Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747 Fuel Dumping Question  
User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5066 posts, RR: 15
Posted (9 years 12 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8058 times:

There was a discussion on the civil forum about this article but i am posting here a tech question. It says that the guy was ordered to write an essay on the environmental damage of dumping 6,600 tons of fuel into the ocean which is what the plane had to do to safely land in ANC.

This was a NWA 747 enroute NRT - DTW.

Well, Alaska is nearly halfway thru the flight. Why would you have to dump so much fuel at that point? I thought fuel dumping was done if you had to unexpectedly land near the beginning of a long flight when you are too heavy. But by the time this plane gets to Alaska, it should have burned up a good amount..... even with a full pax load it should not be over MLW, right?

and 6,600 tons seems like a high amount of fuel anyway.

bruce


Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (9 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 6020 times:

That number has to be way off. 6600 tons is 13,200,000 pounds. That is more than the combined weight of fifteen 747s.

?




Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2121 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5892 times:

Probably 6,600 gallons, which is roughly 39,600 lbs.


Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 3, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5881 times:

I agree, HaveBlue that is a much more reasonable figure.

Whatever the correct number (I could not find the other thread) it is easy to imagine the need to dump.

NRT to DTW is going to burn quite a lot of fuel and you need to keep in mind that the flight was planned to arrive at destination with enough fuel to meet flag rules for alternate, reserve, and any other needs. So by the time it is in the vicinity of ANC it is still pretty heavy.

I'm not a 747 pilot and don't have actual numbers but there are some generalities that need to be considered here. If the pilots had a problem that required them to go to the nearest suitable airport (or some such rule) while it is pretty serious, it does not wipe out all the other safety rules. They cannot begin an approach into ANC at a weight that would not permit them to do a missed approach or a rejected landing with an engine inoperative. Fuel dumping sees a likely option under the circumstances.

I'm curious who it was that had the power to order this pilot to write an essay on anything. I believe that I'd have changed the rules a bit and written one on the environmental damage caused by dumping ALL my fuel plus three hundred dead human bodies in the ocean.

It is called "captain's emergency authority"



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5862 times:


I'm curious who it was that had the power to order this pilot to write an essay on anything


SlamClick,

It was NOT the pilot who has to write the essay but the AGGRESIVE PASSENGER. And there is a difference if a fuel dumb is done because of a medical emergency or simply because a drunken person is getting aggressive.

"Sahutske.... He also was ordered to write a minimum 15-page essay on the environmental impact of dumping 6,600 tons of fuel into the ocean, which the plane had to do to safely land in Alaska."

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5846 times:

One of the problems is depending on the airline, the philosophy on overweight landings varies. For instance at some airlines, if you're over the MLW and have to land, all you have to do is make a logbook write up stating an overweight landing was performed. At some other airlines, such as NWA, you need to declare an emergency to do an overweight landing.

In either case, it's no big deal. A simple visual inspection is conducted by MX looking for signs of a hard landing. Theoretically, the aircraft is capable of landing at it's MTOW 870,000, so a landing in the vicinity of, in this case 670,000lbs would be no big deal.



User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5776 times:

My guess is the maximum landing weight is not only based on the effects of one landing - but of the effects of thousands of landings. Landing over the maximum landing weight once would usually not be a big deal, but if it were done for every landing it would put an unnacceptible stress on the airframe.

So the main reason airlines(and regulatory agencies) don't exceed maximum landing weight routinely is to avoid putting excessive stress on an airframe. Such stress could cause the airframe fail unnexpectedly at a later point, or require expensive repairs. Usually, the safety of the overweight landing itself is not in question.


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (9 years 12 months 20 hours ago) and read 5666 times:

Depending on the speed and altitude during the fuel dump, the fuel would evaporate before it ever reached the surface of the ocean. The environmental impact would be negligible unless the aircraft was flying below about 2500', and 175kts.

-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (9 years 12 months 19 hours ago) and read 5653 times:

Depending on the speed and altitude during the fuel dump, the fuel would evaporate before it ever reached the surface of the ocean. The environmental impact would be negligible unless the aircraft was flying below about 2500', and 175kts.


I doubt this, because Kerosene is a heavy oil and does not evaporate in total. Maybe you produce an aerosol, but not vapour. That means the Kerose gets in the biosphere, diluted, but not evaporated.

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (9 years 12 months 18 hours ago) and read 5649 times:

Believe it or not, A350, jet fuel does indeed evaporate. Before the 'raw' fuel is dumped, pumps basically turn it into very fine fuel droplets which, when in the atmosphere, evaporate relatively quickly.

Cheers,
QantasA332


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 10, posted (9 years 12 months 18 hours ago) and read 5634 times:

Thanks QuantasA332

Exactly right. Releasing fuel into the high speed airstream atomizes fuel into vapor and it dissipates suprisingly rapidly. Kerosene is relatively heavy but still has only 81% of the density of pure water.

widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 12 months 17 hours ago) and read 5627 times:

On the 744, Boeing recommends a minimum altitude of 6000' with flaps up. At that altitude and airspeed, the fuel will vaporize long before it could hit the ground.

User currently offlineRendezvous From New Zealand, joined May 2001, 520 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5497 times:

In a situation where a landing is to be made, say, with a main gear failure, would it not make more sense to dump as much fuel as possible to reduce any fire that subsequently ignites on landing?

User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5484 times:

In that situation, it makes more sense to dump fuel to reduce weight. With a substantial weight reduction, you won't have any worries at all.

User currently offlineLHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5458 times:

Philsquares,
Do you mean that with a weight as close to the empty (fuel) weight as possible, the Fuselage could support the weight if it would have to do a belly landing for instance?

Sebastian



I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5443 times:

No. With a wing or body gear retracted you have reduced braking. Therefore, you'd want to reduce your gross weight. Landing with all wing or body gear retracted is no real big deal in the 747.

My response was directed at reply 12. There has never been a case of a 747 that has had body and wing gear failure. In addition, at typical landing weights, all the fuel is contained in the wing tanks.


User currently offlineWingnutMN From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 651 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5163 times:

Another question about 747's and dumping fuel....How long would it take to dump 6600 gallons of fuel first, and then how long would it take to dump enough fuel if you lose an engine on takeoff at MTOW to get you below MGLW? (this would be about 200,000 pounts)

WingnutMN



Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5157 times:

What is the rate of Fuel dump,can it be controlled or is it Fixed open/close valve.
Has there been any occasion when the min 6000ft altitude had been crossed during dumping.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5174 times:

The dump rate with 6 pumps going is 6000lbs/min. And the 6000' is just a recommendation for a non-emergency dump. In an emergency, you can dump at any altitude, but if it's really low, the fuel might not vaporize.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 747 Fuel Dumping Question
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
747-400 Fuel Capacity Question posted Sun Feb 12 2006 20:24:19 by TropicBird
B-747 Fuel Question posted Mon Oct 21 2002 08:10:34 by Mikeclod
B767-200 Fuel Consumption Question posted Sun Nov 12 2006 07:06:31 by Jetline
DHC-8 Fuel Burn Question posted Tue Sep 26 2006 23:21:12 by Cruisertk421
Fuel Grade Question posted Sun Jun 25 2006 15:06:53 by Cancidas
757/67 Fuel On Question posted Fri May 5 2006 18:57:53 by Taguilo
Wing/Fuel Tank Question posted Tue May 2 2006 16:16:47 by 777DadandJr
Fuel Burn Question posted Tue Apr 4 2006 03:58:32 by Sleekjet
Is This Fuel Dumping? posted Thu Oct 27 2005 07:01:42 by PUnmuth@VIE
Fuel Dumping On Ground? posted Mon Oct 3 2005 16:35:46 by 2H4
Fuel Cost Question. A346 V B777 posted Sun Feb 27 2011 09:04:28 by readytotaxi
Fuel Dumping.... posted Wed Jul 14 2010 13:47:08 by steiner
747 Converted Freighter Question posted Mon Mar 8 2010 10:20:47 by 413X3

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format