DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16831 posts, RR: 57 Posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 12574 times:
Was volunteering vaccinating dogs on Hunters Point when at about 1PM a 777 in what appeared to be DL colors flew over dumping fuel. Never seen that from the ground before.
amwest2united From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 378 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12516 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter): Was volunteering vaccinating dogs on Hunters Point when at about 1PM a 777 in what appeared to be DL colors flew over dumping fuel. Never seen that from the ground before.
What was going on?
Looks like DL 209 SFO-NRT, but it looks like it was a B767-300
Life is what happens to you while you making plans to live it!
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16831 posts, RR: 57 Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 12243 times:
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16831 posts, RR: 57 Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 12177 times:
Quoting gigneil (Reply 3):
Do DL's 763s even have fuel dump capability? Most 767s don't, if I am not mistaken.
Evidently, they do.
The aircraft was far too low to be leaving a contrail. The sole origin of the white trails from the wings was well outboard of where the engines are mounted (i.e. not a moisture trail). The white trails originated from only those points and were very persistent across the sky.
I have never seen an aircraft dump fuel "in the flesh," but that is the only thing that this could have been.
desertcdn From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 5 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 11711 times:
My brother was on this flight today. It was a bird strike, I'm told. He confirmed that the pilot did a fuel dump before landing back at SFO. Not sure how bad the damage was...
This is 5 MAJOR bird strikes this month, Maybe we ought to install bird warning devices in the takeoff before someone get's KILLED. Sully had the Hudson River but sfo only has the BAY and there are Tankers and Freighter's all OVER the place inbound to Oakland and Richmond. including the Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate. What will it Take before we DO something?? Ive smelled enough engine cooked Bird life to last me a lifetime
SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 11079 times:
While it seems like a no-brainer strfyr51, getting that done in the SF Bay Area will likely run into a buzz saw of environmental opposition. Then the Governor will try to make the airlines pay for it which they won't then they'll bump up the PFC charges for the passengers. The project will take 2x as long and 2x over budget.
as739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5821 posts, RR: 23 Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 11014 times:
It was DL 209 to Narita. They had an issue not to long after departure and never made it past Pt. Reyes. They rolled all the way down 28R on arrival with fire crews in position. However, it appeared to me much more a precautionary as the usual full Fire Brigade was not deployed.
They did however call tower, while holding at the Woodside VOR, and ask for the frequency to communicate with emergency crews on arrival. On landing they exited the runway and canceled the emergency.
I never did hear on the tower frequency what the emergency was. My speculation was a flap issue by how much runway they used on arrival.
**Another thread on the topic says a bird strike which makes sense.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16831 posts, RR: 57 Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10447 times:
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 6): This is 5 MAJOR bird strikes this month, Maybe we ought to install bird warning devices in the takeoff before someone get's KILLED.
What are you going to do about a 500,000 aircraft at 200 MPH when a bird wanders into its path? You can't outmaneuver a bird and you can't give enough advance predictive warning because nobody knows what goes on inside of a bird's rice-grain-sized brain.
JHCRJ700 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 377 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10043 times:
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 6): Maybe we ought to install bird warning devices in the takeoff before someone get's KILLED
What kind of warning device do you have in mind? Bird strikes happen and as I understand it all planes are built to withstand them (before anyone freaks out: obviously Sully was an exception). It makes a lot more sense to dump fuel and return to the airport and check things out instead of flying all the way to Narita wondering what kind of damage there may be.
Barney Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 749 posts, RR: 14 Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 9974 times:
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 6): This is 5 MAJOR bird strikes this month, Maybe we ought to install bird warning devices in the takeoff before someone get's KILLED. Sully had the Hudson River but sfo only has the BAY and there are Tankers and Freighter's all OVER the place inbound to Oakland and Richmond. including the Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate. What will it Take before we DO something?? Ive smelled enough engine cooked Bird life to last me a lifetime
Ok, we're all ears.
What exactly is a "bird warning device", and how can bird strikes be prevented?
I'm based in OAK and consider the bay a much better place to ditch than the Hudson. Tankers? Simply turn 2 degrees to avoid them - not an issue. There's plenty of boat traffic on the Hudson with far less room to maneuver.
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9318 times:
Quoting as739x (Reply 13): Yes, and if read above I clearly acknowledged that in reply 10. But thanks for making a point and not replying with any information.
Which was how I felt about your original post, and your subsequent one was a winner too!
Quoting JHCRJ700 (Reply 17): Well said! The bay also would seem better when compared to the Hudson
From a traffic perspective, absolutely.
From a freezing to death in the Bay part, I'm not sure I'd love it. At today's recent measurements of about 50-55 degrees, you would not survive super long - although I am sure the response in the San Francisco Bay would be quite quick.
shengzhurou From China, joined May 2010, 32 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8261 times:
it appears to be N195DN and i saw fire trucks standby on both side other runway and followed the aircraft taxi to the terminal, it looks like they had right engine problem.
beau222 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 107 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3768 times:
Quoting gigneil (Reply 3): Do DL's 763s even have fuel dump capability? Most 767s don't, if I am not mistaken.
What is the rule of thumb when it comes to designing an aircraft with fuel dump capabilities. I personally don't see a reason why any passenger carrying aircraft shouldn't have it. Could not imagine it coming to cost.
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3541 times:
No A330s and most 767s have not been built with them. Nothing smaller than that needs it.
Its unnecessary. The plane can land at MTOW; if it needs to get down that bad it doesn't have time to dump fuel anyway.
If it doesn't need to get down that urgently, flying for a bit to get to MLW or closer to it isn't out of the question. Dumping all that fuel is a horrible environmental hazard.
Incorrect my good man. Fuel jettison is a customer option on at least the A330-200 and possibly the A330-300. EK exercised the fuel jettison option with their A330-200 fleet. See pics below:
25 DocLightning: It disperses and it's rarely done, anyway. Why is it such a big deal?
26 gigneil: It disperses...directly into the environment? It is CERTAINLY an option you are correct. The information I took a look at said none had been built. NS
27 tdscanuck: If MTOW is significantly above MLW you should consider having fuel dump capability. Widebodies tend to end up with it more often because they're long
28 BoeingGuy: On the 767 it's based on Maximum Takeoff Weight. If the MTW is higher than Max Landing Weight, a fuel jettison system is installed. It's not a custom
29 JHCRJ700: I was waiting for someone to bring this up. Planes don't dump fuel often and when they do it's done at an altitude that dispurses the most amount of
30 Mark2fly1034: DL 209/12 (UPDATE) SFO-NRT, ship-195 (B767) STD-1250 with 209 passengers made an air return due to a mechanical (number two engine compressor stall).
31 audidudi: Did ship 184,(N184DN), operate this flight DL 9856?[Edited 2012-05-17 19:25:41]
32 as739x: Just an update: The new #2 was put on yesterday and they did an engine check today. Very noticeable with a lot of white smoke. I'll let you know if th
33 CitationJet: Here is what Boeing's website says about which Boeing models have in-flight fuel jettison capability: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/faqs/f
34 DocLightning: Must have been nice to be aboard a 763 with only 70 pax. aboard. Does anyone know why a compressor stall would have occurred? I was under the impress
35 audidudi: Ship 195 (N195DN) is currently enroute to LAS as DL9931 and then operates DL753 from LAS-DTW. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL9931 http://flight
36 tdscanuck: That's normal for an engine from storage; there's a protective oil film in there that has to burn off. As the compressor wears down it has to operate
37 fr8mech: Define major. In the spring and fall, our fleet suffers bird strikes nightly. Usually, not an issue. The airframe is inspected, the engine is boresco
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16831 posts, 
Bird strikes happen and as I understand it all planes are built to withstand them (before anyone freaks out: obviously Sully was an exception). It makes a lot more sense to dump fuel and return to the airport and check things out instead of flying all the way to Narita wondering what kind of damage there may be.
At today's recent measurements of about 50-55 degrees, you would not survive super long - although I am sure the response in the San Francisco Bay would be quite quick.
From Thailand, joined Apr 2010, 291 posts, 
From China, joined May 2010, 32 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
