Delta emergency @ LAX, dumps fuel on school playground.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"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
Correct. It's not immediately obvious what relevance that accident has to the Delta incident.
NTSB Report
NTSB Report
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.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by OldnGrounded; 15th Jan 2020 at 19:06.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Locals everywhere would and should be concerned with their kids not only wearing but ingesting Jet A into their lungs!
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest from the L.A. Times:
Listen: Radio call to LAX tower raises questions about jet fuel dump over school
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: BOS
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: ask me tomorrow
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Age: 61
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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????
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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'.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Apple Maggot Quarantine Area
Age: 47
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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%...54758?hl=en-US
https://www.google.com/maps/place/A%...54758?hl=en-US
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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%...54758?hl=en-US
https://www.google.com/maps/place/A%...54758?hl=en-US