minimum altitude is for dumping fuel
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
minimum altitude is for dumping fuel
Just curious what your minimum altitude is for dumping fuel?
http://www.aeroinside.com/item/3202/...down-in-flight
A Korean Airlines Boeing 777-200, registration HL7531 performing flight KE-32 from Dallas Ft. Worth, TX (USA) to Seoul (South Korea), was in the initial climb out of DFW's runway 35L when the left hand engine (PW4090) emitted a loud bang and streaks of flame prompting the crew to declare Mayday and shut the engine down. The aircraft stopped the climb at 3000 feet, worked the checklists, then decided to dump fuel and climbed the aircraft to 5000 feet commencing fuel dump. After about 40 minutes of fuel dump the aircraft returned to DFW for a safe landing on runway 36L about one hour after departure.
http://www.aeroinside.com/item/3202/...down-in-flight
A Korean Airlines Boeing 777-200, registration HL7531 performing flight KE-32 from Dallas Ft. Worth, TX (USA) to Seoul (South Korea), was in the initial climb out of DFW's runway 35L when the left hand engine (PW4090) emitted a loud bang and streaks of flame prompting the crew to declare Mayday and shut the engine down. The aircraft stopped the climb at 3000 feet, worked the checklists, then decided to dump fuel and climbed the aircraft to 5000 feet commencing fuel dump. After about 40 minutes of fuel dump the aircraft returned to DFW for a safe landing on runway 36L about one hour after departure.
Back in the 1980's, there was a 747 taking off from London (Heathrow I think - it's been quite a while). Anyway, they over rotated quite badly and both outboard engines surged and did not recover. They managed to circle around and land on two engines, dumping fuel the entire time 
.
A guy that used to drive KC135s told me that the original turbojet powered airplane (prior to the engine retrofit) takeoff performance was so marginal that if they lost an engine after V1, there was a handle the flight engineer could pull to start dumping fuel out the refueling drogue at whatever the max fuel transfer rate was.
I'm sure the original question was about the 'legal' fuel dump altitude - just pointing out that sometimes you need to do what you need to do
. A guy that used to drive KC135s told me that the original turbojet powered airplane (prior to the engine retrofit) takeoff performance was so marginal that if they lost an engine after V1, there was a handle the flight engineer could pull to start dumping fuel out the refueling drogue at whatever the max fuel transfer rate was.
I'm sure the original question was about the 'legal' fuel dump altitude - just pointing out that sometimes you need to do what you need to do
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its my understanding that fuel being dumped vaporizes in 3,000'. ATC seems to like 6,000' as a safety measure.
Given my thought that it is better to dump fuel on the population than an entire aircraft containing fuel, it has been part of my takeoff briefing to initiate fuel dump immediately under certain circumstances.
Given my thought that it is better to dump fuel on the population than an entire aircraft containing fuel, it has been part of my takeoff briefing to initiate fuel dump immediately under certain circumstances.
Used to do two engine ferrys in 727s. Part of the training in the sim was having a second engine failure at V1. A good FE would be dumping before Vr.
Last edited by MarkerInbound; 9th Oct 2013 at 02:00.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding ATC guidance CAP493 says the following:
Fuel Jettisoning
1.77
Pilots of aircraft in flight are permitted to jettison fuel in an emergency.
The decision to jettison rests solely with the pilot but he may request
guidance from ATC.
1.78
When an aircraft in controlled airspace needs to dump fuel, ATC should
co-ordinate with the flight crew:
1.
the route to be flown which, if possible, should be clear of cities
and towns, preferably over water and away from areas where
thunderstorms have been reported or are expected;
2.
the level to be used;
3.
the estimated duration of the fuel dumping; and
4.
the frequency to be monitored whilst the aircraft is dumping fuel.
1.79
Controllers are to recommend to flight crew that jettisoning of fuel
should be carried out above 10,000 feet agl. Exceptionally, if fuel
dumping at this level, or over water, is operationally impracticable or
inconsistent with safety, fuel may be jettisoned above 7000 feet agl
in winter and above 4000 feet agl in summer. For fuel to be jettisoned
below these levels the situation must be unavoidable.
1.80
A vertical separation of at least 1000 feet between aircraft should be
maintained.
1.81
Adjacent ATC units and control sectors should be informed of the
fuel dumping taking place, including co-ordination with units providing
services outside controlled airspace where the aircraft’s track is near to
the boundary of controlled airspace (both laterally and vertically)
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%204...dition%205.pdf
Fuel Jettisoning
1.77
Pilots of aircraft in flight are permitted to jettison fuel in an emergency.
The decision to jettison rests solely with the pilot but he may request
guidance from ATC.
1.78
When an aircraft in controlled airspace needs to dump fuel, ATC should
co-ordinate with the flight crew:
1.
the route to be flown which, if possible, should be clear of cities
and towns, preferably over water and away from areas where
thunderstorms have been reported or are expected;
2.
the level to be used;
3.
the estimated duration of the fuel dumping; and
4.
the frequency to be monitored whilst the aircraft is dumping fuel.
1.79
Controllers are to recommend to flight crew that jettisoning of fuel
should be carried out above 10,000 feet agl. Exceptionally, if fuel
dumping at this level, or over water, is operationally impracticable or
inconsistent with safety, fuel may be jettisoned above 7000 feet agl
in winter and above 4000 feet agl in summer. For fuel to be jettisoned
below these levels the situation must be unavoidable.
1.80
A vertical separation of at least 1000 feet between aircraft should be
maintained.
1.81
Adjacent ATC units and control sectors should be informed of the
fuel dumping taking place, including co-ordination with units providing
services outside controlled airspace where the aircraft’s track is near to
the boundary of controlled airspace (both laterally and vertically)
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%204...dition%205.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering 14 CFR Part 25.1001 states that an airplane may need to jettison fuel just to meet Part 25.119 and 25.121 climb requirements, I certainly hope there is no minimum altitude.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering 14 CFR Part 25.1001 states that an airplane may need to jettison fuel just to meet Part 25.119 and 25.121 climb requirements, I certainly hope there is no minimum altitude.
You will have already met take off climb requirements or you wouldn't be taking off
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FEHoppy
Landing climb and approach climb!
You will have already met take off climb requirements or you wouldn't be taking off
You will have already met take off climb requirements or you wouldn't be taking off
tdracer,
You might be thinking of the Contintal 747 at London Gatwick 1st Feb 1988.
You could see the dead grass across the road at the end of the runway, where the fuel had been dumped straight after lift off.
AAIB report here:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...9%20N605PE.pdf
You might be thinking of the Contintal 747 at London Gatwick 1st Feb 1988.
You could see the dead grass across the road at the end of the runway, where the fuel had been dumped straight after lift off.
AAIB report here:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...9%20N605PE.pdf
Tdracer. If a Kc135 guy told you anything about a flight engineer he didn't know what he was talking about. I am an old Kc135 guy and we didn't have one. The copilot could dump fuel very quickly though. The check list was: Open the line valve to the boom, close another valve I don't remember the name of, open the dump switch and turn on the refueling pumps. Takes ten times longer to type it than do it. We could and did dump at 6000 lbs a minute. I had an engine blow up at rotation one time and we were dumping by the time the gear was up and locked.
Back in the 1980's, there was a 747 taking off from London (Heathrow I think - it's been quite a while). Anyway, they over rotated quite badly and both outboard engines surged and did not recover. They managed to circle around and land on two engines, dumping fuel the entire time 
.
.
If you're thinking of a Continental 747 @ LGW, there is quite a bit wrong with the quoted scenario
It did, however, start to dump fuel immediately (even before no 4 was shut down) and continued to do so in the climb to 4000'.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe I mentioned takeoff, but neither do I see why you're banging your head. It's not like "approach climb and landing climb" start at 10,000MSL or anything.
All other scenarios are outside of certification requirements so all bets are off.
It could well be the Continental event that I was thinking of (although I was thinking it was early 1980s, not late 1980s) - basically going off 25 year old (or maybe older) memory of a second hand account. I wasn't involved in that investigation - just remember hearing the story. I do remember being told that the surge was caused by over-rotation, however the JT9D was notorious for that so it may have been embellishment by the teller....
Rick777 - what I recall KC135 driver telling me was that "they" had a handle to start jettison - I just assumed it was the flight engineer (I am rather surprised to hear the KC135 didn't have one - they must have kept you guys driving busy). As for the 'handle' part - again it may have been embellishment by the teller. A "handle' does make for a better story than a "procedure"
Again, I was just trying to make the point that fuel jettison can happen well below the altitude where the authorities would like it to take place.
I wasn't involved in that investigation - just remember hearing the story. I do remember being told that the surge was caused by over-rotation, however the JT9D was notorious for that so it may have been embellishment by the teller....Rick777 - what I recall KC135 driver telling me was that "they" had a handle to start jettison - I just assumed it was the flight engineer (I am rather surprised to hear the KC135 didn't have one - they must have kept you guys driving busy). As for the 'handle' part - again it may have been embellishment by the teller. A "handle' does make for a better story than a "procedure"
Again, I was just trying to make the point that fuel jettison can happen well below the altitude where the authorities would like it to take place.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FEHoppy
There is no requirement to dump fuel and land within a certain time limit and therefore no altitude requirement.