Delta emergency @ LAX, dumps fuel on school playground.
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.......
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.......
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Singapore
Age: 66
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: 900m
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
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
OAP
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.......
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.......
R Guy
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...
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...
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
OAP
So I think its ok here to speculate on possible causes of any situation or we would never say anything.
Cheers
R Guy
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Sussex
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: South Wales
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 )
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[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
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
End of Thread Drift! 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: hong kong
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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...
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...
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.