Look, this is mainly a 'Professional Pilots' Network. Operational matters count quite a lot here. As for the non-dumping planes, it's obviously a question of checking Landing Distance required v Landing Distance available. Does that answer your query?

EDDT RWY 08L/26R 9920 ft/3023 m for landing.

Required RWY length at MLW for 747-400/ RWY dry/ ALT ~100ft
flaps 30: 6900 ft/2100 m
flaps 25: 7500 ft/2300 m

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air...s/7474sec3.pdf

I thought it was shorter. Other reasons that would affect the decision:
work in progress?
weather
aircraft weight
serviceability of the aircraft
experience on the aircraft
The pilots would have had a good reason to decide to jettison. Nobody wants to throw a vast amount of fuel away for no good reason.

Just remember that Berliners get their drinking water filtered from below the banks of the river havel. Draining anyplace versus medical emergency is some interesting question to debate about. Prost.

Out of interest, how long would it take a virtually fully fuelled up 744 (which I presume it was) to dump enough fuel for a 'non-hard' landing?

How much fuel was dumped at which altitude exactly where? Today the tab water tastes as bad/good as any time. When you throw a match into it, it would not ignite so I guess everything is fine. After all it was French fuel, so it should taste quite good :-)

if I get it right AF184 is operated with 772 equipment and not 744


AF184 13:35
Paris, Charles de Gaulle (CDG) - France
07:15
+1 Jour
Hong Kong (HKG) - Hong Kong
11h40mn Sans escale
777200 Tempo
K

Kerosene Kraut,

Here is the report about an Evergreen 747F diverting into EGLL due IFSD. Flew right over crowded bits of London more than once, despite being edgy about the likelihood of the remaining three donks staying lit.

Whilst the crew had charts for EGSS, they elected to go for EGLL as that was the one they had already seen and could keep track of in CAVOK conditions. They wanted to get down PDQ as the thought they were losing the lot.

They asked for vectors to EGLL and that's what they got:

So if a commander asked for vectors to EGLL due medical emergency, one suspects they'd be given just that. And it would not, I suspect, matter whether the operator was LH, AF, BA, SQ, EV or anyone else.

Tailee,
the vectors thing was about ATC suggesting vectors to some designated fuel jettison area while the skipper wanted to bring his medical pax to the ground asap instead, dropping fuel wherever the skipper wanted on his way to Tegel.

I don't know why I even bother with this site if all you get when you try and answer a question is somebody just patronising you. On the 767 we do have an issue with the brakes and therefore when we brief the departure we would only make an immediate landing for an uncontrolable fire. For pretty much everything else we would dump fuel. If enroute, you can have the centre tanks empty in less than 20 minutes for most of our routes, so in most cases there would be very little advantage in not dumping fuel.
In the case of some aircraft not being able to dump fuel, these generally don't have an issue with stopping distances and don't have a major difference between max. take off mass and max. landing mass, ie. the 757 only has a 20 tonne difference where as the 767 has a 40 tonne difference, hence why some aircraft need to dump and some don't.

Well now, doesn't this just take the prize for irresponsible operation.
Better to work with ATC for the benefit of all, I would think.

Shoot me if im wrong

With Boeing twins they are designed to land at max take off weight, but this increases the amont of fatigue on the airframe so Boeing worked out a landing weight that average pilots can drive the aircraft into the ground on a regular basis.

As posted if you do land over weight its no big thing but the aircraft must have an over weight landing check carried out before the next flight, hard at away airport with engineers that are not interested in you.

Its a good idea to work out the distance required to stop as there may not be enough to stop on when you are heavy and if they engines on fire land asap ive also been told if you're down to one engine land over weight as well, the other one might stop turning.

I do know of somebody thats landed overweight for a medical emergency, every situation is different....thats why they pay us the big bucks.

Cheers Enos

Not easy
 

In a classic ( if that is what the a/c in question was) you have a real chance of heating up the brakes enough to blow the tires and cause brake fires when you land overweight. The higher you are over MLW the more likely you will loose the fuse plugs and have a brake fire or two.

Landing overweight is a serious event, not to be taken lightly. Yes the a/c (at least the Boeing) only needs an inspection if nothing catches fire but if the tires go it is a big problem.

Our co. had a 400 land overweight not too long ago and some plugs let go and there were a couple of brake fires.

All of which as described above would make de-planing a medical emergency very problematic.

Sounds like the crew did the best they could. Juggling a human life, the possible outcomes of overweight landing, the ATC dumping procedures and expectations was most likely a very stressful flight. Well done to the crew, hope the pax is alright.

FG

I'm Just wandering About LDA....Surely if you just took off from a RWY of the same length...Then you can land the plane with enough RWY because pilots calculate the Rejected Takeoff speed...so if they can reject a takeoff then maybe they could land the plane :)

Energy
 

It is not so much about the distance it takes to stop, although obviously important. Just as a guess to land at MTOW for example and not heat up the brakes you would need ohh........15 000 ft ( as a guess). On anything less the amount of heat energy to stop a 747 at MTOW is mind numbing, and as such it heats the brakes and tires to the melting point.

Guess that is why we used to get the biggish bucks.....

FG

All aircraft can be landed overweight. Get'em down with a ROD <600ft/mn and maintenance don't even bother with an overweight landing check :ok:
So, the only thing to watch out is, is the runway you're gonna grease it on long enough?

live 2 fly 2 live

Thanks to all who contributed. Not sure if I am anything wiser. In a similar situation, my instinct says that I would still think twice about dumping fuel overhead Berlin. Some of the aromatic hydrocarbons found in fuel have such strong bonds (such as benzene) that they are indistructable and will end up landing somewhere. The term 'vaporizing' is a little misleading, because it seems to suggest that the fuel will be broken down and simply dissapppear.

Tough decision, altogether.

So you don't like the idea, you're not sure why, you've asked people who do know, and you think better not, but maybe 'green' issues should come into it? I see.

Do you think alleged pollution from a few tonnes will make bugger all difference? Don't you think the big producers burn off a thousand times that every day? What about all the cars pumping out hydrocarbons? Given that nobody in Berlin would have suffered in any way from dumping above 6000' or even said 'was ist das funny gasolino smell?', absolutely no hydrocarbons would have reached the ground there, it was necessary to carry out an emergency landing.......what is there not to like?

Max Take-Off Weight down to Max Landing Weight ....... maybe 30 minutes?