Delta emergency @ LAX, dumps fuel on school playground.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: 900m
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontificating
As regards the crew actions, I am sure the cvr cb will have been pulled...
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.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
you can’t dump to empty tanks. There are standpipes in the fuel tanks. I think dumping is limited to about an hour endurance,
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..."
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 78
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: BOS
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
We need to stick to the facts in this incident and not historical what-ifs
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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-transpo...eles-fuel-dump