QANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10766 times:
There's currently a Cathay Pacific 747 circling over the Pacific dumping its fuel just west of LAX claiming that there is or was some sort of fire on board. It's due to land at midnight. More news to come.
My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
SFO212 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10633 times:
A year or so ago, China Airlines 747-400 SFO-TPE had a compressor stall on takeoff from SFO. You could hear the two big bangs all over the airport. Aircraft flew out over the Pacific for about 30 minutes or so dumping fuel before returning and landing with no problems.
CLT18R From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10195 times:
I remember a year or two ago a Delta MD-11 made an emergency landing here in CLT. I think it was on it's way to the UK. I assume it dumped fuel since it landed because of a suspected fire on board.
Just curious, what happens when a jumbo dumps all of it's fuel over land (as in the case with the Charlotte MD-11 incident? Does most of it disperse or can there be small droplets of Jet-A all over cars and streets?
N801DM From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8148 times:
"A MD-11 can land with maximum take-off weight. If this is necessary, the whole aircraft needs n intensive inspection for structure damage. Probably the gear will be written off."
When an aircraft comes in after a over max landing weight landing. It is the captains responsibility to report it and write it up in the aircraft log. He also must state if it is a smooth or rough landing. After maintenance review of the log they will perform an overweight landing inspection per the aircraft maintenance manual. I have done this several times on the following aircraft B727, B747-200, and B747-400, MD82.83.88. With no damage noted.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17248 posts, RR: 67
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8016 times:
Any plane is certified, in an emergency, to land at MTOW, but if you land "too heavy" your landing speed will be higher, increasing risk. You will also have to do a heavy landing check. Safer to dump the fuel if there is no absolute requirement to get the plane on the ground ASAP.
With smaller aircraft, the amount of fuel is relatively much smaller, so there neither fuel dumping capability, nor a need for it.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Baw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2028 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7888 times:
On August 10, 2002, A BA 747-400 departing SYD had a small fire in the forward cargo hold, which was detected on the EICAS in the cockpit almost immediately after rotation.
As the crew was smelling smoke, they declared a MAYDAY and immediately returned to the airport without dumping fuel. With 270 pax on board and fuel for 8+ hours of flying, it was pretty heavy, but not near MTOW. In any case, the aircraft landed safely, all passengers evacuated and upon inspection there was indeed a small fire in the forward hold that was immediately put down. There was no major structural damage done to the aircraft due to the overweight landing.
There are pictures in the a.net pictures section. Sort by SYD/BA/Incidents and it will come up right away.
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
Mr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5298 times:
Every aircraft is certified to land at MTOW. The landing gears are designed to take the stress. However as stated it has to be reported and logged for checks when a landing is conducted at a weight above it's maximum landing weight.
For engine failure normally fuel is dumped but when you ahve a fire onboard, you have to get the aircraft on ground as soon as possible, in this case, without dumping any fuel.
N1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26941 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5133 times:
>Somebody must have gotten the head's up b/c there's footage of the plane landing from at least 2 angles plus interviews with pax inside TBIT after deplaning.<
They almost always have someone down at LAX to do news in case anything happens, a celebrity does something, plane crash, etc. It is morbid, but the LA stations are there. They almost always stand between T1 and T2 and you see a WN plane parked behind them.
>Then they the followed that story with one on the WN/Asiana near-miss earlier this summer. Yay, let's totally freak people out about flying!!<
Were they accurate about it, or sensationalistic? They did catch it before anything happened. My uncle is in ATC and the Asiana go around was a pretty serious deal as far as the controller was concerned. He had just checked out and was promptly decertified and had to go through all training again. At LAX, that could mean almost a year, and such a loss of seniority that his days off will suck.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Airliner777 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4296 times:
ZKSUJ, considering it could be an engine fire then it would be safer to land with basically empty fuel tanks.
Not necessarily. Every engine has two fire extinguishing bottles. Now, if the fire is not out after the deployment of these two bottles, then you might be going through a serious situation, and an immediate landing should be recommended. Therefore, it wouldn't be a good idea to spend a whole lot of time getting rid of the fuel if the aircraft has an ongoing fire.
UALFAson From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 748 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4144 times:
Sorry--didn't check to follow-up after I posted.
Haven't seen the video on the Internet. www.abc7.com usually doesn't post streaming video of its stories. I meant it was "good video" in the sense that the reporter actually had moving pictures to go with her story instead of just file footage of a random CX plane. There's really nothing much to see. Remember, it happened at night, so it's just footage of a normally-lit CX 747 approaching and landing normally amidst the lights of L.A.
The reporter didn't explicitly say what happened to the pax, but closed by saying there was another CX flight leaving at midnight that night, so I guess they didn't get rebooked on other carriers.
In addition to the areas b/t T1 and T2, a lot of reporters do shots b/t T3 and TBIT and TBIT and T4 so you get the taxiing 747s behind you.
"We hope you've enjoyed flying with us as much as we've enjoyed taking you for a ride."
Mr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 22
Reply 25, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3629 times:
I think it really depends. For engine fire, if extinguished and shut down, fuel dump is considered. But if fire is onboard, say in the cabin or cargo hold I think they'd be heading straight back and land as soon as possible...