Redtailmsp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 204 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3026 times:
It was due to a disruptive passenger. Flt was about an hour north of DTW when this occured. Pax was a Chinese national who was becoming a real problem, so decision made to divert to DTW, have the authorities deal with him and continue flight to NRT. Dumped 130k of fuel, broke almost a full load of pax onward connections from NRT in the process. Very, very expensive for the airline, but little other choice. Continuing in these circumstances is not really an option, especially with another 9-10 hours or so ahead.
AA777-200 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 322 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2669 times:
LOL! You know the funny part about this is???! He came down to TOL later that day and tried to buy a ticket on us for a flight to ORD! We had to deny him and the cops had to come haul his butt off the airport property! It was pretty interesting.
AA777-200 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 322 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2449 times:
We got a call from the police saying it was him and that we were to not allow him on the plane. I guess he was very disruptive and also we had talked to NW up in DTW about him. Usually when stuff like this happens the airlines/airports look out for each other. And considering DTW/TOL is only about 60 miles apart we got alot of people driving back and fourth between airports. When I work tonight i'll ask the agent that actually dealt with him and see what she has to say.
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3952 posts, RR: 36 Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2039 times:
Flight Attendants? I was in the jumpseat. It was a great CRM effort that entire situation. All crewmembers worked together very well. The FA's were immediately wanting to divert, not thinking of the amount of fuel that would be required to dump (we had to dump over 140,000 pounds). The captain (my dad) had the final say in the situation. We determined that we couldnt tell how the passenger would act if he was strapped in a seat all the way to ANC, and MSP was snowy, so DTW was the final decision. The other NF captain and FO, myself and one of the FA's put him into a seat (with minimal force) as we were on approach.
UAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2225 posts, RR: 13 Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1594 times:
If NW really wanted to take the time to sue this guy they could. The problem with that is it costs a lot of money to have a lawyer in court for a couple of days then all you can do is hope that he pays and try to garnish his wages if you can find him.....
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3952 posts, RR: 36 Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days ago) and read 1004 times:
The reason you have to fuel dump is because of the huge difference between maximum takeoff weight and maximum landing weight. The 747-400 has a maximum takeoff weight of 870,000 pounds...and a maximum landing weight of 630,000 pounds. We weighed about 817 that day on takeoff...and had flown for a little while, so 140,000 pounds of fuel was the calculated amount need to dump to get us close enough to maximum landing weight. Typical landing fuel is around 30-40,000 pounds.
Tjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2296 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 981 times:
"Say, can someone tell me WHY the fuel had to be dumped?
New to the specifics of certain things....
Simply put to shed weight. Planes with a combination of heavy fuel loads, cargo loads, and pax loads can't land at the weights they take-off with without risk of serious structural damage to the aircraft.
[Edited 2004-02-18 21:21:09]
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.