Airportugal310 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3056 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13339 times:
Here's a picture on a CNN website...I dont think its a stock photo:
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3246 posts, RR: 14 Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13277 times:
God, that's why I don't read comments on news sites. I don't even know why news sites have comments. What is to be gained by reading the reactions of random dunderheads to factual information?
At least on a discussion forum like this, there's a certain level of required knowledge implied or you wouldn't even join up and post, lest you get taken down a peg by those who do know better. But news sites attract any old nut, and there's nobody there to tell them what's what.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12328 posts, RR: 12 Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13194 times:
This was Flt. CO 9, EWR-NRT (?-Japan per news). I wonder if this is the same a/c that did a major tail drag about 2 years ago, that was also an EWR-NRT flight. Apperently there was a hydralic problem just after leaving the runway or shortly thereafter.
DWController From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 140 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13011 times:
Amazing work by the crew and atc. Have the ATC audio and a ground video here.
Aircraft lost a hydraulic system after take off, tower reported debris and smoke from aircraft. Over 270 souls on board. At 1900 they reported emergency to atc then stayed between 3000-5000 to dump fuel over NJ before coming back to EWR.
Not so sure. the pilot tells ATC he wants to dump fuel, and ATC gives him a hold at "Soleburg" on the 120 radial, 10 mile legs. Not the best of ideas, when dumping fuel, to be holding. Its best to dump fuel at level flight. In fact, the pilot can be heard not even reading back the clearance, just saying "ok thanks".
Mind you, the pilot did want to stay close to the airport, but still, a hold is not the best of solutions. Vectors would be more adequate. Preferably longer legs than 10nm.
Thenoflyzone
[Edited 2010-05-10 10:51:29]
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7980 times:
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 12):
Not so sure. the pilot tells ATC he wants to dump fuel, and ATC gives him a hold at "Soleburg" on the 120 radial. Not the best of ideas, when dumping fuel, to be holding. Its best to dump fuel at level flight.
He was circling the Solberg VOR (SBJ), for those that are interested.
Airportugal310 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3056 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7912 times:
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 12): Not so sure. the pilot tells ATC he wants to dump fuel, and ATC gives him a hold at "Soleburg" on the 120 radial, 10 mile legs. Not the best of ideas, when dumping fuel, to be holding. Its best to dump fuel at level flight. In fact, the pilot can be heard not even reading back the clearance, just saying "ok thanks".
Mind you, the pilot did want to stay close to the airport, but still, a hold is not the best of solutions. Vectors would be more adequate. Preferably longer legs than 10nm.
One could argue two points with this:
1) Pilot(s) didnt have to take that if they didnt want it or find it acceptable
and/or
2) Plane would fly the hold for them and that would leave them with time to figure out other things on their agenda, instead of having to listen for vectors every so often.
JerseyGuy From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6365 times:
Quoting newark777 (Reply 13): He was circling the Solberg VOR (SBJ), for those that are interested.
That would explain the "Unconfirmed Reports" on NJ101.5 that a Continental Airlines jet would be making an emergency landing at Solberg/Hunterdon Airport. I knew it probably wasn't true especially since they were dumping fuel and if they had time to do that they had time to make it to ABE or EWR.
A guy on the ground told CBS: ".....people like Eric Seaman were happy the plane landed safely, he's not happy about the air he's now breathing.
"I don't know, call me old-fashioned, but something about it makes me think it might not be too great for you," Seaman said. "
CBS says "The flyover wasn't the only thing that had people on the ground concerned."
"The overpowering smell of jet fuel blanketed parts of Somerset County. After about an hour, the plane returned to Newark and landed safely."
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1963 posts, RR: 12 Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5521 times:
Did the plane fly the hold at a single altitude? From what i know about ATC procedures pertaining to fuel dumps, you have to isolate the airspace (10-15 nautical miles each side of the dump track) the aircraft dumps fuel in, up to 10-15 mins after the fuel dump is complete. That's a big chunk of airspace that needs to be protected for up to 45mins to an hour, depending on how long it takes a 777 to dump fuel. No aircraft can penetrate that airspace, at least that's the way we do it up here in Canada.
Therefore, if that 777 was still dumping fuel while in the hold, he should have technically been climbing by 1000 or 2000 ft after each hold cycle. Was this the case? If not, then either we up here in Canada are over-safe, or the FAA procedures need to be revued.....
Thenoflyzone
[Edited 2010-05-10 13:34:05]
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
ewrkid From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 594 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4097 times:
"Please tell the health dept in your location of the actual contact. The regulations say off shore dumping is the first choice. This was a clear violation of regulations and has impacts. If you smell it it's in the air and in your lungs, if it's in your lungs it's on you and is probably on the ground."
I love this persons comment like they actually wanted to do this and wanted people to complain about it, I wish people would know what they are talking about before they speak!! That must have been a heavy plane as it said about 275 people out of 283 were on board almost a full flight!!
HangarRat From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3479 times:
Quote: I knew it probably wasn't true especially since they were dumping fuel and if they had time to do that they had time to make it to ABE or EWR.
Even Morristown would be preferrable to Solberg, although there were one or two Citations based there and IIRC the runway has huge over runs.
The reason people got excited about the possiblity of a large jet landing at Solberg is that there were rumors circulating for years that the state had purchased it to develop as a secondary commercial airport for north Jersey.
Does anyone know more about the nature of the hydraulic problem?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 594 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1963 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
