle quietly and quickly to get ahead of it.
you should kniw this by now...media exaggerate all stories to do with aviation, there was probably too much work load again not an excuse to be dumping fuel over populated areas.

[last747fe]

Big question was this not a heavy crew? Would not the IRO not been in the cockpit for takpeoff?

[Modular Halil]

Forgetting is pretty easy in a high workload environment. Its pretty easy to reach task saturation when you're dealing with an engine failure over a populated area in very busy airspace at a congested airport.

This can happen to anyone at any time, just takes a single task more than you can deal with and this has happened in the past to very experienced air crew, eastern 401 is an example of this, unfortunately there the pilots forgot to aviate first.
i understand that it my be frantic in the flight deck but can you really afford to be 'forgetting' with 250 people behind you

[golfbananajam]

Yes, there would be two relief pilots type rated in the plane in the cockpit for takeoff and landing.


Forgive me for asking (I'm not a commercial pilot) but why would the relief crew be in the cockpit and not in the cabin with the SLF (other than to save seats for the paying passengers)?

[Airbubba]

An 'expert' tells USA Today that the decision to dump fuel 'was not an easy call'. In fairness, he probably has not heard the ATC recordings and is perhaps trying to give generic bullet point sound bites.

"A 777 flying nonstop to Shanghai is absolutely loaded with fuel," said Peter Goelz, a former NTSB managing director. "So loaded that to land right away after takeoff poses a significant danger."

"Pilots know that when you have a problem that threatens the aircraft and you have to get rid of fuel, you get rid of it fast," he said. "You don't want things like this (contamination) to happen, but the alternative is too dire."

'It was not an easy call': Here's why that Delta jet dumped fuel over schools near Los AngelesJohn Bacon (https://www.usatoday.com/staff/2647588001/john-bacon/)
USA TODAY updated 11:50 am January 15, 2020

The Delta pilots who bombarded elementary school playgrounds with jet fuel (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/14/delta-jet-dumps-fuel-before-emergency-landing-over-elementary-school/4470059002/) before making an emergency landing at Los Angeles International Airport probably did what needed to be done to ensure the safety of the passengers and crew, a former National Transportation Safety Board official said Wednesday.

Delta made national news Tuesday when pilots of Flight 89 bound for Shanghai dumped the fuel before making a successful emergency landing moments after takeoff. Delta said the twin-engine Boeing 777 had experienced engine problems.

Scores of people on the ground, including students at multiple elementary schools, were treated for eye and skin irritation, Los Angeles County fire officials said. Decontamination stations were set up, but no injuries required hospitalization, authorities said.

"A 777 flying nonstop to Shanghai is absolutely loaded with fuel," said Peter Goelz, a former NTSB managing director. "So loaded that to land right away after takeoff poses a significant danger."

Goelz, who is not involved in the investigation, said protocols normally call for fuel to be dumped over water and/or at an altitude of 10,000 feet so it can disperse and minimize environmental damage. But the rules change for a very heavy plane urgently needing to get back on the ground, he said.Goelz said that every pilot knows the story of Swissair Flight 111, a Geneva-bound MD-11 out of New York that plummeted into the Atlantic Ocean off Nova Scotia on Sept. 2, 1998. None of the 229 people aboard survived. The crew had called in an emergency but was flying away from an airport so it could dump fuel over water when it crashed.

"Pilots know that when you have a problem that threatens the aircraft and you have to get rid of fuel, you get rid of it fast," he said. "You don't want things like this (contamination) to happen, but the alternative is too dire."

The FAA said it was investigating the fuel dump, noting that procedures call for fuel to be dumped over "designated unpopulated areas, typically at higher altitudes so the fuel atomizes and disperses before it reaches the ground.

Delta said the unexplained engine issue required the plane to "return quickly" to LAX.

"The aircraft landed safely after a release of fuel, which was required as part of normal procedure to reach a safe landing weight," Delta said.The airline said it was in touch with the airport and fire officials and expressed concern over "minor injuries" to adults and children.

The smell of jet fuel wafted through some neighborhoods.

Los Angeles Unified School Board Vice President Jackie Goldberg was "shocked and angered" at the fuel dump over the Park Avenue Elementary School playground in Cudahy and promised to closely monitor the investigation.

"I am sorry our school community had to go through this very scary incident today," Goldberg said.

Goelz was willing to give the pilots the benefit of the doubt, at least for now.

"Right off the bat, I would not be criticizing the crew until I have more information," he said. "It was not an easy call."

[Airbubba]

Yes, there would be two relief pilots type rated in the plane in the cockpit for takeoff and landing.

I should have said one relief pilot with a class 1 rest facility unless another pilot is mandated by the pilot contract. I remember years ago pre-bankruptcy United put an extra pilot on overwater routes 'to plot the course' per the collective bargaining agreement.

Everywhere I've been has the relief pilot in the cockpit for takeoff and landing. But I've seen some creative seat swaps and in one case the 'bunkie' went back almost as soon as the wheels were up. And I saw one crew from a base that didn't normally fly augmented never swap out of the pilot seats.

[cossack]

Back in 1988 at Gatwick, CO31, a B742, had a No 4 engine surge and loss of thrust at very close to MTOW on lift off and the FE immediately commenced fuel dumping. Aircraft pitched up to 22 degrees and descended towards rising ground before establishing a climb profile and reaching a safe height.
AAIB report:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422f68ae5274a1317000623/4-1989_N605PE.pdf

[UltraFan]

Goelz said that every pilot knows the story of Swissair Flight 111, a Geneva-bound MD-11 out of New York that plummeted into the Atlantic Ocean off Nova Scotia on Sept. 2, 1998. None of the 229 people aboard survived. The crew had called in an emergency but was flying away from an airport so it could dump fuel over water when it crashed.

"Pilots know that when you have a problem that threatens the aircraft and you have to get rid of fuel, you get rid of it fast," he said. "You don't want things like this (contamination) to happen, but the alternative is too dire."

Pardon my French, but this is pure BS. Swiss Air 111 has nothing to do with it. They went to dump fuel because they thought they have successfully choked the fire in the wiring that they thought they disconnected. This is very different. An engine stopped. LAX-PVG is an ETOPS flight. What would they do if the engine stopped over the Aleutians? Ditch it in the ocean to avoid "dire" alternatives?

PS I will give Mr.Goelz the benefit of the doubt, however, because whorenalists, especially from a well-established tabloid like USA Today, could have misquoted him "for drama purposes".

[turbidus]

This whole thing cracks me up! Kids getting "struck" by fuel mist...wow!


Pilots aware of school locations??? Pretty sure the crew was busy with other issues aside from what was under them...Whats next, schools on the obstacle list?


Dump fuel over unpopulated area in LA???? Good luck!


I remember the old days, when fuel was cheap, aircraft routinely dumped fuel on approach. I lived on the FP to Lindbergh Field and my car as always covered in oil.

[wiggy]

..EICAS has a visual display to alert you of the dump in progressive's and as i recall time remaining.


On the T7s I'm familiar with yes, you see "Time to remain" on the Fuel synoptic ....Now if, for example, you have used that synoptic on a screen to help set up dumping and then deselected it for whatever reason (perhaps having got dumping going you want to run the ECL on that same screen, use it look at another synoptic) then I think, off the top of my head, open to correction, etc.. the only remaining "uncancellable" indication on the EICAS that dumping was going on would be the fact that the fuel temp figure on the EICAS is now replaced by the "Fuel to remain" figure.....anyone confirm?

[pineridge]

From Wikpedia...

"United Airlines Flight 173 was a scheduled flight from John F. ... On December 28, 1978, the aircraft flying this route ran out of fuel while troubleshooting a landing gear problem and crashed in a suburban Portland neighborhood near NE 157th Avenue and East Burnside Street killing 10 people."

I believe that this was a DC8. It was dumping fuel and ran out on the way back to PDX

[b1lanc]

So, would the locals where you live be unconcerned if their elementary-age kids were doused with Jet A? Come on, folks, let's not get carried away with our prejudices.
Was referring to this statement: "And the environmental impact of unburned aerosol fossil fuel hydrocarbons versus a crater with molten aluminum and bio-waste will be explored by a California committee."

Locals everywhere would and should be concerned with their kids not only wearing but ingesting Jet A into their lungs!

[tttoon]

Dump fuel over unpopulated area in LA???? Good luck!



I think it's not too much to ask of them to know that there is a fairly large ocean to the southwest of LAX?

[Oilhead]

From Wikpedia...

"United Airlines Flight 173 was a scheduled flight from John F. ... On December 28, 1978, the aircraft flying this route ran out of fuel while troubleshooting a landing gear problem and crashed in a suburban Portland neighborhood near NE 157th Avenue and East Burnside Street killing 10 people."

I believe that this was a DC8. It was dumping fuel and ran out on the way back to PDX

Yes it was a DC-8. I do not think they were dumping; PDX was their destination airport, and they simply used up their approx. one hour of reserves while holding.

[DaveReidUK]

Yes it was a DC-8. I do not think they were dumping

Correct. It's not immediately obvious what relevance that accident has to the Delta incident.

NTSB Report (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR7907.pdf)

[canyonblue737]

Listening to the ATC tapes it is clear that ATC fully expected them to dump fuel and asked them about it, at least a couple of times. The crew responded there was no need and just asked for a downwind back to the airport. With the Pacific about 0.5 miles from the end of the runway and the failure having occurred over the water I think the lawyers will have a field day that with a secured engine they could have dumped out to sea OR if the PIC felt the emergency warranted no delay in landing they could have legally and safely landed over weight. Wish the crew the best but this seems weird.

[OldnGrounded]

I think it's not too much to ask of them to know that there is a fairly large ocean to the southwest of LAX?

Yeah, Santa Monica Bay is about half a mile from the fence. It's really hard to think of a sensible reason for dumping that fuel over neighborhoods full of people.

[OldnGrounded]

Was referring to this statement: "And the environmental impact of unburned aerosol fossil fuel hydrocarbons versus a crater with molten aluminum and bio-waste will be explored by a California committee."

Locals everywhere would and should be concerned with their kids not only wearing but ingesting Jet A into their lungs!

OK, I may have misread your post. As for the cited statement, the chances of this incident ending in a crater have seemed pretty remote from the first report.

[lcolman]

i understand that it my be frantic in the flight deck but can you really afford to be 'forgetting' with 250 people behind you

I think you have misunderstood my comment.

The point I was trying to make was that once they have reached task saturation, items that don't threaten the aircraft at that moment are easy to overlook.

The point is that I'm sure they were doing all they could to achieve a safe outcome for the aircraft and their passengers, but may have skipped a step in cancelling the fuel dump.

[2Planks]

Given the normal reaction on Pprune is,quite rightly, to support the pilots on board, I am quite surprised to see the hang 'em high brigade are out in force. They may well have made a mistake, but maybe the engine had another issue and maybe the other had a problem and thrust was reduced, so an immediate dump was appropriate. Let's wait for the detailed inquiry rather than feed the blood sucking lawyers that pervade US society.

I'm the long term I may be wrong in this case, but the first P in Pprune seems to be disappearing in favour of social media self glorification.

[OldnGrounded]

They may well have made a mistake, but maybe the engine had another issue and maybe the other had a problem and thrust was reduced, so an immediate dump was appropriate.

Maybe, but, if so, they don't seem to have shared that with ATC.

The latest from the L.A. Times:Listen: Radio call to LAX tower raises questions about jet fuel dump over school (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-15/radio-call-to-control-tower-raises-questions-about-why-jet-fuel-was-dumped-over-cudahy)

[ThreeIfByAir]

SLF here, but it's clear that (a) they were dumping and (b) they told ATC they didn't need to dump and weren't going to do it. So there's a conflict here that I can't quite figure out -- why would they commence dumping without telling ATC about it?

Is there some kind of auto-dump that happens on the 777 when the crew tells it they're planning on an overweight landing? Is there some imaginable software misfeature that turns on dumping automatically?

I assume the FDR will have been pulled, and that will presumably tell the FAA something, but I can't quite get my brain around how this happened.

[Geosync]

Listening to the ATC tapes it is clear that ATC fully expected them to dump fuel and asked them about it, at least a couple of times. The crew responded there was no need and just asked for a downwind back to the airport. With the Pacific about 0.5 miles from the end of the runway and the failure having occurred over the water I think the lawyers will have a field day that with a secured engine they could have dumped out to sea OR if the PIC felt the emergency warranted no delay in landing they could have legally and safely landed over weight. Wish the crew the best but this seems weird.
This. As one in the aviation claims biz in the U.S., this is an easy case to make for any local lawyer to make against Delta. And there are plenty of aviation law firms with attorneys who are ex-pilots of all types that could bring fairly reasonable expertise to this one. The crew will be fine, legally, but Delta will most likely pay out early to prevent protracted lawsuits. In these cases, it's pay a little now, or pay more later. Not to mention, LA County is a favorable venue for plaintiffs to file a lawsuit. Innocent little kids vs. the big bad airline. Welcome to litigious America, ain't it grand?

[tdracer]

The crew responded there was no need and just asked for a downwind back to the airport. With the Pacific about 0.5 miles from the end of the runway and the failure having occurred over the water I think the lawyers will have a field day that with a secured engine they could have dumped out to sea OR if the PIC felt the emergency warranted no delay in landing they could have legally and safely landed over weight.

Which way was the wind blowing (during the day it's nearly always out of the west around there)? Sure, the Pacific is just off the west end of the runway, but if landing well above max landing weight I sure wouldn't want a tail wind component while landing.
There is a cert requirement called 'Return to Land' - basically it says it needs to be possible to turn around and land at the departure airport - even at Max TOW - almost immediately after takeoff is there is a major emergency (uncontrollable engine fire being the classic example). BUT, to successfully perform a MTOW Return to Land, you want everything going your way - pilots on their 'A' game, good weather and runway conditions, etc.

[canyonblue737]

Which way was the wind blowing (during the day it's nearly always out of the west around there)? Sure, the Pacific is just off the west end of the runway, but if landing well above max landing weight I sure wouldn't want a tail wind component while landing.
There is a cert requirement called 'Return to Land' - basically it says it needs to be possible to turn around and land at the departure airport - even at Max TOW - almost immediately after takeoff is there is a major emergency (uncontrollable engine fire being the classic example). BUT, to successfully perform a MTOW Return to Land, you want everything going your way - pilots on their 'A' game, good weather and runway conditions, etc.

who is talking about landing with a tailwind east? not me. again I stick to the point, you have two options I see... stay west of the airport by just a few miles and dump over the ocean because you’ve secured an engine that was just experiencing a simple compressor stall (which was the plan ATC was clearly expecting from the crew as it is not uncommon out of LAX in these situations) OR if the PIC wants to land right away you do what they did which is enter a normal pattern to land on the same west bound direction they took off from overweight, but don’t dump on the kiddies. It was good VFR and landing overweight with a secured engine doesn’t require special A game ability as you put it... I’ve done it personally and it’s just another landing, just with a write up and inspection at the end of it.

[Savage175]

The general rule (barring any complex emergency) is that if you can takeoff on a runway in a jet, you can land back there.

The next generalization is that a 'standard' engine failure in a twin is considered a Land ASAP failure. That is, it is preferable to land as soon as possible overweight, rather than delay the landing for procedures such as fuel jettison (fuel jettison rates are around 2-3 tonnes per minute, so a 50-60 tonne jettison delays landing by 20-30 minutes). Additionally, most modern jettison systems are set and forget (almost). You set the final weight and the jettison occurs automatically until you reach that weight.

Jettison is normally only used when there is a flight time to the nearest airport in excess of the jettison time, or in the case of a technical (non emergency) problem (eg gear/ flap fails to retract on takeoff).

So, knowing nothing of the problem the crew were experiencing, I would say that at the very least it was an extremely odd decision to jettison fuel in the manner and location that has been reported. Will be very interested to read the report.

[tiger9999187]

Some nice high quality footage here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QurhDod9B1U&feature=emb_title&fbclid=IwAR2-TY2w-o7ymxKdr4RTJOVpu22-up5uXOevsvbRuv31x62TSxS7c-uGstg

[OldnGrounded]

Some nice high quality footage here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QurhDod9B1U&feature=emb_title&fbclid=IwAR2-TY2w-o7ymxKdr4RTJOVpu22-up5uXOevsvbRuv31x62TSxS7c-uGstg

Yeah, I saw this yesterday. The flight just happened to overfly a freelance photographer/videographer. Think of that footage as "Plaintiff's Exhibit 'A'."

[Spooky 2]

Listening to the ATC tapes it is clear that ATC fully expected them to dump fuel and asked them about it, at least a couple of times. The crew responded there was no need and just asked for a downwind back to the airport. With the Pacific about 0.5 miles from the end of the runway and the failure having occurred over the water I think the lawyers will have a field day that with a secured engine they could have dumped out to sea OR if the PIC felt the emergency warranted no delay in landing they could have legally and safely landed over weight. Wish the crew the best but this seems weird.


How many times have you dumped fuel in that 737????

[tdracer]

who is talking about landing with a tailwind east? not me. again I stick to the point, you have two options I see... stay west of the airport by just a few miles and dump over the ocean because you’ve secured an engine that was just experiencing a simple compressor stall (which was the plan ATC was clearly expecting from the crew as it is not uncommon out of LAX in these situations) OR if the PIC wants to land right away you do what they did which is enter a normal pattern to land on the same west bound direction they took off from overweight, but don’t dump on the kiddies. It was good VFR and landing overweight with a secured engine doesn’t require special A game ability as you put it... I’ve done it personally and it’s just another landing, just with a write up and inspection at the end of it.

As others have noted, I think it's probable that the crew temporarily forgot they were dumping and failed to stop before they turned back over LA. As for an overweight landing, there is a big difference between being 10,000 lbs. heavy and 100,000 lbs. heavy. Given their planned destination, 100k lbs. heavy was likely when they had their engine problem.

[Airbubba]

I remember the old days, when fuel was cheap, aircraft routinely dumped fuel on approach. I lived on the FP to Lindbergh Field and my car as always covered in oil.

When was this? I'm not aware of a time when aircraft routinely dumped fuel on approach. Half a century ago blue ice did sometimes rain down from 727's with faulty drain mast heaters though. Did it taste like oil? ;)

Attached to this post are a couple of edited clips on freqs 124.9 and 127.85 that VASAviation was unable to locate according to their video linked above. They are in .zip format and will open on a computer but not on most phones and tablets. Not much new but they did check in as an 'emergency aircraft' although I didn't hear them explicitly declare an emergency and recite the MAYDAY's. In recent years I've been told to declare an emergency so the feds don't get you later for not checking the airport weather when it's clear and a million or landing without figuring some second segment climb gradient corrected for pressure altitude.

And in all of these ATC clips no mention that I've heard of doing a fuel dump or the engine actually failing, just compressor stalls and 'nothing critical'.

Which way was the wind blowing (during the day it's nearly always out of the west around there)?

Tower winds in one of these clips given as 240 degrees at 7 knots.

[slacktide]

Some nice high quality footage here

Appears to have been filmed from the parking lot of "A&T Burgers #2", approximately half the distance to the 25R threshold as the Park Avenue elementary school in Cudahy.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/A%26T+Burgers+%232+-+Breakfast,+Lunch+and+Dinner/@33.9673146,-118.3398682,12.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x3905aa844b1c1669!8m2!3d33.9509808!4d-118.2654758?hl=en-US

[OldnGrounded]

Appears to have been filmed from the parking lot of "A&T Burgers #2", approximately half the distance to the 25R threshold as the Park Avenue elementary school in Cudahy.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/A%26T+Burgers+%232+-+Breakfast,+Lunch+and+Dinner/@33.9673146,-118.3398682,12.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x3905aa844b1c1669!8m2!3d33.9509808!4d-118.2654758?hl=en-US

I've missed it, perhaps, but do we know when they stopped dumping, if they did? That location is -- what? -- 7-8 statute miles from the runway?

[canyonblue737]

How many times have you dumped fuel in that 737????

0 and you know why. That doesn’t mean I don’t understand the thought processes behind choosing to dump fuel vs an immediate return and landing overweight in a 2 engine aircraft that has lost an engine... are you implying it is trained that with a secured engine it’s ok to dump fuel below 2800 ft AGL? I’d see dumping over the ocean for 20 minutes single engine (although probably not what the QRH says in a 777 so hands are probably tied there) or just returning and doing the overweight landing (which I HAVE done) and just writing it up for the inspection, after all they are likely going to be changing an engine anyway... the plane isn’t going anywhere.

[Havingwings4ever]

'Dump valves close automatically upon main strut compression'
Surprised all the hotels on Sepulveda and Century blvd haven't complained...

[Winemaker]

0 and you know why. That doesn’t mean I don’t understand the thought processes behind choosing to dump fuel vs an immediate return and landing overweight in a 2 engine aircraft that has lost an engine... are you implying it is trained that with a secured engine it’s ok to dump fuel below 2800 ft AGL? I’d see dumping over the ocean for 20 minutes single engine (although probably not what the QRH says in a 777 so hands are probably tied there) or just returning and doing the overweight landing (which I HAVE done) and just writing it up for the inspection, after all they are likely going to be changing an engine anyway... the plane isn’t going anywhere.
Even I, SLF, know the answer to this one. So why build some that can and some that can't?

[n6330v]

Some nice high quality footage here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QurhDod9B1U&feature=emb_title&fbclid=IwAR2-TY2w-o7ymxKdr4RTJOVpu22-up5uXOevsvbRuv31x62TSxS7c-uGstg

I wonder if Delta had this in mind when they painted their logo big and bright on the belly. :D

[slacktide]

I've missed it, perhaps, but do we know when they stopped dumping, if they did? That location is -- what? -- 7-8 statute miles from the runway?

On the video the dumping continues for at least 30 seconds after it passes directly overhead. I can't tell if the dumping stops after that or if it just becomes too faint to see due to the distance. Also, here's a tweet from a guy who says he observed the dumping while he was hiking in Griffith Park, so it appears the Hollywood Hills got a little sprinkle from the tinkle as well. https://twitter.com/PERRYMICHAELR/status/1217236096410456064

[Spooky 2]

0 and you know why. That doesn’t mean I don’t understand the thought processes behind choosing to dump fuel vs an immediate return and landing overweight in a 2 engine aircraft that has lost an engine... are you implying it is trained that with a secured engine it’s ok to dump fuel below 2800 ft AGL? I’d see dumping over the ocean for 20 minutes single engine (although probably not what the QRH says in a 777 so hands are probably tied there) or just returning and doing the overweight landing (which I HAVE done) and just writing it up for the inspection, after all they are likely going to be changing an engine anyway... the plane isn’t going anywhere.


I don't think you understand at all. If you need to dump it is desirabl, if it can be done, to be at or above 4000AGL, but I don't believe there any regulation that requires any altitude should the need arise. The 777 has a pretty sophisticated fuel dump sytem to cover many of the nuances discussed in this thread so far. in addition there should have been 4 pilots on the flight deck st this point in time.

[Propellerhead]

Unless a greater emergency occurred which prevented them either landing safely overweight or discontinuing the approach then this should not have happened. If you can accelerate to V1 and stop on a runway then you can land overweight on it. Ideally if you have time you go and dump fuel over the sea or above 10000ft, which also gives you time to plan a single engine approach. If you must land immediately then you can safely do so having actioned the overweight landing checklist which determines flap setting to ensure adequate go-around performance. If you land overweight then it requires an overweight maintenance check but as the aircraft had a faulty engine then not going to cause any delays to getting it back in service!

Spending more time problem solving rather than rushing into an approach would have prevented this (unless getting on the ground immediately was imperative).

The min height to jettison fuel to ensure it evaporates before hitting the ground is 7000ft in winter and 4000ft in summer.

[Lord Farringdon]

Ex Non-pilot aircrew here.

I have experienced compressor stalls on B727 climb outs after which our erstwhile flight engineer would explain this away as being attributed to the fuselage creating a shadow during high angle climb outs. It certainly felt like we launching a rocket at times from some short fields and this was then sometimes followed by a 'boom boom' in quick succession.Indications on the flight deck always found No 2 was the culprit.

But what causes a compressor to stall on a T7? Is it a function of heavy TO weight and high alpha on climb out and if so, would not both engines suffer in that case? Or is it related to steep climbing turns where the engine turning in might suffer some airflow shadow affect?

[flynerd]

I don't think you understand at all. If you need to dump it is desirabl, if it can be done, to be at or above 4000AGL, but I don't believe there any regulation that requires any altitude should the need arise. The 777 has a pretty sophisticated fuel dump sytem to cover many of the nuances discussed in this thread so far. in addition there should have been 4 pilots on the flight deck st this point in time.

Initially the crew in comms with ATC said no to the fuel dumping. Then at some stage my guess is that one or two of the jump seaters "helped out" by initiating the fuel dump. From my viewing of the video from the burger joint, dumping ceased as they got closer to LAX. Seems port dump valve closed earlier than the starboard valve. Anyhow, the report clarify for all.

[blind pew]

Ex Non-pilot aircrew here.

I have experienced compressor stalls on B727 climb outs after which our erstwhile flight engineer would explain this away as being attributed to the fuselage creating a shadow during high angle climb outs. It certainly felt like we launching a rocket at times from some short fields and this was then sometimes followed by a 'boom boom' in quick succession.Indications on the flight deck always found No 2 was the culprit.

But what causes a compressor to stall on a T7? Is it a function of heavy TO weight and high alpha on climb out and if so, would not both engines suffer in that case? Or is it related to steep climbing turns where the engine turning in might suffer some airflow shadow affect?
Wear/damage/Fedec fault/ bird ingestion.

[wiggy]

Is there some kind of auto-dump that happens on the 777 when the crew tells it they're planning on an overweight landing? Is there some imaginable software misfeature that turns on dumping automatically?.

No, there is no "auto-dump", The crew need to positively arm the dump system and then open the jettison nozzles to get the process started. The only obviously "automated" feature is one previously mentioned - if the crew don't intervene any further the system automatically defaults to stopping the dumping when the aircraft gets down to Maximum landing weight. The crew can choose to override that figure.

Never heard of dumping starting automatically...

[malanda]

I've missed it, perhaps, but do we know when they stopped dumping, if they did? That location is -- what? -- 7-8 statute miles from the runway?
From the video looks like the left valve stops dumping at 0:35, and the right at 0:38. (And as reference, I reckon the plane passes directly overhead the camera at 0:12). I'll leave you to work out where it was when it stopped dumping.

[.Scott]

The type of engine noises being described are consistent with fuel contamination. So, in my mind, there is already sufficient cause to consider the situation urgent.
Clearly the pilot should have dumped when he was at a higher altitude, but given that he didn't, dumping low seems reasonable - else he could have found himself landing heavy with engines out.

[OldnGrounded]

From the video looks like the left valve stops dumping at 0:35, and the right at 0:38. (And as reference, I reckon the plane passes directly overhead the camera at 0:12). I'll leave you to work out where it was when it stopped dumping.

Thanks, it does look like that. It will be interesting to learn whether it stopped because max weight was reached -- in which case they must have dumped a lot of fuel -- or because someone upfront finally noticed.

[Dilbert68]

Dump fuel over unpopulated area in LA???? Good luck!


Pacific Ocean just west of the airport is pretty unpopulated from what I can tell, no luck required, just a heading of 270.

[lomapaseo]

Pacific Ocean just west of the airport is pretty unpopulated from what I can tell, no luck required, just a heading of 270.

but if there was no need in the pilots mind at that time hence a circuit to the east and the surprise to us all on the ground when the fuel dumped after they turned back from the east of the field ?

Seems like by now the pilots have been debriefed and the Feds at least must know what really happened in the cockpit

[DaveReidUK]

It will be interesting to learn whether it stopped because max weight was reached -- in which case they must have dumped a lot of fuel -- or because someone upfront finally noticed.

If it's any help in answering that question, total time from wheels-off to wheels-on was a tad under 25 minutes.

[wiggy]

FWIW as a very rough ballpark/back of the envelope figure you can work on dumping at 2 tonnes a minute (it’s a different rate Centre tank vs. Wings but 2/min will do as a first approximation)..

Now all we need is to continue the Monday A.M quarterbacking is the Take off weight and the Zero Fuel Weight.....:bored:

[Spooky 2]

Pacific Ocean just west of the airport is pretty unpopulated from what I can tell, no luck required, just a heading of 270.


A 270 heading would put just about over Malibu and the homes of the rich and famous. Oh the horrors that would ensue. A 250 heading would work better IMO,

[Professional Amateur]

The crew now has a great TMAT story to tell for their next regional airline interview.

[Airbubba]

FWIW as a very rough ballpark/back of the envelope figure you can work on dumping at 2 tonnes a minute (it’s a different rate Centre tank vs. Wings but 2/min will do as a first approximation)..

Now all we need is to continue the Monday A.M quarterbacking is the Take off weight and the Zero Fuel Weight.....:bored:

And just remember, these Deltoids don't know anything about tonnes or tons, it's all in thousands of pounds with the decimal sometimes there, sometimes not on the paperwork which in turn is on a tablet these days.

An old B-772 FCOM gives these numbers in pounds:

One Or More Tank Quantity Indications Blank:

Determine jettison time using the following rates:

• Fuel in center tank: 5400 lbs./minute
• Center tank empty: 3100 lbs./minute


While being vectored Delta 89 gave the fuel as 209.8. And they gave an approach speed of 157 knots which might be a clue to the landing weight.

[airtractor]

This a bit of the bad habits pilots "learn" in the simulator and bring back to the line:
-We tend to rush things in the sim and any malfunction after take-off is a "come back and land" without much thinking involved.
In this scenario, time was never critical, time was never and issue, they could have gained some altitude, go over the water and hold somewhere, run all the abnormal checklist they needed, talk to operation, brief the cabin thoroughly, decide to dump or not to dump fuel and then land somewhere.
on top of that, I am always surprised why as professional we don't use the proper phraseology to declare an emergency and get everybody's attention.

[wiggy]

And just remember, these Deltoids don't know anything about tonnes or tons, it's all in thousands of pounds with the decimal sometimes there, sometimes not on the paperwork which in turn is on a tablet these days.


Ah yes, thanks for the reminder:ok:

[pineridge]

Dave Reid said..." It's not immediately obvious what relevance that accident has to the Delta incident."

Now why on earth would you write something as supercilious as that?

[4runner]

I assure you that most “deltoids” are capable of dividing by 2.2. I’ve got Boeing weights memorized in pounds and kilos. I’ll say this again, but if more than half the aircraft in the world are US registered, maybe pounds should be the standardized unit of weight in aviation. Sorry that QFE didn’t catch on, along with meters per second.

[FrequentSLF]

I assure you that most “deltoids” are capable of dividing by 2.2. I’ve got Boeing weights memorized in pounds and kilos. I’ll say this again, but if more than half the aircraft in the world are US registered, maybe pounds should be the standardized unit of weight in aviation. Sorry that QFE didn’t catch on, along with meters per second.
And when China will have more registrations of US the standard should multiples of 10,000 or if India gets there Lacks and Krores should be used

[Airbubba]

And when China will have more registrations of US the standard should multiples of 10,000 or if India gets there Lacks and Krores should be used

Uh, I think you mean lakhs and crores. ;)

[4runner]

Unless a greater emergency occurred which prevented them either landing safely overweight or discontinuing the approach then this should not have happened. If you can accelerate to V1 and stop on a runway then you can land overweight on it. Ideally if you have time you go and dump fuel over the sea or above 10000ft, which also gives you time to plan a single engine approach. If you must land immediately then you can safely do so having actioned the overweight landing checklist which determines flap setting to ensure adequate go-around performance. If you land overweight then it requires an overweight maintenance check but as the aircraft had a faulty engine then not going to cause any delays to getting it back in service!

Spending more time problem solving rather than rushing into an approach would have prevented this (unless getting on the ground immediately was imperative).

The min height to jettison fuel to ensure it evaporates before hitting the ground is 7000ft in winter and 4000ft in summer.

there’s no min for dumping. If you’re having an issue that requires it, pretty good chance that you don’t give a damn about regs either. Thanks for the sage wisdom though. We’ll take your input on the debrief and next simulator scenarios for next years cycle of training.

[Locked door]

And I would put money on the fact that there was no issue that required immediate low level dumping.

All the evidence points to a crew that rushed into an approach and dumped at an inappropriately low level. Unless they had evidence of an impending problem with the remaining engine there was no need to hurry.

Rather like the Iran shoot down, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

LD

[Spooky 2]

Agree with the simulator assessment, but the way to works is there is just so much time to get all the "required
maneuvers" completed in the allotted time and in this case an immediate return was pre-ordained into the process.

[DaveReidUK]

there’s no min for dumping

He didn't say there was. He said there is a minimum height below which - if you choose to dump - you should expect at least some of it to reach the surface. That's all.

[cappt]

If you rush back in 20 minutes your still legal to launch in a spare, should of burned off a couple hours and then gone home or to the hotel, poor time management!

[OldnGrounded]

Uh, I think you mean lakhs and crores. ;)

Yup, but those are counting numbers. I'm not sure what weight measure would be appropriate. Maybe the seer -- 1.25 kg?

[tdracer]

Ex Non-pilot aircrew here.

I have experienced compressor stalls on B727 climb outs after which our erstwhile flight engineer would explain this away as being attributed to the fuselage creating a shadow during high angle climb outs. It certainly felt like we launching a rocket at times from some short fields and this was then sometimes followed by a 'boom boom' in quick succession.Indications on the flight deck always found No 2 was the culprit.

But what causes a compressor to stall on a T7? Is it a function of heavy TO weight and high alpha on climb out and if so, would not both engines suffer in that case? Or is it related to steep climbing turns where the engine turning in might suffer some airflow shadow affect?

The center engine on the 727 was rather notorious for surging/stalling (the only time I've ever experienced a surge on a commercial flight was on a 727 during takeoff). It was the combination of the center "S" duct and an engine (JT8D) that wasn't very tolerant to inlet distortion. It didn't take much to make that "S" duct inlet separate, and once it did the JT8D would almost invariably surge. The good news was that the JT8D was a robust engine and a surge would seldom do damage. It used to be that Pratt engines surged all the time (the JT9D was at least as bad as the JT8D), but it rarely did damage, while GE engines almost never surged, but if it did it, you had to throw it away and install a new one (insert GE light-bulb joke here :E). Inlet separation at high angles of attack used to be a big issue resulting an a surge or stall, particularly with Pratt engines. But those days are pretty much behind us.
Now days, inlet and engine designed has improved to the point that an engine surge is nearly always the result of some sort of engine or engine control problem or fault.
I don't know if this Delta crew had any reason to suspect fuel contamination as a potential cause, but if they did that would a good reason to want to land ASAP.

[Banana4321]

If you rush back in 20 minutes your still legal to launch in a spare, should of burned off a couple hours and then gone home or to the hotel, poor time management!
Now ain't that the truth LOL

[Pearly White]

The center engine on the 727 was rather notorious for surging/stalling (the only time I've ever experienced a surge on a commercial flight was on a 727 during takeoff). It was the combination of the center "S" duct and an engine (JT8D) that wasn't very tolerant to inlet distortion. It didn't take much to make that "S" duct inlet separate, and once it did the JT8D would almost invariably surge. The good news was that the JT8D was a robust engine and a surge would seldom do damage. It used to be that Pratt engines surged all the time (the JT9D was at least as bad as the JT8D), but it rarely did damage, while GE engines almost never surged, but if it did it, you had to throw it away and install a new one (insert GE light-bulb joke here :E). Inlet separation at high angles of attack used to be a big issue resulting an a surge or stall, particularly with Pratt engines. But those days are pretty much behind us.
Now days, inlet and engine designed has improved to the point that an engine surge is nearly always the result of some sort of engine or engine control problem or fault.
I don't know if this Delta crew had any reason to suspect fuel contamination as a potential cause, but if they did that would a good reason to want to land ASAP.
Seems that they were in sufficient hurry so as not to trouble ATC with any of the finer details, e.g. decision to dump, according to Aviation Week. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/faa-delta-pilots-failed-notify-atc-los-angeles-fuel-dump

[OldnGrounded]

If you rush back in 20 minutes your still legal to launch in a spare, should of burned off a couple hours and then gone home or to the hotel, poor time management!

Ha! 567890

[bud leon]

but if there was no need in the pilots mind at that time hence a circuit to the east and the surprise to us all on the ground when the fuel dumped after they turned back from the east of the field ?

Seems like by now the pilots have been debriefed and the Feds at least must know what really happened in the cockpit

I interpret the conversation as the pilot saying no need to hold to dump, not necessarily no need to dump.

[Propellerhead]

Anyone know how many pax? Could then work out roughly how heavy they were and how much dumping would have been needed to get below MLW.

Out of interest, did they shut the engine down or leave it running at lower thrust setting that was surge and stall free?

An approach speed of 157 (Vref 152) is only just above MLW for F20. Doesn’t seem right if they had 95T of fuel - they must have been empty for that to tie up.

[Chris2303]

If I might sound a note of realism here....

The only people who actually know what was going on were those on the flight deck yet we have 160 posts pontificating...

[Twitter]

If I might sound a note of realism here....

The only people who actually know what was going on were those on the flight deck yet we have 160 posts pontificating...

Less than a third of the160 were pontificating.

As regards the crew actions, I am sure the cvr cb will have been pulled...

[rattman]

Anyone know how many pax? Could then work out roughly how heavy they were and how much dumping would have been needed to get below MLW.


181 when asked how many souls on board.

[DaveReidUK]

As an aside, it's interesting to note that while all 777s were built with fuel dump capability, as were many 767s, it was never an FAR requirement on either type.

[retired guy]

At what point would the crew get a (further) EICAS reminder that they were still dumping - is it possible to empty the wing tanks completely and not notice?

Hi
you can’t dump to empty tanks. There are standpipes in the fuel tanks. I think dumping is limited to about an hour endurance, say 10 tones 747
dumping is carried out using a checklist which concludes with DUMP VALVES OFF. No reminder needed. You don’t start final approach with dumping in progress. The school was 10 miles from touchdown/3000 feet
It’s a disciplined easily accomplished drill using teamwork and training. Luck doesn’t come into it.
Or that’s how it should be. LA? We shall see!! Good lawyers required in my opinion.!
R Guy

[retired guy]

181 when asked how many souls on board.
His Rattman
The number of passengers is nearly irrevant. They weigh so little compared to the big picture
747 MTOW 400 TONNES
MAX FUEL 180 TONNES
PASSENGERS/BAG 400 @ 100 KG = 40 TONNES
EMPTY WEIGHT 180 TONNES. = NO FUEL NO PASSENGERS
MAX LANDING WEIGHT (NORMALLY). 290 TONNES.

SO GET AIRBORNE AT 400 TONNES YOU NEED TO DUMP BACK TO 290 TONNES (PLANE WILL LAND WITH ITS OWN WEIGHT 180T + 40 T PASSENGERS + UP TO 50 T OF FUEL.
DUMPING THAT 110 TONNES. OF FUEL AT 2 TONNES PER MINUTE WOULD TAKE NEARLY AN HOUR.
But, and this is the point here, you can land at Max TOW (actually about 390 tonnes because you would burn ten tonnes on takeoff and circuit) if there is a serious emergency that does not permit fuel dumping (say fire) or due to serious damage which suggests getting back on the ground asap.
There is no commercial imperative to save money by not dumping
Cheers
RG

[wiggy]

you can’t dump to empty tanks. There are standpipes in the fuel tanks. I think dumping is limited to about an hour endurance,

Standpipe levels have come up before - just for some precision this from a current FCOM.

777-200 .."At least 5200 kilograms of fuel remains in each main tank after jettison is complete."

777-300 .." At least 3800 kilograms of fuel remain in each tank after jettison is complete..."

[NWA SLF]

Despite all the discussion, the 777-200ER remains allowable to land at maximum takeoff weight and if set down at 360 fr/min or less, specifies a 4 hour overweight inspection. This can change if there is an icy runway and that was not the case. It still should stop in 6,000 feet and they had 12,000 feet. Did they dump because one ATC gave them a shorter runway and they realized that without their runway selected runway stopping was going to be a problem? Turning back with a plan suddenly altered by an ATC refusing the runway requested causing immediate action? ATC error resulting in crew overload and with time to land on a suddenly shorter runway created cockpit caos?

[DaveReidUK]

if there is a serious emergency that does not permit fuel dumping (say fire)

During certification, manufacturers are required to demonstrate that dumped fuel cannot impinge on the aircraft structure in any flight conditions, so there is no inherent danger in dumping fuel with an in-flight fire.

That said, with a fire on board, the time used flying around dumping fuel might be more prudently spent in getting the aeroplane on the ground ASAP instead. :O

[ThreeIfByAir]

Did they dump because one ATC gave them a shorter runway and they realized that without their runway selected runway stopping was going to be a problem? Turning back with a plan suddenly altered by an ATC refusing the runway requested causing immediate action? ATC error resulting in crew overload and with time to land on a suddenly shorter runway created cockpit caos?

We actually do know the answer to this if you listen to the ATC tapes. They asked for 25R because it was the longest. Approach tried to get them to 24R and they said no -- at which point ATC agreed and they went to 25R. And all that happened in about thirty seconds while they were at 8000 feet.

[retired guy]

During certification, manufacturers are required to demonstrate that dumped fuel cannot impinge on the aircraft structure in any flight conditions, so there is no inherent danger in dumping fuel with an in-flight fire.

That said, with a fire on board, the time used flying around dumping fuel might be more prudently spent in getting the aeroplane on the ground ASAP instead. :O

Indeed Dave they do which is why the dump chutes are at the wingtips as shown in that 777 video at LAX. That said I agree with you that getting the thing back on the ground with a fire is a really good idea.
Whiskey Echo 707 1968 LHR (Google it folks) was back on the ground in less than ten minutes I think from start to finish and had that not happened nobody would have survived. Yes there are arguments that the Fire Drill was incorrectly actioned which led to the fire..............etc. But Taylor knew that the only thing you need to land a plane is the wheels down and some flap if you have it. And VRef of about 160 which covers any situation. Nothing else at all. No FMC, Not performance data computers. No moving maps. Just look out of the window and land it pdq.
Having observed training over several years recently I have been amazed at the lack of urgency with getting back on terra firms after a severe failure. So on one engine, which has effectively blown up and now been 'secured' via the Engine Fire and Severe Failure checklist, it can take anything from 20 minutes, to over an hour to "work the checklists".
Not sure how it was in your day but that seems a long time flying around on one engine with an engine that has been burning.
Cheers and thanks
R Guy

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/387x258/g_arwe_2_351d55e90ee978d1a1213d7556781b434d3734a6.jpg

[retired guy]

Despite all the discussion, the 777-200ER remains allowable to land at maximum takeoff weight and if set down at 360 fr/min or less, specifies a 4 hour overweight inspection. This can change if there is an icy runway and that was not the case. It still should stop in 6,000 feet and they had 12,000 feet. Did they dump because one ATC gave them a shorter runway and they realized that without their runway selected runway stopping was going to be a problem? Turning back with a plan suddenly altered by an ATC refusing the runway requested causing immediate action? ATC error resulting in crew overload and with time to land on a suddenly shorter runway created cockpit caos?

Hi NWA
I am not following this too well but then that's probably me being a slow learner.
What has ATC got to do with crew actions? The Captain tells ATC what is going to happen, Not the other way around. In an emergency even more. ATC are there to facilitate. A daily example is Captain to First Officer:- " request ATC to go around that severe thunderstorm five miles ahead. "! Hear it all the time.
When I was a bit younger when Pontius was still a pilate, sorry pilot, we would say "Hi there ATC, we are going to deviate right or left around a CB - which is your preference". And they would give you a steer. Another thing one sees in any recent Air Crash investigation programmes, is the constant asking ATC or even "base control" for assistance in emergencies. ATC can do very little to assist apart from keep you away from other traffic, or more accurately keep them away from you. It is just that I don't understand your point about ATC "giving them a runway". Or "plan altered by ATC". Am I missing something here please. I do all the time so apologies.
R Guy

[4runner]

And when China will have more registrations of US the standard should multiples of 10,000 or if India gets there Lacks and Krores should be used

lahks and crores are money, not weights. As soon as India and The PRC become the GA hotspots that the US is, we shall see. Let’s see if oil starts trading in yuan or rupees too.

[Onceapilot]

Indeed Dave they do which is why the dump chutes are at the wingtips as shown in that 777 video at LAX.

The dump masts are not at the wingtips.

OAP

[Gauges and Dials]

lahks and crores are money, not weights.

Aren't lakhs and crores just numbers? Equally usable to refer to money, weights, population of cities, etc?

[Bergerie1]

What R Guy has to say about getting it back on the ground ASAP is very sound advice indeed. Of course there are checklists and SOPs that must be followed. And even for the most severe emergencies, there is usually time for a careful analysis, as was done by the QANTAS crew before landing their A380 at Singapore. But there are also times when the SOPs may no longer be appropriate. And it is on those very rare occasions that crews really earn their salaries.

There can even come a time when the only option may be to 'throw the checklist out of the window' and just stuff it on the ground. I would not normally advocate such an extreme measure, but it worth thinking about.

Have any of the readers of this post ever been in the situation where there is a fire on board? Or when the wing is burning as it was in that 'WE' event? Have any of you stopped to consider what are the absolute minimum actions in such a case? It is worth contemplating that possibility and having at the back of your minds exactly what are the minimum essential items on the type you fly that must be carried out to ensure a safe landing.

You never know, it may come in useful one day.

[lomapaseo]

Indeed Dave they do which is why the dump chutes are at the wingtips as shown in that 777 video at LAX. That said I agree with you that getting the thing back on the ground with a fire is a really good idea.
Whiskey Echo 707 1968 LHR (Google it folks) was back on the ground in less than ten minutes I think from start to finish and had that not happened nobody would have survived. Yes there are arguments that the Fire Drill was incorrectly actioned which led to the fire..............etc. But Taylor knew that the only thing you need to land a plane is the wheels down and some flap if you have it. And VRef of about 160 which covers any situation. Nothing else at all. No FMC, Not performance data computers. No moving maps. Just look out of the window and land it pdq.
Having observed training over several years recently I have been amazed at the lack of urgency with getting back on terra firms after a severe failure. So on one engine, which has effectively blown up and now been 'secured' via the Engine Fire and Severe Failure checklist, it can take anything from 20 minutes, to over an hour to "work the checklists".
Not sure how it was in your day but that seems a long time flying around on one engine with an engine that has been burning.
Cheers and thanks
R Guy

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/387x258/g_arwe_2_351d55e90ee978d1a1213d7556781b434d3734a6.jpg
Throwing unrelated data into this thread does not support your opinions.

We need to stick to the facts in this incident and not historical what-ifs

[4runner]

Hi NWA
I am not following this too well but then that's probably me being a slow learner.
What has ATC got to do with crew actions? The Captain tells ATC what is going to happen, Not the other way around. In an emergency even more. ATC are there to facilitate. A daily example is Captain to First Officer:- " request ATC to go around that severe thunderstorm five miles ahead. "! Hear it all the time.
When I was a bit younger when Pontius was still a pilate, sorry pilot, we would say "Hi there ATC, we are going to deviate right or left around a CB - which is your preference". And they would give you a steer. Another thing one sees in any recent Air Crash investigation programmes, is the constant asking ATC or even "base control" for assistance in emergencies. ATC can do very little to assist apart from keep you away from other traffic, or more accurately keep them away from you. It is just that I don't understand your point about ATC "giving them a runway". Or "plan altered by ATC". Am I missing something here please. I do all the time so apologies.
R Guy

boom. What this guy says. My Man.

[OldnGrounded]

Aren't lakhs and crores just numbers? Equally usable to refer to money, weights, population of cities, etc?

Yes, they are numbers. One lakh = 100,000 and one crore = 10,000,000.

[retired guy]

The dump masts are not at the wingtips.

OAP
I am not being picky Onceapilot but they are pretty close!


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/675x397/777_62200ccd5f1869add9d59b2ef27f556875d71e1d.png

[Spooky 2]

Seems that they were in sufficient hurry so as not to trouble ATC with any of the finer details, e.g. decision to dump, according to Aviation Week. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/faa-delta-pilots-failed-notify-atc-los-angeles-fuel-dump

I would't put to much credence in this guys reporting. Glendale is a long way from LAX and had they been dumping from there to the airport we would have herd a lot more about this than we have. I believe ATC asked the if they needed to hold and dump to which they replied, no. They did not need to HOLD and dump. Don't believe there is any requirement to notify anyone when your going to dump fuel, Probably a good idea, but not a requirement..

[Catwalk Dweller]

Spooky 2,

"Don't believe there is any requirement to notify anyone when your going to dump fuel, Probably a good idea, but not a requirement.."

Para. 6-3-5. of the FAA's Airman's Information Manual:

Fuel Dumping

Should it become necessary to dump fuel, the pilot should immediately advise ATC. Upon receipt of information that an aircraft will dump fuel, ATC will broadcast or cause to be broadcast immediately and every 3 minutes thereafter the following on appropriate ATC and FSS radio frequencies:

EXAMPLE-

Attention all aircraft - fuel dumping in progress over - (location) at (altitude) by (type aircraft) (flight direction).


Upon receipt of such a broadcast, pilots of aircraft affected, which are not on IFR flight plans or special VFR clearances, should clear the area specified in the advisory. Aircraft on IFR flight plans or special VFR clearances will be provided specific separation by ATC. At the termination of the fuel dumping operation, pilots should advise ATC. Upon receipt of such information, ATC will issue, on the appropriate frequencies, the following:

EXAMPLE-

ATTENTION ALL AIRCRAFT - FUEL DUMPING BY - (type aircraft) - TERMINATED.


Yes, the term "should" is used (because you wouldn't want to mandate that a crew make that call to ATC if it had more important matters to attend to), but clearly the intent is to advise them - wouldn't you want to know if you were operating on the same route, 1,000' below and about a half-mile in trail?

[OldnGrounded]

And here's the relevant section of Order JO 7110.65, for ATC:

Section 4. Fuel Dumping

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

When information is received that an aircraft plans to dump fuel, determine the route and altitude it will fly and the weather conditions in which the operation will be conducted.

ROUTING

Except when it is dumping fuel for emergency reasons, an aircraft in either VFR or IFR conditions may be requested to fly a different route.

ALTITUDE ASSIGNMENT

If an aircraft is dumping fuel in IFR conditions, assign an altitude at least 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle within 5 miles of the route or pattern being flown.

SEPARATION MINIMA

Separate known aircraft from the aircraft dumping fuel as follows:

IFR aircraft by one of the following:


1,000 feet above it; or in accordance with Paragraph 4-5-1, Vertical Separation Minima, whichever is greater.
2,000 feet below it.
5 miles radar.
5 miles laterally.


VFR radar‐identified aircraft by 5 miles and in accordance with Paragraph 5-6-1, Application.


INFORMATION DISSEMINATION


If you are in contact with an aircraft when it starts dumping fuel, inform other controllers and facilities which might be concerned. Facilities concerned must broadcast an advisory on appropriate radio frequencies at 3-minute intervals until the dumping stops.

PHRASEOLOGY-

ATTENTION ALL AIRCRAFT.
FUEL DUMPING IN PROGRESS OVER (location) AT (altitude) BY (type aircraft) (flight direction).

Broadcast a terminating advisory when the fuel dumping operation is completed.

PHRASEOLOGY-

ATTENTION ALL AIRCRAFT.
FUEL DUMPING OVER (location) TERMINATED.


As Catwalk Dweller suggests, there may not be an absolute requirement to notify ATC of fuel dumping, but it is clearly expected that there typically will be notification and that ATC may "request" that a crew follow a particular route. Except in emergency, of course, but it doesn't appear -- so far -- that such an emergency existed in this case.

[Onceapilot]

I am not being picky Onceapilot but they are pretty close!




Hey, you seem to like telling us all about everything, so maybe you could tell everyone how many feet the dump masts are from the wingtips?

OAP

[retired guy]

[QUOTE=knackered IV;10663557]Agree with your comments RG, but maybe we can set the record straight with regard to "Air Asia SFO". I don't think AIr Asia need to be lumbered with that accident unnecessarily, they cop enough flak as it is. I know you meant Asiana.[/QUOTE

thanks. Quite right and bad typo. Ariana it was. R Guy

[retired guy]

The dump masts are not at the wingtips.

OAP
Hi Onceapioot. If they are not exactly at the extreme wingtip on a 777, I agree. Wouldn’t be room for the dump chutes. But so close as not to matter. They are near the end of the wing. That ok?
thought your response a little prickly or pedantic - am I missing the point. Are they somewhere else?
on other types they can be further in true.
bestwishes
R Guy

[retired guy]

Throwing unrelated data into this thread does not support your opinions.

We need to stick to the facts in this incident and not historical what-ifs
Iompaseo,
Good to hear from you.
Historical things are not “what if’s”:but the contrary. Fully knows!

sorry. Why does a previous accident related to dumping in an emergency, and choosing not to dump Irelevant? Ever incident over years builds up our knowledge pool and a 1968 accident illustrates that mostly you’re in no hurry to dump , but in an uncontrolled fire you might just land overweight. No time to dump. And land immediately with no checklist. Don’t think the LAX crew seemed to be in dire straits from the ATC Conversations The point is why were we still dumping at 3000ft on approach?
cheers. RvGuy

[lomapaseo]

Iompaseo,
Good to hear from you.
Historical things are not “what if’s”:but the contrary. Fully knows!

sorry. Why does a previous accident related to dumping in an emergency, and choosing not to dump Irelevant? Ever incident over years builds up our knowledge pool and a 1968 accident illustrates that mostly you’re in no hurry to dump , but in an uncontrolled fire you might just land overweight. No time to dump. And land immediately with no checklist. Don’t think the LAX crew seemed to be in dire straits from the ATC Conversations The point is why were we still dumping at 3000ft on approach?
cheers. RvGuy
It's the addition of an uncontrolled fire supplemented with photos that takes it out of the realm of this incidents discussion. In order to tie the two discussions together requires "what-ifs" not in evidence

[Dave Therhino]

Hi Onceapioot. If they are not exactly at the extreme wingtip on a 777, I agree. Wouldn’t be room for the dump chutes. But so close as not to matter. They are near the end of the wing. That ok?
thought your response a little prickly or pedantic - am I missing the point. Are they somewhere else?
on other types they can be further in true.
bestwishes
R Guy

No dump chutes on the modern Boeing airplanes - just fixed nozzles on the trailing edge. On the 777 they are outboard of the trailing edge flaps and inboard of the outboard ailerons.

[Airbubba]

Agree with your comments RG, but maybe we can set the record straight with regard to "Air Asia SFO". I don't think AIr Asia need to be lumbered with that accident unnecessarily, they cop enough flak as it is. I know you meant Asiana.

thanks. Quite right and bad typo. Ariana [sic - Airbubba] it was. R Guy

I presume the second typo was intentional. ;)

[Good memories]

A plausible scenario is setting fuel jettison to MLW with the intention of reducing landing weight as much as possible, but willing to accept an overweight landing. Then, forgetting to terminate the jettison as the aircraft descended because of a very busy cockpit.


My best guess as well.:O

[Airbubba]

"Students began screaming and crying because their eyes and skin were burning. Fear, dread, panic, and helplessness ensued"

Will the remedy for these ills be money and free tickets?

The shakedown by Harvey Weinstein's former attorney begins...

Los Angeles teachers sue Delta after jet fuel dump over schools, playgrounds"Students began screaming and crying because their eyes and skin were burning. Fear, dread, panic, and helplessness ensued," according to a teacher. https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2020_03/3186561/200114-delta-fuel-drop-1920x1080-ac-933p_7706d9054be55f4144842c1ec839dc6d.fit-1240w.jpg Delta Flight 89, on its way to China, Shanghai, experienced an engine issue that required it to return to LAX shortly after takeoff, the company said in a statement.NBC NewsJan. 17, 2020, 11:05 PM EST

By Alicia Victoria Lozano NBC News

Four Los Angeles teachers sued Delta Airlines less than a week after a China-bound plane dumped fuel over playgrounds and schools, citing emotional anguish and distress and accusing the pilot of failing to follow protocol.

The teachers, who have not been identified, say the airline was negligent by allowing the plane to depart in the first place.

In their suit, the teachers from Park Avenue Elementary School in south Los Angeles County, some 17 miles from Los Angeles International Airport, said they could feel fuel on their clothing, skin and eyes. The exposure caused the women to feel dizzy, nauseated and sick, attorney Gloria Allred said. Young students screamed and cried, she said.

"They also suffered severe emotional distress from the knowledge that they had involuntarily ingested toxins," Allred said in a statement Friday. "Their severe emotional distress includes the reasonable fear that the exposure to and ingestion of jet fuel might produce serious health consequences in the future."

The teachers are seeking compensatory damages.

Delta Airlines did not respond to a request for comment Friday, but has previously said the fuel dump was "required as part of normal procedure to reach a safe landing weight."

On Tuesday, Delta Flight 89, which was headed to Shanghai, experienced engine trouble shortly after takeoff. The pilot declared an in-flight emergency and notified air traffic control personnel that the plane needed to return to LAX. The pilot did not inform the control tower that the plane would need to dump fuel to lighten its load, according to the Federal Aviation Administration (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/17-kids-injured-after-delta-jet-dumps-fuel-l-playground-n1115586).

The teachers' lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleged that the Delta pilot "was specifically asked" by air traffic control personnel if he needed to dump fuel and the pilot allegedly replied "negative."

"We’ve got it under control," the pilot said, according to the lawsuit.

Allred said that if the pilot had properly alerted air traffic personnel on the ground, the flight would have been directed to a safe location and altitude from which it could dump fuel without posing a risk to the general public.

The pilot dropped fuel at around 2,000 feet, hitting several schools in its path.

One of the teachers in the suit said her fifth-grade students initially thought the jet fuel was rain. The children looked up "only to have noxious liquid then overwhelm [their] eyes, mouths, noses, lungs and skin," the teacher said in a statement.

"I immediately began to rush my students indoors, as the fumes were stifling," she said. "Students began screaming and crying because their eyes and skin were burning. Fear, dread, panic, and helplessness ensued." Teachers cared for their students rather than decontaminate themselves, she said.

Several people from the school community reported sinus and respiratory problems in the days following the incident.

Another teacher said she worried the fuel smell might have been the result of a terrorist attack. Her kids cried.

"I couldn’t smell anything other than the gas," the teacher said in a statement. "I couldn’t taste anything other than the gas."

The next day, the teacher, a 21-year veteran of Park Avenue Elementary, went to urgent care worried after her pain and nausea did not subside.

"I am scared of what can happen to my health and the health of my students, my friends and my colleagues," she said in a statement.

According to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, jet fuel exposure can cause liver damage, decreased immune response and impaired neurological functions and hearing.
https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2020_03/3188061/200115-delta-fuel-plane-dump-ac-544p_5dbee16c7a2aa5e046a4d24778a041f7.fit-560w.jpg An unidentified girl covers her mouth as she leaves the Park Avenue Elementary school with a relative in Cudahy, Calif. on Jan. 14, 2020.Damian Dovarganes / APAt least 20 children were treated for minor injuries after the incident, according to the Los Angeles County Fire Department. More than 60 people were treated from several schools in the area, the fire department said.

The Federal Aviation Administration said earlier this week that it was looking into reports that schoolchildren had been treated for fuel exposure.

Aviation experts say fuel dumps typically occur to reduce the planes’ weight (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fuel-dump-over-l-schools-puzzles-aviation-experts-n1116686) for unexpected landings because some planes have maximum takeoff weights higher than their landing weights. In most cases, weight is burned off during flights.

At least six fuel dumps were reported last year, including incidents in Orlando, Florida (https://www.wftv.com/news/local/gallons-of-jet-fuel-dumped-on-runway-at-orlando-international-airport-after-aircraft-emergency/970441427/); New York (https://patch.com/new-york/queens/jfk-spill-dumps-50-gallons-fuel-tarmac-officials-say); London (https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/8433155/thai-airways-fuel-drop-open-door/); and Canada (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/westjet-flight-detour-young-guilty-plea-court-sentence-restitution-1.4997350). They all occurred at high altitudes or on airport tarmacs.

[a5in_the_sim]

Just a quick question from across the pond.........is LA Democrat or Republican?

[retired guy]

I presume the second typo was intentional. ;)

Afraid not,! Should’ve gone to Specsavers! ASIANA. Ah, now I can read it properly. Thanks. It was sloppy tying on an iPhone I can hardly see.

In future I’ll just have said - “the one that smashed into the approach lights at SFO because the pilots didn’t know how to do a visual approach” and leave out the airline name! We will all know who it was.
Bit like a thread elsewhere where I said “dump chutes at wingtips” and have drawn flack for blatant inaccuracy. I should have said “ 220 cm (or whatever) from wingtips” or “near” the wingtips”. That would have left less opportunity for sniping on the actual exact location of the chutes. But that wasn’t really my point. It was that you shouldn’t dump fuel on final approach at all. And Certainly never over populated areas at low altitude.
Cheers and sincere thanks for picking that up. I do need to sharpen up on the little things which I tend to be untidy about.
Just seen that I shouldn’t call then dump chutes either. True as well.
After Specsavers I’m going to visit a geriatrician and a linguist.
R Guy

[retired guy]

It's the addition of an uncontrolled fire supplemented with photos that takes it out of the realm of this incidents discussion. In order to tie the two discussions together requires "what-ifs" not in evidence
OK Iomapaseo. Hands up. I admit to thread creep. Won’t mention it again. Might start a new thread though called
WHEN CAN YOU LAND OVERWEIGHT?
R Guy

[Twitter]

Do the behaviour, tone, views and capitals seem familiar to anyone who has followed the Max saga?

[PoppaJo]

Where are all the pics of these kids drenched in jet fuel?

I have never read such over exaggerated dribble in my life. I thought the Oz media was bad but geesh!

Harden the F%#% up

[retired guy]

Where are all the pics of these kids drenched in jet fuel?

. I have never read such over exaggerated dribble in my life. I thought the Oz media was bad but geesh!

Harden the F%#% up
Hi PoppaJo
I think the word they used was "doused"
LA Times quote (they all say pretty much the same thing).
So I guess you are having a go at the media rather than people here who all agree that this was badly reported. Fair comment. What is true it that lawyers will seek to prove injury despite it being nonsense. And they will succeed which will cost the airline millions.
Now whether or not there should have been any dumping in that region at all , is what seems to exercise people on this thread, and it has a revealed some pretty diverse views, which is the good thing about this forum. I learn a lot here. We all do.
Cheers and thanks
R GuyLA Times
An airplane returning to Los Angeles International Airport on Tuesday morning dropped jet fuel onto a school playground, dousing several students at Park Avenue Elementary School in Cudahy, officials said.

Delta Flight 89 — a Boeing 777 — had taken off from LAX with more than 140 passengers on board and was en route to Shanghai when it turned around and headed back to the L.A. airport.

[retired guy]

Boeing have an excellent document which covers the entire gamut of this thread I think
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_3_07/AERO_Q307_article3.pdf
Happy reading.

R Guy

[DaveReidUK]

I have never read such over exaggerated dribble in my life. I thought the Oz media was bad but geesh!

Harden the F%#% up

That's right, you tell those kids.

[CW247]

Where are all the pics of these kids drenched in jet fuel?

I have never read such over exaggerated dribble in my life. I thought the Oz media was bad but geesh!

Harden the F%#% up

Taking pics of kids, especially in school is not so easy. I think your Ozzie machismo is a little misplaced on this occasion.

[Airbubba]

The POC victim angle will inevitably be exploited by local activists and politicians.

The incident sparked outrage (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-15/delta-says-pilots-were-forced-to-dump-fuel-on-schoolchildren) in a community that’s been at the center of environmental injustices for decades in Los Angeles County. Dozens of people —many of them children (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-14/fuel-dumping-kids-jet-fuel-witness) — were treated by paramedics, but no one was seriously injured [although it was claimed on another forum that a teacher twisted her ankle running to her lawyer's office - Airbubba].

Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, whose district includes Cudahy, told The Times she wants to ensure that the incident is thoroughly investigated and that the community is provided with clear answers about what transpired.

“The outrage that the community is feeling and that I am feeling are based on the history of those communities, which are always victim to one environmental crisis after another,” Roybal-Allard (D-Downey) said. “Is this just another example of that?

From the LA Times

Delta is cited by air quality regulators after jet dropped 15,000 gallons of fuel over L.A.https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/qgojpKwk2M731A7jAZRysZEhirl_XFxU1kit8QJPH4SRn4O0iu7q3cMe5XJt HzNGKDPAGJVE9KZ3cCMkC_Kp3GY3bveWGsHoFSaq7-8SLCQmc8Y7x0m0WT-vjdDpVVwYJcudJwXud317neHVPwRX0_g2830Mxqgjk2PfWECuSwfLybIkFbc E0mEitElhsgQHfr9PqKn_usRslqTb5DVtbnxmvds9EOc0YB58COfJAIYN6BH PC2CMeKG3K71sFZUYhs_791oGnNxnw8OsczlfNUqPh2zc7vH_eFLTFf7E8N4 w6kEM7dvY1gFlJOA4uXOHlw1aYNP1-LNKUPimGTMwbGpeC5r0vB0_bwRgBsS86sT9CpO8s8EMvFTEb-DdCJNzLWxwYLGvRj6f_-Tc3jTqVdNvLE01IqewPJRIz_6Z9pyf7pUtX_J-V6hMzPKeFYO3e74O7PQH70eiesCdWC28oe6yd7EgBg=s0-d-e1-ft#https://jai2wahaaeeoaioqqkpozbbyhou3qbcq6p7wu6b7kidz7xacsmoq.cdn.amp project.org/i/s/ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/a0eb769/2147483647/strip/true/crop/3000x2000+0+0/resize/840x560!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F5e%2Fac%2F48722eaa4a619cbb8fba ce7a35ce%2Fapphoto-aircraft-fuel-dump.JPG
Student Marianna Torres, 11, center, cries as she evacuates Park Avenue Elementary School after jet fuel fell on the school in Cudahy on Tuesday.
(Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

By MATT HAMILTON , JACLYN COSGROVE (https://www.latimes.com/people/jaclyn-cosgrove)
JAN. 17, 2020 5:36 PM

Air quality regulators in Southern California slapped Delta Air Lines with a formal notice of violation after one of its jets dumped 15,000 gallons of fuel over multiple schools while making an emergency landing this week at Los Angeles International Airport.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District accused Delta of causing a public nuisance when the Shanghai-bound flight released the fuel in a mist that injured children at schools and libraries and prompted alarm in communities across Greater L.A.

Delta did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Earlier this week, Delta spokesman Adrian Gee said the pilot was forced to dump fuel over the urban area to reduce the plane’s weight before the emergency landing at LAX.

South Coast AQMD said that before issuing the violation, it investigated the release and learned of exposure to jet fuel at the Cudahy Public Library, two schools in El Rancho Unified School District, and several schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District. The violation notice was served Friday on an environmental specialist with Delta, and it’s an enforcement action that can ultimately lead to civil penalties.

“The company can choose to make voluntary measures,” said AQMD spokesman Bradley Whitaker. For example, Delta could find ways to reduce pollution emissions or impose practices that prevent further public nuisances. “If there isn’t a settlement reached, then we can file a lawsuit,” the spokesman said.

The move by the air quality district comes the same day that four teachers at an elementary school in Cudahy filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging that Delta’s discharge of toxic fuel has resulted in physical and emotional distress.

At least 20 Park Avenue Elementary School students (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-15/jet-fuel-dump-on-cudahy-school-children-sparks-outrage-anger)were hit by the jet fuel Tuesday morning when Flight 89 abruptly reversed course to LAX shortly after taking off for Shanghai.

The pilot radioed the control tower (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-15/radio-call-to-control-tower-raises-questions-about-why-jet-fuel-was-dumped-over-cudahy) to say that there was an engine problem but responded “Negative” when asked whether he needed time to burn off or dump fuel to reduce weight before an emergency landing. Less than 20 minutes later, the jet sprayed fuel over Park Avenue and the surrounding area.

The incident sparked outrage (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-15/delta-says-pilots-were-forced-to-dump-fuel-on-schoolchildren) in a community that’s been at the center of environmental injustices for decades in Los Angeles County. Dozens of people —many of them children (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-14/fuel-dumping-kids-jet-fuel-witness) — were treated by paramedics, but no one was seriously injured.

Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, whose district includes Cudahy, told The Times she wants to ensure that the incident is thoroughly investigated and that the community is provided with clear answers about what transpired.

“The outrage that the community is feeling and that I am feeling are based on the history of those communities, which are always victim to one environmental crisis after another,” Roybal-Allard (D-Downey) said. “Is this just another example of that? Or is this something that really in fact could not be avoided? And that’s the answer we don’t know yet.”

[Lake1952]

Lawsuits have begun!!

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/los-angeles-teachers-sue-delta-after-jet-fuel-dump-over-n1118261

[Uplinker]

Indeed Dave they do which is why the dump chutes are at the wingtips as shown in that 777 video at LAX.
Not on an A330, they are at about mid wing.

.....................the only thing you need to land a plane is the wheels down and some flap if you have it. And VRef of about 160 which covers any situation. Nothing else at all. No FMC, Not performance data computers. No moving maps. Just look out of the window and land it pdq.
Having observed training over several years recently I have been amazed at the lack of urgency with getting back on terra firms after a severe failure..........
R Guy

[rhetorical question]; why have I never been trained or briefed in the SIM to throw all the checklists and SOPs out the window and just get it back on the ground? Even an uncontainable fire has a checklist. Nor have I ever been criticised for actioning a complete checklist - in fact, I am usually bollocked for jumping parts or missing parts out in my 'excitement'.

[Mac the Knife]

Lawsuits of course - get some money, pic in the papers.

I bet that all that happened was the kids got an aroma of AVTUR - end of story.
Safe enough to swim in briefly, just don't breathe any in or swallow it (and no smoking....)

Next thing we'll be advising parents to lock the children in the car when refilling or wait 300m upwind!

Can't wait for the first electrocution when recharging an electric car (it'll come alright)

Why are people such wimps these days?

Mac

[NutLoose]

Well I'm still here and I have spent 30 odd years working with the stuff including crawling around in VC 10 wing tanks with inches of fuel trapped in them and that was in the days before health and safety intervened. I see the teachers are now suing, at some point someone needs to give these people a reality check, lives were at risk.

As for smoking, heck you would often smell like a bowser, but at the time one smoked and the chances of catching fire was nigh on impossible, we even tried lighting a rag soaked in the stuff.

[Lancelot37]

"I see the teachers are now suing, at some point someone needs to give these people a reality check, lives were at risk." Indeed. It could have cost the lives of all 167 on board, and could have even crashed on the school. WOULD THEY RATHER HAVE HAD THAT HAPPEN?

[Mac the Knife]

" WOULD THEY RATHER HAVE HAD THAT HAPPEN?

They might not, but a lot of the press would!

Mac

[WillowRun 6-3]

What R Guy has to say about getting it back on the ground ASAP is very sound advice indeed. Of course there are checklists and SOPs that must be followed. And even for the most severe emergencies, there is usually time for a careful analysis, as was done by the QANTAS crew before landing their A380 at Singapore. But there are also times when the SOPs may no longer be appropriate. And it is on those very rare occasions that crews really earn their salaries.

There can even come a time when the only option may be to 'throw the checklist out of the window' and just stuff it on the ground. I would not normally advocate such an extreme measure, but it worth thinking about.

Have any of the readers of this post ever been in the situation where there is a fire on board? Or when the wing is burning as it was in that 'WE' event? Have any of you stopped to consider what are the absolute minimum actions in such a case? It is worth contemplating that possibility and having at the back of your minds exactly what are the minimum essential items on the type you fly that must be carried out to ensure a safe landing.

You never know, it may come in useful one day.

SLF & attorney - not commenting on lawsuits though (other than to say, Gloria? Gloria Allred? - it's all so predictable).

Also wanting to stay out of volleys about throwing checklist out, landing without delay - but quoted the above as a context for this:

So when I read the forecasts of autonomous, self-operating transport category airliners, as well as specific reports about advances in the art and science of making aviators unnecessary in such operations, should I believe that some bright young app-writer already is close to writing the sub-routines (or whatever the parts of computer code involved should be called) that would have handled this fuel jettison situation better, or at least as well, and fool-proofedly, as compared to pilots of the human variety?

Inquiring minds want to know (even SLF + attys).

[Airbubba]

SLF & attorney - not commenting on lawsuits though (other than to say, Gloria? Gloria Allred? - it's all so predictable).

At the press conference Ms. Allred stated that 'the Delta pilot' released fuel on the elementary students at 'thousands of pounds per second'.

As the teachers tearfully read from prepared scripts:

“I started yelling for my students to come back inside the building,” one teacher told reporters at Friday’s news conference. “I didn’t know where the smell was coming from. I thought, ‘Oh my God, it must be a terrorist attack.'”

“My students initially thought it was rain and began looking up only to have the noxious liquid overwhelm our eyes, mouth, nose and skin,” another added.

https://cbsloc.al/361OSsx

[bnt]

Just a quick question from across the pond.........is LA Democrat or Republican?
"LA" is all of the above and more. The affected area is a low-income area populated mostly by Hispanics, so you can probably guess that there aren't many Trump supporters, and California has had Democratic governors since Arnold Schwarzenegger left office in 2011. I would sincerely hope that politics would be irrelevant in this kind of case.

[Takwis]

At the press conference Ms. Allred stated that 'the Delta pilot' released fuel on the elementary students at 'thousands of pounds per second'.



For what it's worth, the KC-135, with a dump nozzle of around 4" diameter, and four hydraulically powered pumps, could dump 1000 gallons per minute, or around 7000 lbs.

[DaveReidUK]

At the press conference Ms. Allred stated that 'the Delta pilot' released fuel on the elementary students at 'thousands of pounds per second'.

As the teachers tearfully read from prepared scripts:

“I started yelling for my students to come back inside the building,” one teacher told reporters at Friday’s news conference. “I didn’t know where the smell was coming from. I thought, ‘Oh my God, it must be a terrorist attack.'”

“My students initially thought it was rain and began looking up only to have the noxious liquid overwhelm our eyes, mouth, nose and skin,” another added.

https://cbsloc.al/361OSsx

Delta's most recent statement (see link in quoted post) would indicate that the 777 was dumping fuel for around 15 minutes in total, starting at around the point where it turned east after takeoff.

[retired guy]

Not on an A330, they are at about mid wing.



[rhetorical question]; why have I never been trained or briefed in the SIM to throw all the checklists and SOPs out the window and just get it back on the ground? Even an uncontainable fire has a checklist. Nor have I ever been criticised for actioning a complete checklist - in fact, I am usually bollocked for jumping parts or missing parts out in my 'excitement'.
Hi Uplinker.

Uncontainable Fire Checklist? Have not seen that one so please post it. It is a great step forward because up to now I have never seen one.
That must be why they don't discuss it in your airline.

After 'JL' 737-200 at Manchester 1986? (and because Whiskey Echo was not that long before, 1968, but never forgotten) and 'JL' happily did not get airborne, but nearly did, and even then many people died, we had a sim session of unconfined fire in an engine affecting the fuselage. Bit like Concorde. Now to run the entire checklist takes about 20-45 minutes depending on how frightened you are or how competent I guess. So the trainers at the time who had considerable latitude in how they ran a session demonstrated that you only need the gear down and some flap and about 160 knots to get back on the ground. It is true when you think about it. Now of course those trainers are now flying with the angels and I will soon be joining them, but the truth is, that is all you need to land a jet safely. In an extreme situation.
What is there in the checklist that is going to be more important than a raging fire? So it is back to the good old airmanship thing I suppose. Even recently (2017) I have heard trainers asking students what they would do if the fire did not go out (as it always does on the good old sim) and passengers are reporting an inferno on the wing. OK, this is in the briefing room. And they discuss it and agree that they cannot sit there for the best part of an hour running checklist after checklist until the wing falls off. Thats it really. I know what I would do. But then I am not allowed to any more, so I just try to pass on a bit of lateral thinking to those who follow, as was kindly done to me. Passing on the knowledge pool and at least getting a bit of thinking going on about non normal situations beyond the QRH. There is a chapter about this in the Boeing QRH which basically says that there will be situations where the QRH is no longer applicable due to multiple failures and then the Captain has to decide what to do. I will get the passage and post it.
OK it is some time since I flew for a real airline so I have missed this new checklist, but it cannot be too different from the one that I describe due to time constraints?
All the best
R Guy

[Airbubba]

Here's the Allred press conference about the lawsuit against Delta.

https://youtu.be/rsOXJHF-4uQ

She makes the 'thousands of pounds a second' assertion at about 3:10 into the recording. Obviously a mis-statement but will probably not be fact checked by the sympathetic media audience.

There are repeated mentions of 'the pilot' and she seems to infer that he intentionally dumped fuel without notifying ATC. Our lawyers and sea lawyers can parse the language that she uses to infer liability in this regrettable incident.

Is this the classic shakedown in the media to force a quick settlement and put the bad publicity to bed? Or in a progressive California court environment would Delta be able to drag this out with endless motions and avoid a trial with teachers and tissues and expert witnesses on the health hazards of unburned aerosol hydrocarbons?

I presume this case could also go to U.S. District Court under diversity jurisdiction rules.

Would 'the pilot' have personal liability if he was acting in accordance with his job duties and not 'on a frolic of his own' as the FAA lawyer commented about the Northwest pilots who overflew MSP years ago and had their tickets pulled?

[Harley Quinn]

"Students began screaming and crying because their eyes and skin were burning. Fear, dread, panic, and helplessness ensued"

Will the remedy for these ills be money and free tickets?

The shakedown by Harvey Weinstein's former attorney begins...

Let's hope those teacher are lifelong non-smokers and teetotallers else ingestion of 'toxins ' is going to look a bit weak

[Airbubba]

Delta's most recent statement (see link in quoted post) would indicate that the 777 was dumping fuel for around 15 minutes in total, starting at around the point where it turned east after takeoff.

According to Delta, the plane began dropping fuel at an elevation of 8,000 feet and continued at least until it hit the 2,300-foot mark. The FAA confirmed to CBS News it also found that the Delta crew did not tell air traffic control the plane needed to dump fuel.

Thanks Dave. :ok: We have the ATC recordings of that period all the way down to landing and there is no mention of fuel dump that I hear. Sounds like a major miscommunication. :eek:

[tdracer]

I suspect most on this side of the pond already know this, but for the benefit of those who don't, Gloria Allred is well known as one of the most famous, notorious, and preeminent of the ambulance chaser class of lawyers.

As WillowRun notes, all so predictable.

[OldnGrounded]

I'm finding all of the outrage over the certainty of lawsuits and the mockery of the claimants and their attorneys rather amusing. It's amusing for several reasons:

1. Virtually the entire population of the Western world, with the exception of workers in industries such as aviation, naturally see any exposure to petroleum-based fuels as a health hazard. That should really be obvious to everyone here, at least to everyone who is able to take a moment to view the situation through the eyes of ordinary laypeople.

2. Our legal system (to include essentially all of the English-speaking world) is deliberately designed and organized as an adversarial one. It is a feature of such a system that people who feel they have been harmed or wronged begin their quest for redress with exaggerated claims of suffering and maximum demonization of contemplated defendants. The processes that follow almost always bring the narrative closer to reality and rational analysis. This is just how it works. If you want a system that encourages dispassionate search for truth and fairness, you want a different system than we have.

3. Plaintiff's lawyers are paid to maximize their client's damage awards and the ones who do that best are often masters of melodrama. Again, it's a feature of the system. Milquetoast attorneys don't get big verdicts and aren't likely to be sought by lawyer-shopping clients.

4. Public servants and elected officials must be seen to be championing the causes of their constituents. That's how they keep their jobs, get re-elected, have support to advance their careers, etc. Another feature of the system.

5. The media make money, keep jobs, etc. by luring eyes and ears and attention to their various outlets and publications. And the masses are most attracted to hype. It's a matter of human nature.

None of this should be a surprise to anyone who is reasonably familiar with Western culture. And none of it is going to change, much, as long as our culture is organized as it is and has been for a very long time. Don't hold your breath.

Oh, just by the way, the people some of you are mocking are virtually certain to be significantly compensated for the injuries they believe they have suffered. That's going to happen because the prospective defendants have lawyers and accountants who know perfectly well that there's no way to avoid that. They can look into their crystal calls and visualize a courtroom where plaintiff's experts tell horror stories about the dangers of Jet A and show the impressionable jury images of associated suffering and typical MSDS documents for the fuel:

http://www.cpchem.com/msds/100000014588_SDS_US_EN.PDF

[OldnGrounded]

Would 'the pilot' have personal liability if he was acting in accordance with his job duties and not 'on a frolic of his own' as the FAA lawyer commented about the Northwest pilots who overflew MSP years ago and had their tickets pulled?

Civil liability? He's probably protected by two things (at least): (1) Someone else -- the union, the employer, or his personal insurance carrier -- is going to foot the bills for defense and damages (if any) if he is named as an individual defendant; and (2) he probably doesn't have nearly deep enough pockets for plaintiffs to bother pursuing him aggressively.

The FAA and his employer may not be totally charmed by his actions, of course.

[sudden twang]

For the newbies please take retired guys advice carefully.
There was an uncontained fire on WE The billion dollar question is why? Read the report especially about the position of the fuel control switch on the affected engine.
A nod to Ms Harrison your bravery knew no bounds.
please fly the jet action the memory drill accurately and clean up. The need for an immediate return is remote and yet the scope for cocking it up rushing is massive.
consider the following:
surge on departure decision to return below transition Alt
Unanunciated fuel jettison checklist actioned up to but before fuel jettison complete. Checklist blanked from lower EICAS.
Aircraft flown around the pattern descent and approach checklist omitted
Landing checklist called for...... guess what pops up? Yep the fuel jett checklist. Now the crew cease fuel jett.
just a thought.

[JLWSanDiego]

You know when certain people show up that claims will be exaggerated

[OldnGrounded]

You know when certain people show up that claims will be exaggerated

As I've said, above, exaggeration of claims is pretty much an unavoidable feature of an adversarial legal system. If you get some sort of personal satisfaction from believing and asserting that exaggeration is emblematic of "certain people" of whom you disapprove, knock yourself out, but you're only fooling yourself and the (not inconsiderable number of) others who express their prejudices in similar dog-whistle formulas.

And, if this thread is going to be about class, race, political association and and personality, rather than about aviation, maybe it belongs in Jet Blast.

[Geosync]

I'm finding all of the outrage over the certainty of lawsuits and the mockery of the claimants and their attorneys rather amusing. It's amusing for several reasons:

1. Virtually the entire population of the Western world, with the exception of workers in industries such as aviation, naturally see any exposure to petroleum-based fuels as a health hazard. That should really be obvious to everyone here, at least to everyone who is able to take a moment to view the situation through the eyes of ordinary laypeople.

2. Our legal system (to include essentially all of the English-speaking world) is deliberately designed and organized as an adversarial one. It is a feature of such a system that people who feel they have been harmed or wronged begin their quest for redress with exaggerated claims of suffering and maximum demonization of contemplated defendants. The processes that follow almost always bring the narrative closer to reality and rational analysis. This is just how it works. If you want a system that encourages dispassionate search for truth and fairness, you want a different system than we have.

3. Plaintiff's lawyers are paid to maximize their client's damage awards and the ones who do that best are often masters of melodrama. Again, it's a feature of the system. Milquetoast attorneys don't get big verdicts and aren't likely to be sought by lawyer-shopping clients.

4. Public servants and elected officials must be seen to be championing the causes of their constituents. That's how they keep their jobs, get re-elected, have support to advance their careers, etc. Another feature of the system.

5. The media make money, keep jobs, etc. by luring eyes and ears and attention to their various outlets and publications. And the masses are most attracted to hype. It's a matter of human nature.

None of this should be a surprise to anyone who is reasonably familiar with Western culture. And none of it is going to change, much, as long as our culture is organized as it is and has been for a very long time. Don't hold your breath.

Oh, just by the way, the people some of you are mocking are virtually certain to be significantly compensated for the injuries they believe they have suffered. That's going to happen because the prospective defendants have lawyers and accountants who know perfectly well that there's no way to avoid that. They can look into their crystal calls and visualize a courtroom where plaintiff's experts tell horror stories about the dangers of Jet A and show the impressionable jury images of associated suffering and typical MSDS documents for the fuel:

http://www.cpchem.com/msds/100000014588_SDS_US_EN.PDF

Well said. There is a difference between the reasonable actions of a pilot during an emergency, and legal liability in a court of law. Since it was a deliberate act by the crew, when there were other options, Delta is still liable for the “damages” of the people on the ground. Look I’ve dunked my hands in countless buckets of 100LL and Jet A to clean parts as a mechanic. That doesn't mean Joe Q public is happy about getting fuel dumped on them and their kids.

If you make a dead stick landing in a field and one poor ba&*tard going for a hike is run over and killed, you are liable for that death, even if it saved all 100 people on board of the airplane. You did it, so you are liable, regardless of the intentions. A neighborhood of people that know nothing about jet fuel would rightfully freak out when it starts raining from the sky. The pilot will probably be just fine. Plaintiff attorneys aren’t dumb, they know where they money is. They aren’t out to crucify the pilots, and that would be a tough argument to make anyway. Sue the airline, the airline settles with the plaintiffs, and that’s that. Drop 1 million bucks to disperse between the plaintiffs, because it will cost that much to defend it all the way to trial where they would lose anyway, Happens every day here in America.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Reasonable minds may, and often do, hold divergent views on what ails the civil justice system (or, whether anything ails it).

It's not a veiled attitude of "close the courthouse doors to these people" to view a particular high-profile trial lawyer as an extreme version of how the system works most all the time (such workings, as OldnGrounded points out). Of course, along their way, such a lawyer becomes hugely accomplished, feared, even given "legend" ststus. I don't think other lawyers, though, necessarily are ineffective, despite a less intense approach.

But the point that concerns me - again, as atty-SLF - is that the furor arising along with the naturally expected claims could end up interfering with the focus on the inquiry (by the airline and the FAA). Maybe it is a situation where all the answers to what happened? and why? will turn out to be simple to find and simple to disseminate throughout civil aviation, despite the legal pressures. The amount and scope of substantive comments in this thread could suggest it might not be so simple, though.

[aterpster]

But the point that concerns me - again, as atty-SLF - is that the furor arising along with the naturally expected claims could end up interfering with the focus on the inquiry (by the airline and the FAA). Maybe it is a situation where all the answers to what happened? and why? will turn out to be simple to find and simple to disseminate throughout civil aviation, despite the legal pressures.
Nothing will interfere with the FAA's investigation. Sadly, though, they are very unlikely to make any of their fact finding, analysis, or conclusions available to the aviation community or the public. The NTSB they are most decidedly not.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Nothing will interfere with the FAA's investigation. Sadly, though, they are very unlikely to make any of their fact finding, analysis, or conclusions available to the aviation community or the public. The NTSB they are most decidedly not.

Quite right - maybe more attention is needed here (. . . SL...) to recall the Administration and Board aren't interchangeable.

High-profile lawsuits with strong "human interest" appeal can create pressures on investigations by government units, or internally by other organizations, which short-circuit the process or tend toward weakening their integrity. But FAA is beyond all that or at least deserves benefit of the doubt even after its possible role in the 737 Max debacle.

I'm still intrigued by how smart the programmers must be to create the pilotless algorithms that will consider and act upon information about compressor stalls and other engine status and performance problems, maximum weight parameters, runway length and condition, overwater flightpath or not, ATC inputs - weren't all these part of the information set the crew had to work with? It's wondering about what can be learned from a proper review of this incident that I had wanted to highlight, even if I'm completely wrong that a heavyweight tort lawsuit might detract from such a review (and was wrong obviously about FAA).

[aterpster]

High-profile lawsuits with strong "human interest" appeal can create pressures on investigations by government units, or internally by other organizations, which short-circuit the process or tend toward weakening their integrity. But FAA is beyond all that or at least deserves benefit of the doubt even after its possible role in the 737 Max debacle.

The old expression "20,000 FAAs" has some truth to it. My view: with all the continuing publicity and public uproar over DAL 89, the FAA investigation will be relentless. Not unlike the FAA investigation of DAL's gross navigation errors on the North Atlantic when they were new out there.

[lomapaseo]

Ask yourselves who has a need to know?

If it's a mechanical thingie then ask Boeing or wait to see if it was gross enough for an FAA AD action\

If it was a pilot failure to follow a Delta protocol it's a Delta problem and wait to see if it comes out in a public lawsuit otherwise it's internal alone

If it's a likely to be a repeated ATC problem then look for updates in guidelines to the ATC side

If it's a one off- then expect silence

other?

[Maninthebar]

Ask yourselves who has a need to know?

If it's a mechanical thingie then ask Boeing or wait to see if it was gross enough for an FAA AD action\

If it was a pilot failure to follow a Delta protocol it's a Delta problem and wait to see if it comes out in a public lawsuit otherwise it's internal alone

If it's a likely to be a repeated ATC problem then look for updates in guidelines to the ATC side

If it's a one off- then expect silence

other?

Errrm isn't this true of all incidents/accidents?

[retired guy]

Civil liability? He's probably protected by two things (at least): (1) Someone else -- the union, the employer, or his personal insurance carrier -- is going to foot the bills for defense and damages (if any) if he is named as an individual defendant; and (2) he probably doesn't have nearly deep enough pockets for plaintiffs to bother pursuing him aggressively.

The FAA and his employer may not be totally charmed by his actions, of course.

I agree OldnG
If he followed Delta procedures he is home and dry
Airline might be sued.
If he didn't I think that it would be, as you say, between the employer and the pilot. And perhaps some helpful advice from the FAA who know about these things. As we have seen.
Now if it is so far outside the bounds of normal operation as to be deemed gross negligence, that gets a bit murkier.
Where I worked for a long time, and for more than one airline, the rules of engagement were pretty simple
Get it wrong and learn. Even quite serious things like a stall I have seen handled with great compassion and lots of training but no career limiting actions.
Get it wrong more than once , a bit more training or as they say in China, re-education and maybe a warning to listen up.
Get it wrong deliberately, then it moves up a gear. Example refusing to follow SOPs because you don' t like them. Frequent one that.
Hope it doesn't end badly for the crew since nobody sets out in the morning to screw up and normally if people do screw up in my experience, it is due to lack of training.
Some countries we have seen have gone for the crew legally - methinks Athens many years ago? Crew in jail? You may remember. Didn't Denzil Washington end up in court though and then in jail?
Cheers
R Guy

[aterpster]

Civil liability? He's probably protected by two things (at least): (1) Someone else -- the union, the employer, or his personal insurance carrier -- is going to foot the bills for defense and damages (if any) if he is named as an individual defendant; and (2) he probably doesn't have nearly deep enough pockets for plaintiffs to bother pursuing him aggressively.

The FAA and his employer may not be totally charmed by his actions, of course.
I've done enough ALPA work to know that this entire crew is totally protected from civil liability by DAL. This falls within the scope of their CBA.

The captain/the entire flight deck crew were actively involved in operation of the airplane. The NWA crew that fell asleep fell outside their civil protections accorded by their CBA.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Hmmm. Reference to CBAs leads to subject area of federal (RLA) labor law, and sequentially then to federal law pre-emption of state law tort claims in some cases.....this isn't to suggest that DAL could or should try to resist settlement payouts, but how much, to whom, and after what predicate evidence has been shown could be impacted by whether the airline lawyers think pre-emption is a viable position. Safe operation of the flight in accord with FARs ....well, not even the forum can lead me to do legal research for gratis (usually).

Or maybe I've just been discouraged by not finding the meaning of 20,000 FAAs.

[Bueno Hombre]

Airline Captains are expected to be intelligent
This one very young or overawed by instructions from the dreaded Chief Pilot Office, We just don't know at this time.

[OldnGrounded]

Ask yourselves who has a need to know?

Perhaps I don't understand what you meant here, but, unless I'm confused . . .

Pretty much the entire community affected by the incident has a need to know, together with the public officials who serve and are responsible to the community. Sooner or later, they all will know, either because the information is shared voluntarily or because their attorneys drag it into the light in the discovery process.

[misd-agin]

Airline Captains are expected to be intelligent
This one very young or overawed by instructions from the dreaded Chief Pilot Office, We just don't know at this time.

We do know some things - at the large airlines in the U.S. the Captains flying the large twins (330/350/777/787) aren't very young or new to the game. My airline was 3 fleets and the youngest in each fleet is 54, 56, and 56. If you take away the bottom 5% the lowest age drops to 58, 58, and 59. The guy with the fewest years at the airline was hired in 1989. The years and ages might be slightly different at each airline but the overall numbers are similar.

With the large number of retirements in 7-10 years those numbers will drop. Perhaps as low as 12-15 yrs with the company, 7-10 yrs as Captain on n/b aircraft, and only 20-25 yrs experience as a professional pilot. With few getting hired younger than 30 that means the 'new' and youngest LWB CA's we'll see on this side of the pond at the U.S. majors will still by at least 35, and perhaps at least 40, years old. With the average new hire being in their mid 30's a more common age would probably be 45-50.

No MPL or cadet programs, strict seniority lists, pay differential and trip quality difference on LWB vs domestic flying, minimum experience requirements o get hired, results in different outcomes on this side of the pond.

A greater possibility is that no one has more than a year's experience on the aircraft. I do not recall seeing that once in the 3+ years on the more senior aircraft with 3 man crews. Having one pilot with less than a year's experience in type isn't that uncommon. Having two with less than one years experience is very uncommon (twice in 3+ years?).

Few in the U.S. are overawed by the instructions from the CP. Given the short time frame of this event it would be a low probability that a CP even contacted the flight. In 30 yrs at my current job I've never heard of a CP contacting a flight without the Captain requesting the contact. Sometimes dispatch will ask questions, hints, or suggestions as they should but the 'top down' pressure isn't a high threat. That's before the union gets involved.

[Spooky 2]

We do know some things - at the large airlines in the U.S. the Captains flying the large twins (330/350/777/787) aren't very young or new to the game. My airline was 3 fleets and the youngest in each fleet is 54, 56, and 56. If you take away the bottom 5% the lowest age drops to 58, 58, and 59. The guy with the fewest years at the airline was hired in 1989. The years and ages might be slightly different at each airline but the overall numbers are similar.

With the large number of retirements in 7-10 years those numbers will drop. Perhaps as low as 12-15 yrs with the company, 7-10 yrs as Captain on n/b aircraft, and only 20-25 yrs experience as a professional pilot. With few getting hired younger than 30 that means the 'new' and youngest LWB CA's we'll see on this side of the pond at the U.S. majors will still by at least 35, and perhaps at least 40, years old. With the average new hire being in their mid 30's a more common age would probably be 45-50.

No MPL or cadet programs, strict seniority lists, pay differential and trip quality difference on LWB vs domestic flying, minimum experience requirements o get hired, results in different outcomes on this side of the pond.

A greater possibility is that no one has more than a year's experience on the aircraft. I do not recall seeing that once in the 3+ years on the more senior aircraft with 3 man crews. Having one pilot with less than a year's experience in type isn't that uncommon. Having two with less than one years experience is very uncommon (twice in 3+ years?).

Few in the U.S. are overawed by the instructions from the CP. Given the short time frame of this event it would be a low probability that a CP even contacted the flight. In 30 yrs at my current job I've never heard of a CP contacting a flight without the Captain requesting the contact. Sometimes dispatch will ask questions, hints, or suggestions as they should but the 'top down' pressure isn't a high threat. That's before the union gets involved.

Somewhere? I read that both the Aircraft Commander and 2nd Capt. were age 63, and both the F/O's were 55. Don't take that to the bak bank, but I seriously doubt that any of these pilots were intimidated by the Chief Pilots office as that is not how Delta works.

[Sailvi767]

A plausible scenario is setting fuel jettison to MLW with the intention of reducing landing weight as much as possible, but willing to accept an overweight landing. Then, forgetting to terminate the jettison as the aircraft descended because of a very busy cockpit.

Probably exactly what happened.

[Spooky 2]

Probably exactly what happened.


So all four pilots missed the flashing EICAS messages?? I don't think so but ever works for you.

[wiggy]

So all four pilots missed the flashing EICAS messages?? I don't think so but ever works for you.

Which ones are you thinking of?

[Spooky 2]

Which ones are you thinking of?


Wiggy you are going to make me look bad here if I can't recall exactly what messages appear but here is my best effort.

FUEL QTY and Jettison time show on the EICAS and the Fuel synoptic . The jettison system system will automatically reference this to the MLW but you can intervive by setting the MLW up or down with the Fuel To Remain switch, as I recall. I also seem to recall that putting the fuel jettison into motion will cause the Fuel synoptic to display as well. so that whne you have finished with the LANDING Electronic Check List it would reappear if you were still dumping fuel.

I don't have my FCOM or QRH so I'm going from memory :)

[Rwy in Sight]

A plausible scenario is setting fuel jettison to MLW with the intention of reducing landing weight as much as possible, but willing to accept an overweight landing. Then, forgetting to terminate the jettison as the aircraft descended because of a very busy cockpit.

Doesn't the system stop without any crew action once a certain amount is dumped?

[DaveReidUK]

Doesn't the system stop without any crew action once a certain amount is dumped?

Yes, as is implied by the post that you quoted.

But if the "certain amount dumped" was intended to get down to MLW, it's hard to see that being achieved by dumping for only 15 minutes.

[Spooky 2]

Doesn't the system stop without any crew action once a certain amount is dumped?

No it defaults to what ever fuel it takes to equal the MLW without crew action, BUT the crew can modify this number.

[Rwy in Sight]

No it defaults to what ever fuel it takes to equal the MLW without crew action, BUT the crew can modify this number.

But if the "certain amount dumped" was intended to get down to MLW, it's hard to see that being achieved by dumping for only 15 minutes.

So there was not enough time orbiting over the ocean to dump the amount of fuel down to MLW? When did the dumping stop?

[DaveReidUK]

So there was not enough time orbiting over the ocean to dump the amount of fuel down to MLW? When did the dumping stop?

See link in post #210 for Delta's statement.

[Spooky 2]

So there was not enough time orbiting over the ocean to dump the amount of fuel down to MLW? When did the dumping stop?


Don't know as I wasn't there on the flight deck.

[Rwy in Sight]

OK once again the incident report would make an interesting reading.

[Spooky 2]

OK once again the incident report would make an interesting reading.

Don't believe the FAA or anyone else for that matter publishes that information for public consumption. What with all the crap going on in aviation and the world I simply cannot figure out why this was made into such a big without knowing ALL the facts.

[CW247]

Almost 4 years on, did we ever understand why this Delta aircraft ended up dumping fuel in the manner it did? (Telling ATC they didnt need to, then doing it anyway over a built up area in busy airspace).

[Flyhighfirst]

How close to MTOM do you think this triple was? Assuming full pax and 12 hr flight time. I am not familiar with that a/c, only 767/74.

There were only 181 pax onboard. They weren’t even half full.