Originally Posted by cannot
(Post 10663470)
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 At what point would the crew get a (further) EICAS reminder that they were still dumping - is it possible to empty the wing tanks completely and not notice? |
[QUOTE=retired guy;10663442]
Originally Posted by lcolman
(Post 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 Wouldn't be surprised if ireland was affected by this event:} |
Originally Posted by Pearly White
(Post 10663494)
Were you in a Victor? I was an Air Cadet on a gliding course at RAF Swanton Morley in the late 60s, we'd just got a few gliders up in the circuit when a Victor came over our airfield dumping fuel. Our CO drove to the tower to use the phone - we could hear him half a mile away. Tearing the CO a new one at whatever RAF base North of the Wash where the Victor was heading. "Do you know my aircraft are made of wood and fabric and held together with glue? Your bloody Victor has just dumped solvent all over my cadets. It's a wonder the bloody wings haven't fallen off!"
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. |
My reasoning has always been, if you have time to jettison, you have time: there is no rush.
In the video, the crew advised ATC they had the engine back. my analysis would be: No continuation with engine problem. There is no rush. You Have 14hrs of gas to decide. Talk to the company and keep it or dump it, but it’s your call, not theirs. Tell ATC. The weather is good, home ground advantage. halas |
Originally Posted by Dilbert68
(Post 10663525)
Get out your checkbooks Delta, the lawyers are going to have a field day with this. As
|
Agree with your comments RG, but maybe we can set the record straight with regard to "Air Asia SFO". I don't think AIr Asia need to be lumbered with that accident unnecessarily, they cop enough flak as it is. I know you meant Asiana.
|
Exactly halas. Given all the evidence, which is: the calmness of their voices; stating things were under control; then replying in the negative to the question from ATC about fuel dumping, they still did it. If there's another factor here, it is VERY DIFFICULT to see as even on approach there is nothing from them indicating a deteriorating situation. They dumped fuel without advising ATC (and probably the cabin crew and passengers too?), at the wrong level, in an area of high density traffic (what about airmanship?) and over a populated area all due to a rushed approach. The only escape will be that those valves opened by themselves. And yes I have some time on that type.
|
Interesting. So it was okay to dump fuel on Kyrgyz children near Manas airbase for a decade, yet when it happens in LA, it's suddenly a tragedy? Very interesting.
|
Here’s a few questions:
1. From what I’ve read, the injuries were described as “no serious injuries,” or “minor skin and lung irritation” (sounds like what I endure in a typical weekend of yard work). What would be the basis of a lawsuit? Emotional distress? 2. Does the FDR record the position of the fuel dump valves or the status of the fuel dump command/switch? 3. Do you think the Delta marketing department is reconsidering the decision to paint “DELTA” in giant letters on the bottom of their aircraft? |
Originally Posted by Geosync
(Post 10663134)
We don't know the nature of the emergency. But the plaintiff attorneys for the kids doused in Jet A will say the pilots could have dumped fuel over the great blue Pacific, Or just landed overweight and damaged the aircraft instead raining it down upon the poor children of East LA. No serious injuries or fatalities, so Delta will settle quietly and quickly to get ahead of it.
|
Originally Posted by UltraFan
(Post 10663562)
Interesting. So it was okay to dump fuel on Kyrgyz children near Manas airbase for a decade, yet when it happens in LA, it's suddenly a tragedy? Very interesting.
|
Prop 65
Originally Posted by aterpster
(Post 10663626)
I don't believe this is about LA. This is about airspace and airports under FAA jurisdiction. The State of California has no standing in this issue.
Regardless of what you think about the states concerne may be, while not a betting man..... |
Originally Posted by retired guy
(Post 10663304)
Does anyone in this thread actually fly a long haul commercial jet? I often wonder at some of the comments?
people seem to make statements rather than ask questions for the experienced aviators to answer eg “ some kids doused in fuel is better than a smoking hole”! Our guidance is different - 1 overweight landings even up to max takeoff weight are approved in an emergency. Example fire on board. all that’s required is an inspection. 1. agreed 2 dumping fuel gets you down to max landing weight , or near it, and is recommended if possible. 2. fuel jettison *if necessary*. Given #1 it's often not necessary. 3 dumping should be conducted at higher altitudes >6ooo ft and over non built up areas and in a straight flight path 3. our guidance is 'not in a circular pattern'. Straight flight path is not required. 4 weight is not critical to safety generally unless on a short limiting runway. On a large jet 2 tones of weight = approx 1 knot. 4. on the 777 approach speed reduction is 1 kt per 7,000 lbs. Roughly 3 tonnes. In short the decision to land overweight depends on the severity of the emergency and the runway length/conditions. I can think of no excuse at all for dumping so low as shown in the video. 5. agreed. You're going to reduce your approach speed 2-3 kts for the additional time they dumped below 5000'? Every minute of dump from the center tanks if reducing your approach speed by approx. .8 kts. Each knot of additional approach speed is less than 100' of required landing distance (actual distance is .6 of required). The math works out to an increased distance of approx. 35' per knot actual and 60' per knot required landing distance. Aimpoint alone with be a bigger factor in the actual landing distance used. They gained a reduction of approx. 150' actual distance used and reduced their required landing distance by approx. 150'. As for the hypothesis that “they forgot”- well OMG. Has pilot training/skills set really sunk that low? I know that in the next 25 years 500,000 pilots are required mainly in developing world. Now there’s a challenge. R Guy The issue of fuel dumping, especially near the airport at low altitude or an immediate return scenario, has been brought up numerous times in training. Reference #1, #2 with #5 as the math for #1 and #2. |
Originally Posted by BFSGrad
(Post 10663612)
Here’s a few questions:
1. From what I’ve read, the injuries were described as “no serious injuries,” or “minor skin and lung irritation” (sounds like what I endure in a typical weekend of yard work). What would be the basis of a lawsuit? Emotional distress? 2. Does the FDR record the position of the fuel dump valves or the status of the fuel dump command/switch? 3. Do you think the Delta marketing department is reconsidering the decision to paint “DELTA” in giant letters on the bottom of their aircraft? |
Originally Posted by aterpster
(Post 10663624)
I don't believe Delta will be able to get ahead of this one. It's all over the news. Even an article about it on Page 3 of the Wall Street Journal. The FAA's Western-Pacific Regional spokesman made a public release that all but accuses the captain of an FAR violation.
The story is still front-page news in the L.A. Times. At least four schools were affected to some extent: Jet fuel dumped on school children sparks questions, outrage Those who see this as a minor mishap that will quickly be forgotten clearly don't understand that the average parent doesn't view Jet A rainfall as casually as the average aviation worker. |
Originally Posted by ACMS
(Post 10663150)
Must have been an very urgent need for it...........otherwise it’s a bit odd to dump there!!
It won’t kill anyone landing overweight.... |
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded
(Post 10663639)
|
Originally Posted by BFSGrad
(Post 10663612)
1. From what I’ve read, the injuries were described as “no serious injuries,” or “minor skin and lung irritation” (sounds like what I endure in a typical weekend of yard work). What would be the basis of a lawsuit? Emotional distress?
|
Main problem was that they did not have an old fashioned flight engineer on board
|
Originally Posted by ropetow
(Post 10663533)
At what point would the crew get a (further) EICAS reminder that they were still dumping - is it possible to empty the wing tanks completely and not notice?
You can override the system to dump to a lower quantity for whatever reason but the 777-200 system I am aware of stops dumping when the wings get down to just over 5 tonnes aside...so no, you can’t empty the wing tanks. As for EICAS etc...if they had actioned the Fuel Jettison ECL, left it “open” (I.e. didn’t override it) whilst dumping continued I’m pretty sure the crew get a subtle hint that a Non-Normal checklist was in progress when they did the “Descent Checklist” from the ECL.... I’m not a trainer, I’m probably wrong but I think if you get past that point (I.e. close the descent checklist, declaring it “complete” ) with dumping still going on, I don’t think you get anyone hints but am open to correction. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:55. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.