Norwegian Fuel Dump on Landing at MCO
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Norwegian Fuel Dump on Landing at MCO
Sounds like an air turnback for a hydraulic system loss, was the fuel dump somehow left running?
A Norwegian Air plane that aborted an international flight spewed a substantial amount of fuel on a large area of Orlando International Airport during its emergency landing, which an aviation expert described as a rare and potentially dangerous occurrence.
The incident happened late Saturday night, triggered initially by warnings of a failed hydraulic pump. Federal authorities have since begun an investigation while airport officials are assessing costs for cleaning up runway and taxiway surfaces.
The Norwegian flight, using a 19-year-old leased aircraft, was well out across the Atlantic Ocean when it reversed course and returned to Florida. Passengers were on board for nearly five hours, or more than half the time they would otherwise have spent on a flight to London’s Gatwick airport.
The returning flight was met by emergency vehicles, and passengers were held on the plane for an hour. Portions of the airport tarmac were closed temporarily so that crews could remove the spilled fuel.
Judy Watson Tracy was on that flight and from a window on the plane’s right side photographed a fountain of jet fuel coming from the rear edge of the wing to the runway.
Charles Westbrooks, aeronautical science professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and a former airline pilot, said most pilots never experience having to dump fuel. Far more rare is spilling fuel at an airport, he said.
“It would not be done intentionally,” Westbrooks said. “I can think of no reason why anyone would do that on purpose.”
Neither Norwegian nor the company providing the leased Airbus 340 for the London flight, Hi-Fly of Portugal, would explain why the wide-body aircraft dumped fuel on the airport’s runways and taxiways.
“As a standard safety practice, fuel was dumped prior to the safe landing of the aircraft at MCO, however there may have been some residual leakage from its wings,” Norwegian spokeswoman Min Kim said.
A HiFly spokeswoman said there was “no emergency situation” from a hydraulic pump’s “malfunction indication.”
“The aircraft was on the initial phase for a long haul flight to Europe so fuel had to be dumped to bring the aircraft into adequate landing weight,” Inês Pompeu dos Santos said.
The Federal Aviation Administration, confirming that it is investigating the aborted flight, said in a statement the “Norwegian Air 7058, Airbus A343, landed safely at Orlando International Airport at 9:53 p.m., June 29, after the pilot reported a loss of the aircraft’s primary hydraulic system.”
Westbrooks said a plane such as the HiFly Airbus would dump as much as 30,000 gallons of jet fuel in order to shed weight for a safe landing.
Pilots try to dump fuel over water if possible or over a rural area. With the plane traveling at several hundred miles per hour, dumped fuel quickly atomizes into a fine mist or vapor.
Dumping it on a runway is another matter, Westbrooks said, especially if it accumulates beneath the plane.
“You potentially have 200 or 250 people sitting on top of a flammable substance and the engines are running,” Westbrooks said. “I would not be comfortable with that at all.”
Orlando airport authorities said the amounts of fuel dumped on runways and taxiways of the airport’s west side “are still being determined but was of significant size.”
They said airport leaders are unaware of such an incident occurring previously.
Contractors were called in for a cleanup and costs have not yet been determined, airport officials said.
The website FlightAware shows the airplane reached an altitude of 35,000 feet and was east of North Carolina’s coast when it turned back to Orlando.
As the Airbus neared Florida’s coast at Daytona Beach, it completed four, large circles while still over water, and then flew to Orlando International Airport.
Not clear is whether the aircraft was dumping fuel over the Orlando metro area as it approached the airport.
Norwegian began to alert passengers earlier this year that it was relying on leased aircraft that are older than the airline’s newer Boeing 787 airplanes, which reportedly are in need of engine maintenance.
“We are contacting you to inform you that your flight will be operated by another Carrier,” Norwegian Air said in a statement. "We understand that these changes are not ideal, but it was necessary for us to lease an aircraft from another Carrier in order to avoid a disruption to your flight
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...mvy-story.html
Orlando airport doused in jet fuel when Norwegian plane made emergency landing
A Norwegian Air plane that aborted an international flight spewed a substantial amount of fuel on a large area of Orlando International Airport during its emergency landing, which an aviation expert described as a rare and potentially dangerous occurrence.
The incident happened late Saturday night, triggered initially by warnings of a failed hydraulic pump. Federal authorities have since begun an investigation while airport officials are assessing costs for cleaning up runway and taxiway surfaces.
The Norwegian flight, using a 19-year-old leased aircraft, was well out across the Atlantic Ocean when it reversed course and returned to Florida. Passengers were on board for nearly five hours, or more than half the time they would otherwise have spent on a flight to London’s Gatwick airport.
The returning flight was met by emergency vehicles, and passengers were held on the plane for an hour. Portions of the airport tarmac were closed temporarily so that crews could remove the spilled fuel.
Judy Watson Tracy was on that flight and from a window on the plane’s right side photographed a fountain of jet fuel coming from the rear edge of the wing to the runway.
Charles Westbrooks, aeronautical science professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and a former airline pilot, said most pilots never experience having to dump fuel. Far more rare is spilling fuel at an airport, he said.
“It would not be done intentionally,” Westbrooks said. “I can think of no reason why anyone would do that on purpose.”
Neither Norwegian nor the company providing the leased Airbus 340 for the London flight, Hi-Fly of Portugal, would explain why the wide-body aircraft dumped fuel on the airport’s runways and taxiways.
“As a standard safety practice, fuel was dumped prior to the safe landing of the aircraft at MCO, however there may have been some residual leakage from its wings,” Norwegian spokeswoman Min Kim said.
A HiFly spokeswoman said there was “no emergency situation” from a hydraulic pump’s “malfunction indication.”
“The aircraft was on the initial phase for a long haul flight to Europe so fuel had to be dumped to bring the aircraft into adequate landing weight,” Inês Pompeu dos Santos said.
The Federal Aviation Administration, confirming that it is investigating the aborted flight, said in a statement the “Norwegian Air 7058, Airbus A343, landed safely at Orlando International Airport at 9:53 p.m., June 29, after the pilot reported a loss of the aircraft’s primary hydraulic system.”
Westbrooks said a plane such as the HiFly Airbus would dump as much as 30,000 gallons of jet fuel in order to shed weight for a safe landing.
Pilots try to dump fuel over water if possible or over a rural area. With the plane traveling at several hundred miles per hour, dumped fuel quickly atomizes into a fine mist or vapor.
Dumping it on a runway is another matter, Westbrooks said, especially if it accumulates beneath the plane.
“You potentially have 200 or 250 people sitting on top of a flammable substance and the engines are running,” Westbrooks said. “I would not be comfortable with that at all.”
Orlando airport authorities said the amounts of fuel dumped on runways and taxiways of the airport’s west side “are still being determined but was of significant size.”
They said airport leaders are unaware of such an incident occurring previously.
Contractors were called in for a cleanup and costs have not yet been determined, airport officials said.
The website FlightAware shows the airplane reached an altitude of 35,000 feet and was east of North Carolina’s coast when it turned back to Orlando.
As the Airbus neared Florida’s coast at Daytona Beach, it completed four, large circles while still over water, and then flew to Orlando International Airport.
Not clear is whether the aircraft was dumping fuel over the Orlando metro area as it approached the airport.
Norwegian began to alert passengers earlier this year that it was relying on leased aircraft that are older than the airline’s newer Boeing 787 airplanes, which reportedly are in need of engine maintenance.
“We are contacting you to inform you that your flight will be operated by another Carrier,” Norwegian Air said in a statement. "We understand that these changes are not ideal, but it was necessary for us to lease an aircraft from another Carrier in order to avoid a disruption to your flight
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...mvy-story.html
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was pax on a BA 747 back in the '90s sometime and seen fuel venting on take-off, the pilot later apologized and told us not to worry, but it struck me as strange as it would have contaminated the rwy i think and possibly given a good mist over hounslow. Never seen it since.
This just got me wondering, does that happen much? An over-filled tank, or a faulty vent?
This just got me wondering, does that happen much? An over-filled tank, or a faulty vent?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Explanation for you Hoss...
In the meantime - I think the thread title is way misleading... Why mention Norweigan when it's not it's crew or it's aircraft???
In the meantime - I think the thread title is way misleading... Why mention Norweigan when it's not it's crew or it's aircraft???
If, on the other hand, the fuel being dumped from your aircaft was coming from the fuel jettison pipes on the trailing edges of the wings (towards the wingtips), then you have, perhaps, even more serious problems.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought except for an absolute emergency situation there would also be a minimum safe height to dump fuel, especially over a built up area around an airport. What if somebody nearby had a BBQ going or a firepit in their house? Who in their right mind would release fuel a thousand feet over the head of all these residents?
G
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Looks like the FAA mentioned Norwegian as well:
The Federal Aviation Administration, confirming that it is investigating the aborted flight, said in a statement the “Norwegian Air 7058, Airbus A343, landed safely at Orlando International Airport at 9:53 p.m., June 29, after the pilot reported a loss of the aircraft’s primary hydraulic system.”
I was pax on a BA 747 back in the '90s sometime and seen fuel venting on take-off, the pilot later apologized and told us not to worry, but it struck me as strange as it would have contaminated the rwy i think and possibly given a good mist over hounslow. Never seen it since.
This just got me wondering, does that happen much? An over-filled tank, or a faulty vent?
This just got me wondering, does that happen much? An over-filled tank, or a faulty vent?
Is that vent line opened to atmosphere during re-fuelling to avoid over-pressurisation? If so, perhaps whichever valve is involved in that process may not have closed completely after re-fuelling.
How are the 747 tanks pressurised? What are the consequences of not achieving pressurisation because a vent line is open?
Similarly, I was on a CX 747 out of Vancouver for Hong Kong back around that time and saw fuel venting on take-off. I presumed at the time that with full tanks and heavy acceleration, dynamic pressure in the system might be enough to crack a relief or vent valve.
Is that vent line opened to atmosphere during re-fuelling to avoid over-pressurisation? If so, perhaps whichever valve is involved in that process may not have closed completely after re-fuelling.
How are the 747 tanks pressurised? What are the consequences of not achieving pressurisation because a vent line is open?
Is that vent line opened to atmosphere during re-fuelling to avoid over-pressurisation? If so, perhaps whichever valve is involved in that process may not have closed completely after re-fuelling.
How are the 747 tanks pressurised? What are the consequences of not achieving pressurisation because a vent line is open?
By design, rapid acceleration should prevent fuel slosh from causing fuel to exit out the vents, however sometimes fuel expansion, overfill, and dynamic maneuvers such as accelerating to takeoff can combine to overwhelm the system designed to prevent that, and some fuel will come out the vents.
All that being said, that photo during landing doesn't appear to be anything like that - the fuel dump was still active. Either there was some system failure, or the crew simply forgot to turn it off.
Pax paid their money to Norwegian.
Tickets said Norwegian.
Announced at airport as Norwegian.
95% of pax would have no idea what that "due to a subcharter..." letter given out at check in meant.
This was a Norwegian flight...
They have subbed their MCO ORD DEN MIA and the early a.m. JFK flights out of LGW all this summer to Wamos Hi Fly Privilige style and Evelop Airlines for many flights due to ongoing 787 problems
The a/c types include A330-300/200, 777 and A340-300
I have been Evelop'ed from my 787 on the JFK-LGW this month to an ex SQ A330-300
They have subbed their MCO ORD DEN MIA and the early a.m. JFK flights out of LGW all this summer to Wamos Hi Fly Privilige style and Evelop Airlines for many flights due to ongoing 787 problems
The a/c types include A330-300/200, 777 and A340-300
I have been Evelop'ed from my 787 on the JFK-LGW this month to an ex SQ A330-300
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of which strongly supports clarifying that it was a HiFly machine and crew, not a Norwegian one, on an aviation site of all things. Instead of perpetuating the confusion, how about changing the thread title to reflect this? Be the solution not the problem, all that. Everyone moans about the shoddy reporting in the mainstream press, but then...
Also, "ongoing B787 problems" could more accurately be described as "ongoing Rolls-Royce problems".
Not that details are the strong suit of the Interwebs and the legions of experts that frequent these forums, but hey, baby steps.
As to the remark about fuel jettison altitudes, the ICAO-recommended minimum altitude is 6,000 ft to allow adequate atomization and dispersal of the fuel. Manufacturers may have different altitudes, ie B787 4,000 ft. And of course in an emergency if the crew deems it necessary they do what they have to. But in this case I'm confident that an earlier poster is correct - it was simply left open on landing.
To be charitable, perhaps it was a valve failure...
Last edited by nolimitholdem; 5th Jul 2019 at 09:02.
The regularly cited Colgan accident is another example. Every bit of branding at the airport and on the aircraft plainly said Continental. But their PR team worked full time to deny this once there had been an accident. It was notable that all the Continental-generated news matter pointedly said "Colgan", while all of Colgan's own material prominently said "Continental".
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there are many, who are aviation knowledgeable, who find inappropriate this attitude of portraying the whole operation as that of a major carrier until the moment something goes wrong, when all of a sudden everything is reversed and it's "nuffin' to do wiv us, mate". Well in that case, why do you do Due Diligence on your subcharter operators. And why do you require them to strip their own branding off the aircraft, as here.
The regularly cited Colgan accident is another example. Every bit of branding at the airport and on the aircraft plainly said Continental. But their PR team worked full time to deny this once there had been an accident. It was notable that all the Continental-generated news matter pointedly said "Colgan", while all of Colgan's own material prominently said "Continental".
The regularly cited Colgan accident is another example. Every bit of branding at the airport and on the aircraft plainly said Continental. But their PR team worked full time to deny this once there had been an accident. It was notable that all the Continental-generated news matter pointedly said "Colgan", while all of Colgan's own material prominently said "Continental".
Oh get off your high horse. If we're going to ruminate about the technical details of an incident, the company it actually happened at operationally is far more relevant than the logo on the ticket.
I do agree that the ones who sell the tickets have to bear the responsibility when something goes wrong under their banner. Legally, morally, ethically, I have no problem with that.
That doesn't change the actual facts that it wasn't Norwegian company pilots jettisoning fuel on a runway, it wasn't Continental pilots stalling a Dash 8, and it wasn't British Airways pilots heading to Edinburgh instead of Dusseldorf.
I don't expect the general public to be aware of the use of subcharters, wetleases, and codeshares, but I obviously gave too much credit to the self-professed "aviation-knowledgable" to have thought that perhaps they could grasp the nuances.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until the day that aircraft are 100% reliable, technical defects can and will happen, irrespective of how stringent any audits may be that are conducted by the customer airline in a wet leasing scenario.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey - I caused a (mini) stir!
To me this is a pilots hangout. It's (in my mind anyhow!) not primarily concerned with passengers rights... I (We?) are more interested in the details of the incident to enable thinking of the next incident that we might have... So, I'm not interested in the callsign, the label at the top of the ticket, just the actual operator and the type concerned - So that I can attempt to understand the SOP's in use, and how such a thing might have happened. And maybe we (pilots) can learn a thing or two!
I hope you can understand where I'm coming from!
To me this is a pilots hangout. It's (in my mind anyhow!) not primarily concerned with passengers rights... I (We?) are more interested in the details of the incident to enable thinking of the next incident that we might have... So, I'm not interested in the callsign, the label at the top of the ticket, just the actual operator and the type concerned - So that I can attempt to understand the SOP's in use, and how such a thing might have happened. And maybe we (pilots) can learn a thing or two!
I hope you can understand where I'm coming from!
