This is spreading around the local internet pretty quickly. Apparently a 772 flying from LAX-PVG declared emergency shortly after takeoff and had to dump fuel to make the landing. The approach was over a school and over 30 kids have been hospitalized as a result of the fuel dump:

Flightaware Flight DL 89




According to the LA County Fire Department twitter:

"MCI | FS163 | 8000 Park Ave #Cudahy | BN 13 and 3 units on-scene elementary school assessing multiple patients after apparent fuel dump by aircraft on final approach to LAX hits playground."

"UPDATE*** 70 firefighters and paramedics on-scene and committed to providing care for those injured. FFs working to confirm substance dropped by aircraft, although initial reports stated smell of jet fuel in area."

While definitely a sticky situation, you do what you gotta do when there is an emergency situation. I’m assuming they are not hospitalized for real injuries, just a precaution in case gasoline was ingested somehow?

Sidenote: Must’ve been really darn low for the gasoline to not evaporate before hitting ground.

ual763 wrote:

While definitely a sticky situation, you do what you gotta do when there is an emergency situation. I’m assuming they are not hospitalized for real injuries, just a precaution in case gasoline was ingested somehow?

Sidenote: Must’ve been really darn low for the gasoline to not evaporate before hitting ground.

Looks like it was really low. Here's a video from someone in the area:

https://twitter.com/SujeyHernandez/stat ... 0535378945

I'm guessing it was an engine out situation. Would not want to be that heavy with an engine out and steep terrain all around.

DoctorVenkman wrote:

ual763 wrote:

While definitely a sticky situation, you do what you gotta do when there is an emergency situation. I’m assuming they are not hospitalized for real injuries, just a precaution in case gasoline was ingested somehow?

Sidenote: Must’ve been really darn low for the gasoline to not evaporate before hitting ground.

Looks like it was really low. Here's a video from someone in the area:

https://twitter.com/SujeyHernandez/stat ... 0535378945

I'm guessing it was an engine out situation. Would not want to be that heavy with an engine out and steep terrain all around.

Yeah while it's hard for me to tell the altitude, that does look low. I've seen a 764 dump fuel and I recall it being noticeably higher than this 777 appears to be. Definitely high enough for the fuel to evaporate, in any case. Hopefully everyone's all right.

ual763 wrote:

While definitely a sticky situation, you do what you gotta do when there is an emergency situation. I’m assuming they are not hospitalized for real injuries, just a precaution in case gasoline was ingested somehow?

Sidenote: Must’ve been really darn low for the gasoline to not evaporate before hitting ground.

Jet fuel is not gaoline, it doesn't vapor off near as quickly or readily.

This plane never got above 8000 feet, and was around 2300' when if passed over Cudahy, CA. Per the internet, 6000' is the minimum dump altitude.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 9#23856f50

ual763 wrote:

While definitely a sticky situation, you do what you gotta do when there is an emergency situation.

How about land heavy?

Just for reference, ATC only requires 2000 ft above the highest obstacle for fuel dumping.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publica ... ion_4.html

The only reason to dump fuel that low while returning that quick is a fire.

Terrain isn’t an issue in LA the ocean is straight out. An engine out does not require this type of expeditious return to field.

DoctorVenkman wrote:

Would not want to be that heavy with an engine out and steep terrain all around.

Looks like they departed towards the ocean, plenty of space to circle out there.


Must have been serious if they couldn't circle over the ocean for a little while to dump, must have still been way overweight when landing if it was fueled up for a trip to China. They couldn't have dumped much fuel in the short time they were airborne.

Ugh. There only mistake was not trying to go a few miles west to dump over the sea...

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Ugh. There only mistake was not trying to go a few miles west to dump over the sea...

The only mistake??? So you know what was wrong with the airplane already?

ATCJesus wrote:

Just for reference, ATC only requires 2000 ft above the highest obstacle for fuel dumping.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publica ... ion_4.html

Thanks. I stand corrected.

However, the science appears to say that only above 6000' can you expect more than 90% of the fuel to vaporize before reaching the ground.
(The source I shouldn't have used: https://www.aeronewstv.com/en/lifestyle ... craft.html)

BTW, looks like 2375 over Cudahy, CA:

Also, doesn't this mean that other traffic into LAX had to fly through a plume of dumped fuel?

Yikes hope all the kids are okay.

Thankfully, the LAFD is saying now that only minor injuries were sustained. Still, you're not having a great day if gallons of jet fuel get dumped on you from 2000 feet in the air.

Per twitter: https://twitter.com/LACoFDPIO

Here's another video, longer than the one posted upstream. Turn your sound on.

https://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/1 ... 76737?s=20

Does that sound like a Trent to you?

PS: if I were one of the parents of the children at this school, I'd be PIIIIISSED!

D L X wrote:

Here's another video, longer than the one posted upstream. Turn your sound on.

https://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/1 ... 76737?s=20

Does that sound like a Trent to you?

PS: if I were one of the parents of the children at this school, I'd be PIIIIISSED!

Lol this sounds like a scene from airplane. That’s a piston aircraft.

I really, really can't wait to see the reason that this couldn't have occurred over water, or the justification that dropping fuel over a heavily populated area was deemed a better choice than landing heavy.

What is the recommended minimum height for fuel dump, and any idea at what rate those pumps dump fuel.

Delta cannot seem to keep themselves out of news.

D L X wrote:

PS: if I were one of the parents of the children at this school, I'd be PIIIIISSED!

I presume it is no worse than DEET dose kids get by parents in one season.

CriticalPoint wrote:

D L X wrote:

Here's another video, longer than the one posted upstream. Turn your sound on.

https://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/1 ... 76737?s=20

Does that sound like a Trent to you?

PS: if I were one of the parents of the children at this school, I'd be PIIIIISSED!

Lol this sounds like a scene from airplane. That’s a piston aircraft.

Right?

But if it's DL89 and not a manipulated vid, something is terribly wrong with that engine(s).

2nd DL772 with major mechanical/diversion in less than a week... they should really do a deep dive in to their maintenance program as they’re, obviously, missing items on their ETOPS checks or just aren’t doing them completely. Profits before people.

At least these kids parents know how much profit DL made for 2019 when they go in to negotiations to settle out of court.

https://www.usatoday.com/amp/4432211002

sw733 wrote:

I really, really can't wait to see the reason that this couldn't have occurred over water, or the justification that dropping fuel over a heavily populated area was deemed a better choice than landing heavy.

I'm seeing unverified reports on Twitter that it was a compressor stall. Not sure if that would justify such a swift return and fuel dump.

The videos do not show any evidence of an external fire, though there could have been one inside the cabin. That would make more sense for the quick return.

D L X wrote:

Here's another video, longer than the one posted upstream. Turn your sound on.

https://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/1 ... 76737?s=20

Does that sound like a Trent to you?

PS: if I were one of the parents of the children at this school, I'd be PIIIIISSED!

Sounds like the RAT was deployed...

D L X wrote:

Here's another video, longer than the one posted upstream. Turn your sound on.

https://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/1 ... 76737?s=20

Does that sound like a Trent to you?

PS: if I were one of the parents of the children at this school, I'd be PIIIIISSED!

It is a Trent - N860DA is the a/c involved

Michael

D L X wrote:

Here's another video, longer than the one posted upstream. Turn your sound on.

https://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/1 ... 76737?s=20

Does that sound like a Trent to you?

PS: if I were one of the parents of the children at this school, I'd be PIIIIISSED!

Totally sounds like a Trent. Looks like it's running about redline at 2700 RPM

D L X wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

D L X wrote:

Here's another video, longer than the one posted upstream. Turn your sound on.

https://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/1 ... 76737?s=20

Does that sound like a Trent to you?

PS: if I were one of the parents of the children at this school, I'd be PIIIIISSED!

Lol this sounds like a scene from airplane. That’s a piston aircraft.

Right?

But if it's DL89 and not a manipulated vid, something is terribly wrong with that engine(s).

I think it's safe to say that another plane was flying near the person who shot the video...

Redwood839 wrote:

D L X wrote:

Here's another video, longer than the one posted upstream. Turn your sound on.

https://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/1 ... 76737?s=20

Does that sound like a Trent to you?

PS: if I were one of the parents of the children at this school, I'd be PIIIIISSED!

Totally sounds like a Trent. Looks like it's running about redline at 2700 RPM

I'm not a pilot, so help me out.

1) Would you need to be redlining the engine (i'm assuming they're down to one) at 2375' on approach?

2) Would the RAT make *that* much noise?

3) If it's the RAT, doesn't that imply that they had zero functioning engines?

If it's the RAT, then I guess they had a much bigger problem than an engine out, and the longer version of the story will be VERY interesting when we get to hear it. I'm still surprised, however, that they dumped while on approach, over the population.

Redwood839 wrote:

I think it's safe to say that another plane was flying near the person who shot the video...

I disagree. The doppler effect occurs where you'd expect for the 772 flying overhead. Unless at 2375', there is a piston plane flying between the 772 and the observer.

DoctorVenkman wrote:

sw733 wrote:

I really, really can't wait to see the reason that this couldn't have occurred over water, or the justification that dropping fuel over a heavily populated area was deemed a better choice than landing heavy.

I'm seeing unverified reports on Twitter that it was a compressor stall. Not sure if that would justify such a swift return and fuel dump.

The videos do not show any evidence of an external fire, though there could have been one inside the cabin. That would make more sense for the quick return.

Engine issues would not cause the crew to make this kind of decision.

BlueberryWheats wrote:

DoctorVenkman wrote:

Would not want to be that heavy with an engine out and steep terrain all around.

Looks like they departed towards the ocean, plenty of space to circle out there.


Must have been serious if they couldn't circle over the ocean for a little while to dump, must have still been way overweight when landing if it was fueled up for a trip to China. They couldn't have dumped much fuel in the short time they were airborne.

Honestly I don't know anything about aviation mechanics but this fuel dump over land surprised me too... it's not like this was Kansas City it's right next to the ocean!

D L X wrote:

Redwood839 wrote:

D L X wrote:

Here's another video, longer than the one posted upstream. Turn your sound on.

https://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/1 ... 76737?s=20

Does that sound like a Trent to you?

PS: if I were one of the parents of the children at this school, I'd be PIIIIISSED!

Totally sounds like a Trent. Looks like it's running about redline at 2700 RPM

I'm not a pilot, so help me out.

1) Would you need to be redlining the engine (i'm assuming they're down to one) at 2375' on approach?

2) Would the RAT make *that* much noise?

3) If it's the RAT, doesn't that imply that they had zero functioning engines?

If it's the RAT, then I guess they had a much bigger problem than an engine out, and the longer version of the story will be VERY interesting when we get to hear it. I'm still surprised, however, that they dumped while on approach, over the population.

Redwood839 wrote:

I think it's safe to say that another plane was flying near the person who shot the video...

I disagree. The doppler effect occurs where you'd expect for the 772 flying overhead. Unless at 2375', there is a piston plane flying between the 772 and the observer.

100% NOT the RAT or the engine.

RATs are loud, but not that loud, and sounds nothing like a Trent.

CriticalPoint wrote:

The only reason to dump fuel that low while returning that quick is a fire.

Terrain isn’t an issue in LA the ocean is straight out. An engine out does not require this type of expeditious return to field.

Speaking of fire, in the unlikely event of the dumped fuel landing on an open flame (wild fire maybe..for instance); is the dumped fuel stream/vapor cloud capable of igniting and making it up the 2000' feet all the way to the airplane? What precautions are take to avoid that (unlikely) event?

747megatop wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

The only reason to dump fuel that low while returning that quick is a fire.

Terrain isn’t an issue in LA the ocean is straight out. An engine out does not require this type of expeditious return to field.

Speaking of fire, in the unlikely event of the dumped fuel landing on an open flame (wild fire maybe..for instance); is the dumped fuel stream/vapor cloud capable of igniting and making it up the 2000' feet all the way to the airplane? What precautions are take to avoid that (unlikely) event?

I get it you have that 'die hard' scene in your mind. I think its very hard thing to happen because the fuel is evaporating as it goes down.

Would Kansas City make it ok? C'mon people, let's be rational. Pretty sure the pilots did not think "cool, let's dump fuel when we don't need to and let's aim for a school". Some of you are such sensational alarmists, similar to the media these days.

The other day I spilled fuel on my hands, I was not happy as it smelled for a while. I did not call for a press conference or go to hospital. Good grief.

On another note, the guy that filmed it overhead must have some new fangled mic to get that audio, that was awesome.

747megatop wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

The only reason to dump fuel that low while returning that quick is a fire.

Terrain isn’t an issue in LA the ocean is straight out. An engine out does not require this type of expeditious return to field.

Speaking of fire, in the unlikely event of the dumped fuel landing on an open flame (wild fire maybe..for instance); is the dumped fuel stream/vapor cloud capable of igniting and making it up the 2000' feet all the way to the airplane? What precautions are take to avoid that (unlikely) event?

Hmmmmmm........we’ll need a chemist.......

This is why so many think Anet is such a joke. Does anyine here know what really caused this problem, much les being qualified to comment at this point in time?

n92r03 wrote:

Would Kansas City make it ok? C'mon people, let's be rational. Pretty sure the pilots did not think "cool, let's dump fuel when we don't need to and let's aim for a school". Some of you are such sensational alarmists, similar to the media these days.

The other day I spilled fuel on my hands, I was not happy as it smelled for a while. I did not call for a press conference or go to hospital. Good grief.

On another note, the guy that filmed it overhead must have some new fangled mic to get that audio, that was awesome.

Kansas City doesn't have a big, huge ocean right next to it to dump over. Now, it does have a lot of empty land nearby, and I would expect an aircraft to dump over that versus downtown KC/KCK/Johnson County where the population is. Of course they didn't aim for the school, the point is why did they dump over the population versus the ocean, or risk the overweight landing? That's what I am curious to see.

n92r03 wrote:

The other day I spilled fuel on my hands, I was not happy as it smelled for a while. I did not call for a press conference or go to hospital. Good grief.

Spilling some fuel on your hands and being soaked from gallons falling out of the sky are slightly different situations. But good for you for not being upset at your minor inconvenience!

CriticalPoint wrote:

747megatop wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

The only reason to dump fuel that low while returning that quick is a fire.

Terrain isn’t an issue in LA the ocean is straight out. An engine out does not require this type of expeditious return to field.

Speaking of fire, in the unlikely event of the dumped fuel landing on an open flame (wild fire maybe..for instance); is the dumped fuel stream/vapor cloud capable of igniting and making it up the 2000' feet all the way to the airplane? What precautions are take to avoid that (unlikely) event?

Hmmmmmm........we’ll need a chemist.......

How about a combustion engineer (myself). Jet fuel is hard to ignite and has a narrow explosion envelope. Gasoline is the opposite (easy to ignite and broad fuel air mixture that is explosive). Do not think JetFuel is the same risk as gasoline, it is far less dangerous.

Lightsaber

747megatop wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

The only reason to dump fuel that low while returning that quick is a fire.

Terrain isn’t an issue in LA the ocean is straight out. An engine out does not require this type of expeditious return to field.

Speaking of fire, in the unlikely event of the dumped fuel landing on an open flame (wild fire maybe..for instance); is the dumped fuel stream/vapor cloud capable of igniting and making it up the 2000' feet all the way to the airplane? What precautions are take to avoid that (unlikely) event?

I'd say this is very unlikely due to the concentration being relatively low by the time it reaches the ground. I doubt that the front would have enough of a mixture to sustain constant propagation. However this is just conjecture based on back of the envelope math.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't engine out situation on a twin mean get back on the ground ASAP. Don't circle over the ocean for an hour to dump fuel?

DoctorVenkman wrote:

n92r03 wrote:

The other day I spilled fuel on my hands, I was not happy as it smelled for a while. I did not call for a press conference or go to hospital. Good grief.

Spilling some fuel on your hands and being soaked from gallons falling out of the sky are slightly different situations. But good for you for not being upset at your minor inconvenience!

I doubt the vapors touched unprotected skin are of any measurable quantity, assuming kids were playing outside in a short and t-shirt. The fumes might have scared them.

Gasoline has Ethanol, one of the worst caustic substance

Starfuryt wrote:

747megatop wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

The only reason to dump fuel that low while returning that quick is a fire.

Terrain isn’t an issue in LA the ocean is straight out. An engine out does not require this type of expeditious return to field.

Speaking of fire, in the unlikely event of the dumped fuel landing on an open flame (wild fire maybe..for instance); is the dumped fuel stream/vapor cloud capable of igniting and making it up the 2000' feet all the way to the airplane? What precautions are take to avoid that (unlikely) event?

I'd say this is very unlikely due to the concentration being relatively low by the time it reaches the ground. I doubt that the front would have enough of a mixture to sustain constant propagation. However this is just conjecture based on back of the envelope math.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't engine out situation on a twin mean get back on the ground ASAP. Don't circle over the ocean for an hour to dump fuel?

NO!!

Planes fly just fine on one engine at max gross weight. I’m still shocked Philippines landed overweight.

If an engine failure was that critical ETOPS wouldn’t matter. United flies ETOPS 240 That’s 4 hours of flying on one engine.

lightsaber wrote:

How about a combustion engineer (myself). Jet fuel is hard to ignite and has a narrow explosion envelope. Gasoline is the opposite (easy to ignite and broad fuel air mixture that is explosive). Do not think JetFuel is the same risk as gasoline, it is far less dangerous.

Jet A is closer to diesel or kerosene than to gasoline, no?

Delta PR will find a way to spin it though won't be easy with a bunch of burned kiddies. Helps to have friends in the Media. Delta legal will get the settlement signatures asap...back to business as usual.

N212R wrote:

Delta PR will find a way to spin it though won't be easy with a bunch of burned kiddies. Helps to have friends in the Media. Delta legal will get the settlement signatures asap...back to business as usual.

The kiddies at school are only a handful of the people DL may have to worry about. That’s a whole lot of people this plane flew over.

Per KTLA5, Children had minor skin irritation and were treated on-site, no one was transported to a hospital.

https://ktla.com/2020/01/14/lax-bound-a ... -assessed/

I feel like dousing myself in jet fuel after reading this thread. Jesus.

D L X wrote:

Here's another video, longer than the one posted upstream. Turn your sound on.

https://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/1 ... 76737?s=20

Does that sound like a Trent to you?

PS: if I were one of the parents of the children at this school, I'd be PIIIIISSED!

Another note about this video.......gotta love having DELTA on the bottom of your plane!! Lol

sw733 wrote:

I really, really can't wait to see the reason that this couldn't have occurred over water, or the justification that dropping fuel over a heavily populated area was deemed a better choice than landing heavy.

I can't either.

If ATC rules say 2,000' is the minimum height for fuel dump I would imagine that would mean an unpopulated, rural area.

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

I feel like dousing myself in jet fuel after reading this thread. Jesus.

Hahaha Same here.

ATLANTA, GA - PR NEWSWIRE

"We thank the residents of Los Angeles for participating in our profit sharing event today where we gave away thousands of gallons of fuel.", said a Delta spokesperson. "We are thrilled to be a part of the Los Angeles community."