GE90man wrote:

DoctorVenkman wrote:

dragon6172 wrote:

News reports say a lot of things for clicks and ratings.

Do you have any evidence that this was not the case? Or are you just baselessly defending Delta? The science posted upthread indicates that a large amount of fuel would not atomize given the low altitude it was dumped at. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary I am going to believe the news reports which are in line with our scientific understanding of how jet fuel behaves.

As per Los Angeles Times:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-14/fuel-dumping-kids-jet-fuel-witness

“I saw an airplane and I thought smoke was coming out,” Miguel said. “Then when it got closer, I knew it was gas because a little bit fell on me.”

Miguel said fuel hit parts of his shirt and pants and that within an hour he had been sent home.

His mother, Ana, received a call about the events and rushed over to Park Avenue.

“Just a small amount landed on my son’s clothes and on his arms, but we washed him with soap and changed his clothes and he seems fine,” Ana Cervantes said.

When asked if she would destroy her son’s clothes as a precaution, Cervantes said such a measure was too drastic.

I mean, isn’t dousing the clothes in kerosene basically what they do at the dry cleaners?


With that said, what happened at that particular location to that particular person might not be indicative of what happened to everyone on this flight path. LAFD reported that they had to attend to several locations along the flight’s path.

Either way, I’m most concerned about inhalation.

The amount of people in this thread giddy at a bad PR event for DL is hysterical. "Sucks for the kids, but suck it Delta!"

in my mind the really worrying thing is not the fuel the childrens skin but about the finely dispersed mist that could have been inhald...

Never mind the poor air quality they breathe on a daily basis is far worse than this one odd sensational situation.

D L X wrote:

BTW, looks like 2375' over Cudahy, CA:

And 178 kts speed
Using a fuel dump rate of 5 tons /minute (some sources quote 2t, some quote 5t) -
= 5 tons spread over a linear distance of 18,000 feet

or, in numbers Joe Public might relate to.... 0.6 lb fuel per linear foot

How wide was the spray pattern from 2375' altitude ?
For a start, the fuel would be discharged from nozzles on each wing, located well outboard of the engines, maybe 160-180' apart.
These in turn both spread out sideways, maybe covering a width of 300'

Not allowing for any evaporation, I'm thinking 0.6 lb fuel per 300 square feet, or 277 grams per 27.87 m² (10g per m²)

In terms of rainfall...... the average small person might get "drenched" with 0.3g or 1/100th of an ounce, over a 10-20 sec window.
In itself, tiny amounts that are not necessarily a major issue (IMO)

However.... having that quantity of fuel fall from the sky, all around you, would indeed create a nauseous cloud of vapor that would be unsettling to you or I, and considerably more unsettling for young people. Plus of course once the adults start acting in a concerned manner, the kids will pick up on this and mass hysteria could quickly follow.

It shouldn't have happened.

DrVenkman wrote:

The kids were soaked per news reports. People on the ground said "it was raining fuel"

I have also seen photos of kids covering their noses with their own t-shirts - not something I would recommend if my t-shirt was "soaked" with jet fuel. Something smells here....

I would welcome somebody double checking my figures, because they tell a different (less sensational) story.

dtw2hyd wrote:

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

Normally 6000 ft above the ground/water away from other traffic and the rate is normally around 1000 kg/min.

In an emergency the recommendations go by the way side, you do what you need to do for a safe outcome. There will always be people who will criticize the crews actions with the benefit of hindsight.

CriticalPoint wrote:

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

Certainly could, what if they injected birds in both engines,

Starfuryt wrote:

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, that is not correct, depends on the situation.

Welcome to the new Anet (nothing new actually since Johan sold out and made it free its just been getting worse) where any incident is judged
1)with bias towards favorite manufacturer and/or airline.
2) final decision and judgment made without any factual evidence but instead totally related to item 1.

Its sad to see what its becoming and its on so many threads.

Actually I don’t know YET if the pilots decision to dump fuel so low was right or wrong, but I do know this; if the people screaming “dumb captain” on this thread were on that plane with an emergency they would sure pray that the captain take his time and reach a better place to jettison fuel. Yeah right:)
Rant over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gokmengs wrote:

Welcome to the new Anet (nothing new actually since Johan sold out and made it free its just been getting worse) where any incident is judged
1)with bias towards favorite manufacturer and/or airline.
2) final decision and judgment made without any factual evidence but instead totally related to item 1.

Its sad to see what its becoming and its on so many threads.

Actually I don’t know YET if the pilots decision to dump fuel so low was right or wrong, but I do know this; if the people screaming “dumb captain” on this thread were on that plane with an emergency they would sure pray that the captain take his time and reach a better place to jettison fuel. Yeah right:)
Rant over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you point to the unsupported conclusions drawn in this thread?

Can you point to the posts saying “dumb pilot?”

DoctorVenkman wrote:

dragon6172 wrote:

DoctorVenkman wrote:

The kids were soaked per news reports. People on the ground said "it was raining fuel". This is not just people smelling some fumes and freaking out.

News reports say a lot of things for clicks and ratings.

Do you have any evidence that this was not the case? Or are you just baselessly defending Delta? The science posted upthread indicates that a large amount of fuel would not atomize given the low altitude it was dumped at. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary I am going to believe the news reports which are in line with our scientific understanding of how jet fuel behaves.

I offered no defense of any airline in my statement. It was a statement that news headlines aren't always the most reliable. I dont doubt that a cloud of fuel vapor made it to the ground and got into some folks clothing.
But "soaked" really implies something else. Now, I will say that it doesnt take much Jet A to really make you smell as though you went for a swim in it.

Several years ago the same thing happened over Conroe Texas as a Continental B727-200 dumped fuel from around 6,000 ft. The aircraft took off from IAH and had a problem. You could smell the fuel in the air but it pretty much dissipated before reaching the ground and the aircraft landed safely

gatibosgru wrote:

The amount of people in this thread giddy at a bad PR event for DL is hysterical. "Sucks for the kids, but suck it Delta!"

Turnabout is fair play. Like the hypocrites who pile on to UAL and others but when the arrow points homeward they cry "Basta!".

It seems like crew error.
Jet fuel is a strong carcinogenic and is not meant to be dumped from 2000ft, considering how poorly it evaporates.

Skin irritation is just the immediate effect.
When I was exposed to jet fuel, sometimes my skin developped weird looking protruding spots days or weeks later that I had to get checked by a dermatologist. I also was progressing towards Crohn's disease with frequent painful ulcers in my digestive tract.
Within 6 months from stopping work around aircraft and jet fuel, all of that vanished.
One of my friends was hospitalised with organ failure days after being exposed to jet fuel.

From personal experience, breathing in jet fuel can cause respiratory tract issues, ingestion can cause serious gastric issues including ulcers.


Short-term exposure to JP-8 jet fuel results in long-term immunotoxicity.
Abstract
Chronic exposure to jet fuel has been shown to have adverse effects on human liver function, to cause emotional dysfunction, to cause abnormal electroencephalograms, to cause shortened attention spans, and to decrease sensorimotor speed. Due to the decision by the United States Air Force to implement the widespread use of JP-8 jet fuel in its operations, a thorough understanding of its potential effects upon exposed personnel is both critical and necessary. Exposure to potential environmental toxicants such as JP-8 may have significant effects on host systems beyond those readily visible (i.e., physiology, cardiology, respiratory, etc.); e.g., the immune system. Previous studies have shown that short-term, low concentration JP-8 exposure had significant effects on the immune system, which should have serious consequences for the exposed host in terms of susceptibility to infectious agents. If these alterations in immune function were long-lasting, it might also result in an increased likelihood of development and/or progression of cancer, as well as autoimmune disease. In the current study, mice were exposed for 1 h/day for 7 days to a moderate (1000 mg/m3) and a high (2500 mg/m3) concentration of aerosolized JP-8 jet fuel to stimulate occupational exposures. One to 28 days after the last exposure the mice were analyzed for effects of the exposure on their immune systems. It was observed that decrease in viable immune cell numbers and immune organ weights found at 24 h after exposure persisted for extended periods of time. Further, JP-8 exposure resulted in significantly decreased immune infection, as analyzed by mitogenesis assays, which persisted for up to 4 weeks post-exposure. Thus, short-term exposure of mice to JP-8 jet fuel caused significant toxicological effects on the immune system, which were long-lasting and persistent. It appears that the immune system may be the most sensitive indicator of toxicological damage due to JP-8 exposure. Such long-term changes in immune status may have significant effects on the health of the exposed individual.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9284530

D L X wrote:

I mean, isn’t dousing the clothes in kerosene basically what they do at the dry cleaners?

No. Tetrachloroethene (aka perchloroethylene) is dry cleaning fluid. They are both non-polar organic liquids but otherwise quite different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIA90evz8gs

Apparently, pilots did not dump fuel (min 1:13) during atc contact. They requested 25R for weight, but other than that, it seemed like a regular compressor stall.

The pilots are not the ones deciding where they fly. They are under full ATC and ATC is giving them headings.

So if you have a beef with someone it should be the FAA Controllers

sadiqutp wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIA90evz8gs

Apparently, pilots did not dump fuel (min 1:13) during atc contact. They requested 25R for weight, but other than that, it seemed like a regular compressor stall.

Could it have leaked?

PITingres wrote:

D L X wrote:

I mean, isn’t dousing the clothes in kerosene basically what they do at the dry cleaners?

No. Tetrachloroethene (aka perchloroethylene) is dry cleaning fluid. They are both non-polar organic liquids but otherwise quite different.

(Dry cleaning was discovered when a maid spilled kerosene on a tablecloth. Point is, the clothes will be fine.)

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?

Kerosene is not highly volatile and has a very high ignition temperature compared to gasoline or diesel. Even then it has to be nearly atomized before it will ignite. This is why engine starters are required on turbofan engines.

D L X wrote:

gokmengs wrote:

Welcome to the new Anet (nothing new actually since Johan sold out and made it free its just been getting worse) where any incident is judged
1)with bias towards favorite manufacturer and/or airline.
2) final decision and judgment made without any factual evidence but instead totally related to item 1.

Its sad to see what its becoming and its on so many threads.

Actually I don’t know YET if the pilots decision to dump fuel so low was right or wrong, but I do know this; if the people screaming “dumb captain” on this thread were on that plane with an emergency they would sure pray that the captain take his time and reach a better place to jettison fuel. Yeah right:)
Rant over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you point to the unsupported conclusions drawn in this thread?

Can you point to the posts saying “dumb pilot?”

Do you really want me to find the ones that you and I both know are saying exactly that if you read between the lines? I respectfully assume you understand the point I was trying to make. How much detail do we all have regarding the incident? Can we wait a few more hours or couple days till we know what really happened that prompted the pilots to do what they did?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one here seems to be mentioning the similarities of this to PR113, which was only a few short weeks ago. Differences are that the Philippines crew did(?) dump only over the ocean and still performed a very heavy landing, thus damaging the aircraft and forcing it to be out of service for about a month. This could've been handled similarly.

Did the Delta pilots exercise poor judgement in dumping fuel over a populated area from below minimum fuel dumping altitude? Yes. But did they also save a plane-load of people, the plane, and potentially avert a catastrophic event? Yes they did. They plane will be fine and so will the kids who got wet.

gokmengs wrote:

...Can we wait a few more hours or couple days till we know what really happened that prompted the pilots to do what they did?

Nope. That's against the rules. You have to have several pages of outrage, fact-free finger pointing, and blather before any causal facts are permitted.

N212R wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

The amount of people in this thread giddy at a bad PR event for DL is hysterical. "Sucks for the kids, but suck it Delta!"

Turnabout is fair play. Like the hypocrites who pile on to UAL and others but when the arrow points homeward they cry "Basta!".

Or how about you stop treating airlines like a sports team and believing that anything one does vs the other is win/lose, be it UA/DL/AA/EK/BA etc? You can analyze a mistake without gloating, and that goes for every airline. Doesn't make you seem any better than the people you're calling "hypocrites", you're acting just like them.

marcellot wrote:

The pilots are not the ones deciding where they fly. They are under full ATC and ATC is giving them headings.

So if you have a beef with someone it should be the FAA Controllers

Not once a pilot declares an emergency. ATC controls the airspace and will clear the air for the declared aircraft but the pilot(s) decide at the moment what they best need. They will of course often request ATC but the requests are essentially statement of what they will be doing that ATC will manage to.

Ultimately it's teamwork but ATC will always defer when an emergency is declared and protect all aircraft and people in the air.

Tugg

PITingres wrote:

gokmengs wrote:

...Can we wait a few more hours or couple days till we know what really happened that prompted the pilots to do what they did?

Nope. That's against the rules. You have to have several pages of outrage, fact-free finger pointing, and blather before any causal facts are permitted.

Best post thus far!!! You forgot to add the thirst for lawsuits!

dstblj52 wrote:

sadiqutp wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIA90evz8gs

Apparently, pilots did not dump fuel (min 1:13) during atc contact. They requested 25R for weight, but other than that, it seemed like a regular compressor stall.

Could it have leaked?

It's a possibility. Pilots cannot dump fuel without clearance from ATC. Either that the clearance for dumping wasn't recorded in this video

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

For a start, the fuel would be discharged from nozzles on each wing, located well outboard of the engines, maybe 160-180' apart.
These in turn both spread out sideways, maybe covering a width of 300'

Good post but just nit picking, looking at the video I believe your assumption of a 300' spread for the fuel is not accurate. Each stream appears to be closer to 50-75'.

Just noting what I see. I do realize that as it descends it will spread somewhat more but not too much more (and yes it will disperse via evaporation as well of course).

Tugg

marcellot wrote:

The pilots are not the ones deciding where they fly. They are under full ATC and ATC is giving them headings.

So if you have a beef with someone it should be the FAA Controllers

They never asked ATC if they could dump fuel...

ATC comms up on YouTube now. Assuming the recording is complete, except where noted, DL89 didn’t request dumping (ATC did ask if they wanted to dump but they didn’t respond). Will be interesting to read the actual report. The pilot communicating with ATC didn’t inspire confidence in replying.

chimborazo wrote:

ATC comms up on YouTube now. Assuming the recording is complete, except where noted, DL89 didn’t request dumping (ATC did ask if they wanted to dump but they didn’t respond). Will be interesting to read the actual report. The pilot communicating with ATC didn’t inspire confidence in replying.

Actually at 1:38 they were asked about dumping fuel and holding and they stated they did not need to do that.

Tugg

gokmengs wrote:

D L X wrote:

gokmengs wrote:

Welcome to the new Anet (nothing new actually since Johan sold out and made it free its just been getting worse) where any incident is judged
1)with bias towards favorite manufacturer and/or airline.
2) final decision and judgment made without any factual evidence but instead totally related to item 1.

Its sad to see what its becoming and its on so many threads.

Actually I don’t know YET if the pilots decision to dump fuel so low was right or wrong, but I do know this; if the people screaming “dumb captain” on this thread were on that plane with an emergency they would sure pray that the captain take his time and reach a better place to jettison fuel. Yeah right:)
Rant over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you point to the unsupported conclusions drawn in this thread?

Can you point to the posts saying “dumb pilot?”

Do you really want me to find the ones that you and I both know are saying exactly that if you read between the lines? I respectfully assume you understand the point I was trying to make. How much detail do we all have regarding the incident? Can we wait a few more hours or couple days till we know what really happened that prompted the pilots to do what they did?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, but I don’t agree with it.

Every time something aviation happens, aviation enthusiasts flock to this site to discuss. What went right, what went wrong, what went as expected, what surprised. Then other aviation enthusiasts say “don’t speculate.” Why not? It’s part of learning, and it’s not like people aren’t making educated guesses. Also, no one is required to participate in threads that annoy them. So, that’s why I suggested educating those who you disagree with, instead of criticizing people for commenting.

gatibosgru wrote:

N212R wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

The amount of people in this thread giddy at a bad PR event for DL is hysterical. "Sucks for the kids, but suck it Delta!"

Turnabout is fair play. Like the hypocrites who pile on to UAL and others but when the arrow points homeward they cry "Basta!".

Or how about you stop treating airlines like a sports team and believing that anything one does vs the other is win/lose, be it UA/DL/AA/EK/BA etc? You can analyze a mistake without gloating, and that goes for every airline. Doesn't make you seem any better than the people you're calling "hypocrites", you're acting just like them.

I think the reaction is warranted given the reactions of some people on this thread, many of whom have the same airport code as part of their user names. That airport is, no surprise, a DL hub. It's remarkable that, no matter what the subject matter, it's consistently the same people flocking to the defense of the airline.

Here, it's a little early for a final accounting. But one thing jumps out at me: people saying "well, the regulations and guidelines say not to dump fuel at low altitude over populated areas, but anything goes in an emergency." That's pretty specious given that the only time planes dump fuel is emergencies. The regulations are built on the assumption that the situation is an emergency, and they still warn against doing things like this. It remains to be seen what the consequences are, of course.

marcellot wrote:

The pilots are not the ones deciding where they fly. They are under full ATC and ATC is giving them headings.

So if you have a beef with someone it should be the FAA Controllers

That's ridiculous. They declared an emergency and never told the ATC they were going to dump fuel. And if the ATC had vectored them where they did, all the pilots had to say would be "unable" or tell them they needed to dump fuel first and they'd get new vectors. Pilots fly planes, and pilots with declared emergencies essentially tell ATC what they need in order to remain safe, and ATC will do their darndest to make it happen.

NiMar wrote:

boeing773er wrote:

Just saw this on ABC evening news. It sounded like it was this terrible thing, 60+ emergency personnel showed up to treat the children, with soap and water. Poor children, they received a bath by a complete stranger.

I'm sure the kids held their breath the whole time too. Lawyers are going to have a field day. Seems like an easy one to sway a jury. Surely DL is already figuring out what amount of money shuts this up.

Yeah I’m sure that many lawyers have been contacted about this...but if I go to the local grocer and a seafood person would accidentally spill some tuna fish on my child I wouldn’t sue them for it. My child may get a headache, feel lightheaded etc because of it but it was just an accident.

I’m about as liberal as it comes but people need to learn to toughen it up a little bit.

D L X wrote:

I mean, isn’t dousing the clothes in kerosene basically what they do at the dry cleaners?

Worse, carbon tet used to be the solvent of choice. It's a very potent toxin and left a legacy of ground pollution so I'm not sure that dry cleaners are a good example to use of "nothing to see here". Kerosene is no good either, and while folks have used it as a lice shampoo the fumes can be fatal. Skin contact with kerosene can cause chemical burns. It's not harmless but if the first responders didn't take anyone to the hospital I assume the exposure was pretty minimal.

I'm inclined to believe that a pair of senior pilots for a big American airline would have a good reason for dump fuel at such a low altitude. But... whichever one of them was on the radio told ATC that the situation wasn't critical and that they didn't need to dump fuel.

IADCA wrote:

marcellot wrote:

The pilots are not the ones deciding where they fly. They are under full ATC and ATC is giving them headings.

So if you have a beef with someone it should be the FAA Controllers

That's ridiculous. They declared an emergency and never told the ATC they were going to dump fuel. And if the ATC had vectored them where they did, all the pilots had to say would be "unable" or tell them they needed to dump fuel first and they'd get new vectors. Pilots fly planes, and pilots with declared emergencies essentially tell ATC what they need in order to remain safe, and ATC will do their darndest to make it happen.

You don't know for certain they didnt tell ATC.

LittleFokker wrote:

flybucky wrote:

LittleFokker wrote:

If the flight never got above 8,000 and some emergency caused them to immediately return to field, how the heck did the crew have time to ask for, get permission to, and execute a fuel dump?

According to AVHerald, "The crew did not request fuel dump."

I wonder how big of a violation that is and what sort of punishment the pilot could expect for executing an unauthorized fuel dump.

Since they declared an emergency, there will be probably none. Emergency is the magic word in aviation to basically do whatever is “necessary”.

Here is a link to the LiveATC recording for LAX departure. Delta 89 Heavy makes first audio contact at ~3m20s into the recording.

https://archive-server.liveatc.net/kbur ... -1930Z.mp3

dragon6172 wrote:

IADCA wrote:

marcellot wrote:

The pilots are not the ones deciding where they fly. They are under full ATC and ATC is giving them headings.

So if you have a beef with someone it should be the FAA Controllers

That's ridiculous. They declared an emergency and never told the ATC they were going to dump fuel. And if the ATC had vectored them where they did, all the pilots had to say would be "unable" or tell them they needed to dump fuel first and they'd get new vectors. Pilots fly planes, and pilots with declared emergencies essentially tell ATC what they need in order to remain safe, and ATC will do their darndest to make it happen.

You don't know for certain they didnt tell ATC.

ATC: So you don't need to dump fuel or anything like that?
DL89: Negative. Uh we'll be requesting runway 25R

zippy wrote:

dragon6172 wrote:

IADCA wrote:

That's ridiculous. They declared an emergency and never told the ATC they were going to dump fuel. And if the ATC had vectored them where they did, all the pilots had to say would be "unable" or tell them they needed to dump fuel first and they'd get new vectors. Pilots fly planes, and pilots with declared emergencies essentially tell ATC what they need in order to remain safe, and ATC will do their darndest to make it happen.

You don't know for certain they didnt tell ATC.

ATC: So you don't need to dump fuel or anything like that?
DL89: Negative. Uh we'll be requesting runway 25R

I’m curious to find out what was said to approach, where VASaviation said he was unable to get access to ATC recordings. Maybe what was said there might be telling to why the pilots decided to dump fuel. Also, the pilots sounded more and more stressed as the flight went on after declaring an emergency.

zippy wrote:

dragon6172 wrote:

IADCA wrote:

That's ridiculous. They declared an emergency and never told the ATC they were going to dump fuel. And if the ATC had vectored them where they did, all the pilots had to say would be "unable" or tell them they needed to dump fuel first and they'd get new vectors. Pilots fly planes, and pilots with declared emergencies essentially tell ATC what they need in order to remain safe, and ATC will do their darndest to make it happen.

You don't know for certain they didnt tell ATC.

ATC: So you don't need to dump fuel or anything like that?
DL89: Negative. Uh we'll be requesting runway 25R

Right...I forgot. Live ATC has access to CVRs and ATC tapes for transcripts.

Look. I'm not saying they did tell ATC. I'm saying we dont know for certain one way or the other. So instead of saying

They declared an emergency and never told the ATC they were going to dump fuel.

one could more accurately say "They declared an emergency and it would appear they didn't tell ATC they were going to dump fuel."

DoctorVenkman wrote:

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

Actually its higher than 2000 ft from the FR24 data above in #12, it's 2375 ft and #70 suggests ground altitude is 120 ft. If it were 2100 ft above ground level, it'd be seven US football fields above the ground, so not scraping the earth. #12 also says airspeed was 178 kts or 300 feet per second, same distance as our US football field.

For want of better numbers Wiki ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping#Dump_rates ) gives an example of an A340 dumping 53 tons in 11 minutes or 160 lbs per second. That's around 24 gallons of fuel per second. That's a bit less than five tons per minute, but more than the 2-4 ton/minute rule of thumb given, so let's use that as a worst case number.

So we have 24 gallons of fuel being spread across one football field's length (or one gallon every 12.5 feet), from seven football fields up in the air, being shot out of a nozzle designed to help the fuel spread out and dissipate.

Not a great day, but seems survivable, lol!

dtw2hyd wrote:

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/

Irritating? Yes. Smelly? Yes. Life threatening? No.

We're talking about a one-time event with low intensity, not being "soaked" in Jet A.

DoctorVenkman wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

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.

The kids were soaked per news reports. People on the ground said "it was raining fuel". This is not just people smelling some fumes and freaking out.

Sorry, but that doesn't pass the "sniff test". Soaked would need the plane to be flying at crop duster height, not 2000+ feet.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Not allowing for any evaporation, I'm thinking 0.6 lb fuel per 300 square feet, or 277 grams per 27.87 m² (10g per m²)

In terms of rainfall...... the average small person might get "drenched" with 0.3g or 1/100th of an ounce, over a 10-20 sec window.
In itself, tiny amounts that are not necessarily a major issue (IMO)

However.... having that quantity of fuel fall from the sky, all around you, would indeed create a nauseous cloud of vapor that would be unsettling to you or I, and considerably more unsettling for young people. Plus of course once the adults start acting in a concerned manner, the kids will pick up on this and mass hysteria could quickly follow.

It shouldn't have happened.

DrVenkman wrote:

The kids were soaked per news reports. People on the ground said "it was raining fuel"

I have also seen photos of kids covering their noses with their own t-shirts - not something I would recommend if my t-shirt was "soaked" with jet fuel. Something smells here....

I would welcome somebody double checking my figures, because they tell a different (less sensational) story.

Your wish is my command!

We came to similar conclusions.

Damn, if these kids grew up where my ex-wife did back in the 60s/70s in San Pedro and Long Beach near the oil refineries of the day, they'd be getting such a "soaking" on a near continuous basis. My own first seven years were two blocks away from a chemical plant that made pesticides and chemicals used when producing rubber. One of my relatives has asthma and bronchitis attacks to this day that he claims are due to where we grew up.

GE90man wrote:

“I saw an airplane and I thought smoke was coming out,” Miguel said. “Then when it got closer, I knew it was gas because a little bit fell on me.”

Miguel said fuel hit parts of his shirt and pants and that within an hour he had been sent home.

His mother, Ana, received a call about the events and rushed over to Park Avenue.

“Just a small amount landed on my son’s clothes and on his arms, but we washed him with soap and changed his clothes and he seems fine,” Ana Cervantes said.

When asked if she would destroy her son’s clothes as a precaution, Cervantes said such a measure was too drastic.

Seems like Ana has more common sense than the media member does.

dragon6172 wrote:

IADCA wrote:

marcellot wrote:

The pilots are not the ones deciding where they fly. They are under full ATC and ATC is giving them headings.

So if you have a beef with someone it should be the FAA Controllers

That's ridiculous. They declared an emergency and never told the ATC they were going to dump fuel. And if the ATC had vectored them where they did, all the pilots had to say would be "unable" or tell them they needed to dump fuel first and they'd get new vectors. Pilots fly planes, and pilots with declared emergencies essentially tell ATC what they need in order to remain safe, and ATC will do their darndest to make it happen.

You don't know for certain they didnt tell ATC.

Well, the ATC recording is out there, and it sure doesn't sound like they did on that part of it. And you have absolutely zero evidence at present in support of your implied view that they DID tell ATC. Moreover, it doesn't matter: if they'd told ATC "we need to go out to dump fuel over the ocean," they'd have been there. There's quite possibly a reason that they needed to suddenly dump where they did - and maybe they said something to Approach that wasn't picked up on the recordings made public so far - but for that dude to say that "the pilots are not the ones deciding where they fly" is absurd when applied to an emergency situation.

IADCA wrote:

dragon6172 wrote:

IADCA wrote:

That's ridiculous. They declared an emergency and never told the ATC they were going to dump fuel. And if the ATC had vectored them where they did, all the pilots had to say would be "unable" or tell them they needed to dump fuel first and they'd get new vectors. Pilots fly planes, and pilots with declared emergencies essentially tell ATC what they need in order to remain safe, and ATC will do their darndest to make it happen.

You don't know for certain they didnt tell ATC.

Well, the ATC recording is out there, and it sure doesn't sound like they did on that part of it. And you have absolutely zero evidence at present in support of your implied view that they DID tell ATC. Moreover, it doesn't matter: if they'd told ATC "we need to go out to dump fuel over the ocean," they'd have been there. There's quite possibly a reason that they needed to suddenly dump where they did - and maybe they said something to Approach that wasn't picked up on the recordings made public so far - but for that dude to say that "the pilots are not the ones deciding where they fly" is absurd when applied to an emergency situation.

The ATC recording? From the FAA? Or some recording from an enthusiast website?
I do agree with your last part about the other statement about pilots deciding where to fly. My only point is folks are commenting with definite statements with incomplete information. I think it's quite possible the pilots didnt tell ATC about the fuel dump, but I wouldn't say it definitely based on a recording from LiveATC

LittleFokker wrote:

flybucky wrote:

LittleFokker wrote:

If the flight never got above 8,000 and some emergency caused them to immediately return to field, how the heck did the crew have time to ask for, get permission to, and execute a fuel dump?

According to AVHerald, "The crew did not request fuel dump."

I wonder how big of a violation that is and what sort of punishment the pilot could expect for executing an unauthorized fuel dump.

Pilot’s likely defense will be FAR 91.3.

§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

GE90man wrote:

zippy wrote:

dragon6172 wrote:

You don't know for certain they didnt tell ATC.

ATC: So you don't need to dump fuel or anything like that?
DL89: Negative. Uh we'll be requesting runway 25R

I’m curious to find out what was said to approach, where VASaviation said he was unable to get access to ATC recordings. Maybe what was said there might be telling to why the pilots decided to dump fuel. Also, the pilots sounded more and more stressed as the flight went on after declaring an emergency.

The audio seems to be there in the combined north/south feed, but there's no talk of fuel dumping.

dragon6172 wrote:

IADCA wrote:

dragon6172 wrote:

You don't know for certain they didnt tell ATC.

Well, the ATC recording is out there, and it sure doesn't sound like they did on that part of it. And you have absolutely zero evidence at present in support of your implied view that they DID tell ATC. Moreover, it doesn't matter: if they'd told ATC "we need to go out to dump fuel over the ocean," they'd have been there. There's quite possibly a reason that they needed to suddenly dump where they did - and maybe they said something to Approach that wasn't picked up on the recordings made public so far - but for that dude to say that "the pilots are not the ones deciding where they fly" is absurd when applied to an emergency situation.

The ATC recording? From the FAA? Or some recording from an enthusiast website?

It's the real deal, via LiveATC. The question is whether it's complete. And that only the FAA will provide. You're right in that I shouldn't have said "never," but it's accurate to say that at present there is absolutely zero evidence that they did tell ATC.

And nobody's doing much to explain how this is somehow the ATC's call to dump fuel at low altitude over a populated area and not the pilot's. That's the part I was reacting to in that guy's post. As I already said, it's possible there is more out there in terms of recordings, but this still is the pilot's call, not ATC's.

SilverwingSpttr wrote:

No one here seems to be mentioning the similarities of this to PR113, which was only a few short weeks ago. Differences are that the Philippines crew did(?) dump only over the ocean and still performed a very heavy landing, thus damaging the aircraft and forcing it to be out of service for about a month. This could've been handled similarly.

Did the Delta pilots exercise poor judgement in dumping fuel over a populated area from below minimum fuel dumping altitude? Yes. But did they also save a plane-load of people, the plane, and potentially avert a catastrophic event? Yes they did. They plane will be fine and so will the kids who got wet.

Do you have a cite showing the aircraft was in immediate danger or are you just pushing the "pilot is God and shall not be questioned" line?

marcellot wrote:

The pilots are not the ones deciding where they fly. They are under full ATC and ATC is giving them headings.

So if you have a beef with someone it should be the FAA Controllers

That could not be any more false of a statement.

Looks like PAL did a better job in the end, ok their aircraft got damaged but it was repaired and put back into service. Whereas Delta dowsed people on the ground.

As for fuel, after doing plenty of fuel tank entries during maintenance I can confirm its horrible stuff and even with the use of barrier creams and other PPE I still managed to get fuel on the skin which has led to over sensitivity to it.

btfarrwm wrote:

Here is a link to the LiveATC recording for LAX departure. Delta 89 Heavy makes first audio contact at ~3m20s into the recording.

https://archive-server.liveatc.net/kbur ... -1930Z.mp3

Pilots request return to airport at 4m00s

IADCA wrote:

It's the real deal, via LiveATC. The question is whether it's complete. And that only the FAA will provide. You're right in that I shouldn't have said "never," but it's accurate to say that at present there is absolutely zero evidence that they did tell ATC.

And nobody's doing much to explain how this is somehow the ATC's call to dump fuel at low altitude over a populated area and not the pilot's. That's the part I was reacting to in that guy's post. As I already said, it's possible there is more out there in terms of recordings, but this still is the pilot's call, not ATC's.

LiveATC is not the real deal, or maybe we have different definitions of what that is. And I agree, it is the pilots call on the dumping of fuel.