Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 12
 
flybucky
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:44 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:16 am

I'm not going to second guess the pilots' decision to dump fuel. Better to get the plane and its passengers safely down with a relatively minor consequence of fuel dump over land vs fuel dump over the ocean and risking the passengers lives.

However, an emergency doesn't absolve Delta of any responsibility for the fuel dump. At the very least, they should cover a doctor's visit and some tests for the kids that breathed in fuel vapors or got fuel on their skin and clothes.
 
N766UA
Posts: 8312
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:19 am

I’m confused... how did ONLY a school get hit by fuel?
 
flybucky
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:44 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:23 am

smithbs wrote:
However...that's not enough to keep civil suits at bay, especially regarding school kids inhaling JP in LA.

Rightfully so. An emergency fuel dump doesn't mean that Delta has no responsibility for dumping the fuel from low altitude.

N649DL wrote:
Also, WTF were the stupid teachers and/or police officers doing at this time? You got 60 kids outside and see a low lying aircraft on a approach = Get them to Safety.

What, you're seriously blaming the teachers? What do they know anything about planes?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:46 am

Fuel is dumped in an emergency only. The rules how to dump fuel are written for an emergency. This the captain is always right, is a bad excuse. If he needed to dump fuel, he needs a reason why he did not do it in the approved manner. High enough and not over a populated area.
If the captain has an reasonable excuse, we will hear about it soon enough.

That above has nothing to do with the responsibility of an airplane operated by Delta dumping fuel over an populated area. Delta will have to pay out.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:59 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:
zeke wrote:

That depends, are you asking as a suit that never has their life on the line or the person who has their life and the lives of all their passengers on the line.

Why didn’t you ask the question before they took off rather than after the event ? Do you think the crew has the same benefit of hindsight?


A 777 Captain makes around 300 grand a year. He better damn well know what to do and how to do it. Dumping fuel that low and over populated areas scream, "I'm over my head!" Maybe Delta's hiring practices need reevaluating?


Or maybe an evaluation of raising the mandatory retirement age to 65. I'm guessing most US widebody captains are quickly approaching it. There are plenty of studies that show you're just not as sharp at that age. And sometimes older people just can't be reaosned with. I would be very interested to hear from the FO of that flight and hear what really went on. It sounds like it was all very confusing with the different pilots talking to ATC. One of them should have been flying and one should have been monitoring.


Regardless of age, they would have to demonztrate their continued competence of situations like this in a simulator every 6 months (at least we do in the UK). Regarding the comment about it being confusing with different pilots talking to ATC that's exactly how this situation should play out. If the Captain was handling, he would handle the aircraft up to the point the Engine surge/lim/stall checklist was complete and the after takeoff checklist complete. Up to that point the FO would be communicating with ATC. Then, the captain would hand over control of the aircraft to the FO so that the captain can manage the event. That'll involve diagnosis and information gathering from various sources, option generation, decision making and assigning tasks. The captain would then resume control after the landing checklist was complete to handle the landing. That's how a properly managed non-normal event should be tackled. It's absolutely normal that control of the aircraft and the radio would be switched at certain times.

I say this as someone with 4,000+ of 777 experience and nearly 10,000 hours total time in Boeing jet aircraft: very scenarios require an overweight landing outside of smoke, fire or fume events. If the problem was an engine stall and the engine returned to within normal parameters at idle or approaching idle then there's no immediate requirement to get it on the ground. Butbit's a big if that that was all that was wrong. On running their full diagnosis they may have uncovered other issues. We don't know, so let the investigation take its course.

LAX to PVG is what, a 12 hour flight? They'd have about 90,000kgs of fuel on board, they'd probably have to dump about 60,000kgs of that to get to MLW. That would take about 40 minutes - it jettisons from the centre tank quicker than the main tanks. The fuel jettison checklist on the 777 is not complicated, in fact, it takes about as much time to click through to it on the ECL as it does to action it. There was a suggestion earlier that someone woulf action that in an EFATO before asking for the gear up - that's nonsense! Fly the aircraft, goodness. Jettison checklist wouldn't come before the QRH for the engine issue was completed. The default setting to jettison is to dump to MLW so it is a straight forward checklist. Dumping out to sea would seem infinitely sensible, the Boeing 777/787 FCTM states that dumping should occur above 4,000ft to ensure complete vapourisation.

A few other questions that were asked regarding performance - at that kind of weight on a single engins approach speeds would be high. Vref+5 probably somewhere in the region of 170 knots. That's a lot of energy to lose on landing. 5 tonnes of dumping would make maybe 2 or 3 knots difference to final approach speed - so not much. Nor would it decrease the required landing distance by much more than 100-200m. At max autobrake or autobrake 4, and only one reverser those brakes will be warm. That's another issue that will need careful management after landing.

The whole scenario is rather strange, a contained engine issue doesn't require a landing ASAP, only nearest suitable.

However, unlike the Anetters baying for blood, hopefully lessons will be learned rather than a desire for a witch hunt.
 
Seat1F
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:42 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:10 am

N649DL wrote:
Jesus Christ, people need to re-watch the intro to the 1993 movie "Short Cuts" to clued in on this.

Also, WTF were the stupid teachers and/or police officers doing at this time? You got 60 kids outside and see a low lying aircraft on a approach = Get them to Safety. They had warning, as the principal or superintendent or LAPD should've had radio warning to hear this type of communication. This could've happened so many times before over time (it's an approach pattern going into LAX), what's LAUSD's and/or LAPD's excuse? Just phone the Press and complain?


Huh?? So ATC didn't even know that the plane would do a fuel dump but the teachers and police are supposed to have known and taken action in advance? Get real.
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:17 am

Btw, this is the video I originally saw while at work, with sound that makes sense. https://youtu.be/QurhDod9B1U

N766UA wrote:
I’m confused... how did ONLY a school get hit by fuel?

Didn't it hit like 6? It might be only one had kids on the playground though. It hit adults too.
情報
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14946
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:34 am

BA777FO wrote:
A few other questions that were asked regarding performance - at that kind of weight on a single engins approach speeds would be high. Vref+5 probably somewhere in the region of 170 knots.


Think they said 157 kts on the radio to ATC
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8267
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:32 am

N766UA wrote:
I’m confused... how did ONLY a school get hit by fuel?


It probably dosed/fumed few other places. But Park Elementary was right in the path and two classes were in the play ground. If you follow the flight path there are several schools, churches ...

Image
All posts are just opinions.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:40 am

N766UA wrote:
I’m confused... how did ONLY a school get hit by fuel?


Flipping the switch off and on with LOTS of practice.
 
N757ST
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:48 am

This captain didn’t operate in a vacuum. Captains authority only gets you so far. You still have to follow proper procedures as outlined in your QRH or have a real good reason why you didn’t. I understand this might have been a compressor stall, I don’t even know that they lost the engine. It sounds like they didn’t follow the procedures as outlined in the QRH, and there were consequences. His consequence will likely be some retraining and possibly some “unpaid vacation”.
 
LTCM
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:35 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:35 pm

Now with the facts, it's clear what happen here.

Delta didn't want to pull the aircraft out for overweight landing inspections so they exposed countless people to toxic jet fuel instead.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:48 pm

zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
A few other questions that were asked regarding performance - at that kind of weight on a single engins approach speeds would be high. Vref+5 probably somewhere in the region of 170 knots.


Think they said 157 kts on the radio to ATC


If their Vref was 157kts they'd have only been at about 235 tonnes - just under 30 tonnes above max landing weight. It's heavy, but it isn't that heavy.

I'm guessing they'd been dumping for a while to get to that weight, this isn't something they initiated on base leg.
 
theaviator380
Posts: 682
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:44 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:57 pm

BA777FO wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:

A 777 Captain makes around 300 grand a year. He better damn well know what to do and how to do it. Dumping fuel that low and over populated areas scream, "I'm over my head!" Maybe Delta's hiring practices need reevaluating?


Or maybe an evaluation of raising the mandatory retirement age to 65. I'm guessing most US widebody captains are quickly approaching it. There are plenty of studies that show you're just not as sharp at that age. And sometimes older people just can't be reaosned with. I would be very interested to hear from the FO of that flight and hear what really went on. It sounds like it was all very confusing with the different pilots talking to ATC. One of them should have been flying and one should have been monitoring.


Regardless of age, they would have to demonztrate their continued competence of situations like this in a simulator every 6 months (at least we do in the UK). Regarding the comment about it being confusing with different pilots talking to ATC that's exactly how this situation should play out. If the Captain was handling, he would handle the aircraft up to the point the Engine surge/lim/stall checklist was complete and the after takeoff checklist complete. Up to that point the FO would be communicating with ATC. Then, the captain would hand over control of the aircraft to the FO so that the captain can manage the event. That'll involve diagnosis and information gathering from various sources, option generation, decision making and assigning tasks. The captain would then resume control after the landing checklist was complete to handle the landing. That's how a properly managed non-normal event should be tackled. It's absolutely normal that control of the aircraft and the radio would be switched at certain times.

I say this as someone with 4,000+ of 777 experience and nearly 10,000 hours total time in Boeing jet aircraft: very scenarios require an overweight landing outside of smoke, fire or fume events. If the problem was an engine stall and the engine returned to within normal parameters at idle or approaching idle then there's no immediate requirement to get it on the ground. Butbit's a big if that that was all that was wrong. On running their full diagnosis they may have uncovered other issues. We don't know, so let the investigation take its course.

LAX to PVG is what, a 12 hour flight? They'd have about 90,000kgs of fuel on board, they'd probably have to dump about 60,000kgs of that to get to MLW. That would take about 40 minutes - it jettisons from the centre tank quicker than the main tanks. The fuel jettison checklist on the 777 is not complicated, in fact, it takes about as much time to click through to it on the ECL as it does to action it. There was a suggestion earlier that someone woulf action that in an EFATO before asking for the gear up - that's nonsense! Fly the aircraft, goodness. Jettison checklist wouldn't come before the QRH for the engine issue was completed. The default setting to jettison is to dump to MLW so it is a straight forward checklist. Dumping out to sea would seem infinitely sensible, the Boeing 777/787 FCTM states that dumping should occur above 4,000ft to ensure complete vapourisation.

A few other questions that were asked regarding performance - at that kind of weight on a single engins approach speeds would be high. Vref+5 probably somewhere in the region of 170 knots. That's a lot of energy to lose on landing. 5 tonnes of dumping would make maybe 2 or 3 knots difference to final approach speed - so not much. Nor would it decrease the required landing distance by much more than 100-200m. At max autobrake or autobrake 4, and only one reverser those brakes will be warm. That's another issue that will need careful management after landing.

The whole scenario is rather strange, a contained engine issue doesn't require a landing ASAP, only nearest suitable.

However, unlike the Anetters baying for blood, hopefully lessons will be learned rather than a desire for a witch hunt.




May sound daft question (I am neither pilot nor engineer), the recommended altitude for fuel dump is based on fuel type (knowing there are types of aviation fuel?) and not based on aircraft whether it's Boeing or Airbus?

Also I have read few authentic places it should be above 5-6K feet on the contrary you saying 4k as per Boeing FCTM.
 
D L X
Posts: 12671
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:17 pm

BA777FO wrote:
zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
A few other questions that were asked regarding performance - at that kind of weight on a single engins approach speeds would be high. Vref+5 probably somewhere in the region of 170 knots.


Think they said 157 kts on the radio to ATC


If their Vref was 157kts they'd have only been at about 235 tonnes - just under 30 tonnes above max landing weight. It's heavy, but it isn't that heavy.

I'm guessing they'd been dumping for a while to get to that weight, this isn't something they initiated on base leg.

They first said 212 on the radio when asked by Approach, then 209.8, both while still downwind. I’m going to guess they were dumping at the time. I wouldn’t be surprised that they got it under MLW by the time they landed.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8267
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:23 pm

That is one of the most confusing conversation with ATC.

Initially crew said "we had an engine compressor stall, we got it back under control", later said "it just stalled and we got them terminated for now".
Similarly emergency, later not critcal,
Don't need to hold or dump, later dumped fuel,
No assistance needed, immediately yeah roll the equipment
All posts are just opinions.
 
D L X
Posts: 12671
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:27 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
N766UA wrote:
I’m confused... how did ONLY a school get hit by fuel?


It probably dosed/fumed few other places. But Park Elementary was right in the path and two classes were in the play ground. If you follow the flight path there are several schools, churches ...

Image

Right. Many places were hit, including many schools. My guess is that it happened at a time schools in the area would normally be at recess which is why so many schools requested paramedics.

From the LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... icials-say

A total of 60 patients were treated, at least 20 of them children. The Los Angeles County Fire Department said more than 70 firefighters and paramedics headed to Park School Elementary, where 20 children and 11 adults were treated for minor injuries. No one was taken to the hospital. Additionally, six people at Tweedy Elementary School and six at San Gabriel Elementary in South Gate were affected, as was one adult at Graham Elementary School. L.A. City Fire treated 16 patients at Jordan High School in Long Beach and 93rd Street Elementary in Green Meadows.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:41 pm

theaviator380 wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Or maybe an evaluation of raising the mandatory retirement age to 65. I'm guessing most US widebody captains are quickly approaching it. There are plenty of studies that show you're just not as sharp at that age. And sometimes older people just can't be reaosned with. I would be very interested to hear from the FO of that flight and hear what really went on. It sounds like it was all very confusing with the different pilots talking to ATC. One of them should have been flying and one should have been monitoring.


Regardless of age, they would have to demonztrate their continued competence of situations like this in a simulator every 6 months (at least we do in the UK). Regarding the comment about it being confusing with different pilots talking to ATC that's exactly how this situation should play out. If the Captain was handling, he would handle the aircraft up to the point the Engine surge/lim/stall checklist was complete and the after takeoff checklist complete. Up to that point the FO would be communicating with ATC. Then, the captain would hand over control of the aircraft to the FO so that the captain can manage the event. That'll involve diagnosis and information gathering from various sources, option generation, decision making and assigning tasks. The captain would then resume control after the landing checklist was complete to handle the landing. That's how a properly managed non-normal event should be tackled. It's absolutely normal that control of the aircraft and the radio would be switched at certain times.

I say this as someone with 4,000+ of 777 experience and nearly 10,000 hours total time in Boeing jet aircraft: very scenarios require an overweight landing outside of smoke, fire or fume events. If the problem was an engine stall and the engine returned to within normal parameters at idle or approaching idle then there's no immediate requirement to get it on the ground. Butbit's a big if that that was all that was wrong. On running their full diagnosis they may have uncovered other issues. We don't know, so let the investigation take its course.

LAX to PVG is what, a 12 hour flight? They'd have about 90,000kgs of fuel on board, they'd probably have to dump about 60,000kgs of that to get to MLW. That would take about 40 minutes - it jettisons from the centre tank quicker than the main tanks. The fuel jettison checklist on the 777 is not complicated, in fact, it takes about as much time to click through to it on the ECL as it does to action it. There was a suggestion earlier that someone woulf action that in an EFATO before asking for the gear up - that's nonsense! Fly the aircraft, goodness. Jettison checklist wouldn't come before the QRH for the engine issue was completed. The default setting to jettison is to dump to MLW so it is a straight forward checklist. Dumping out to sea would seem infinitely sensible, the Boeing 777/787 FCTM states that dumping should occur above 4,000ft to ensure complete vapourisation.

A few other questions that were asked regarding performance - at that kind of weight on a single engins approach speeds would be high. Vref+5 probably somewhere in the region of 170 knots. That's a lot of energy to lose on landing. 5 tonnes of dumping would make maybe 2 or 3 knots difference to final approach speed - so not much. Nor would it decrease the required landing distance by much more than 100-200m. At max autobrake or autobrake 4, and only one reverser those brakes will be warm. That's another issue that will need careful management after landing.

The whole scenario is rather strange, a contained engine issue doesn't require a landing ASAP, only nearest suitable.

However, unlike the Anetters baying for blood, hopefully lessons will be learned rather than a desire for a witch hunt.




May sound daft question (I am neither pilot nor engineer), the recommended altitude for fuel dump is based on fuel type (knowing there are types of aviation fuel?) and not based on aircraft whether it's Boeing or Airbus?

Also I have read few authentic places it should be above 5-6K feet on the contrary you saying 4k as per Boeing FCTM.


4,000ft is a minimum stated by the 777/787 FCTM to ensure complete vapourisation. It's not a contradiction, it's a suggestion in the FCTM to ensure complete vapourisation prior to ground contact.

As a company we'd only typically jettison above 8,000ft. Local procedures may differ from state to state as to where or how high they would like crews to undertake a jettison if required.

Looking at the flightaware flight path there's absolutely no way this crew could have conducted a proper decision making process and hence would suggest why they were dumping so low to the ground. The approach should not have commenced until the jettison was complete and the fuel jettison checklist complete. How much of an approach briefing could they have conducted? A NITS brief to cabin crew? Guessing a lot of this would have been omitted.

The report into this will make interesting reading.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2148
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:08 pm

I think one thing that is being overlooked here, and maybe it’s buried somewhere in the piles of nonsense posts, and that is a potential go around. The aircraft appears to have been over speed by 20-30 knots which may have presented a last minute concern about not being able to land at all. That’s pretty hot for a heavy. They may also have even encountered some flight control issues on final we are unaware of. While we don’t know all the facts, excessive weight would have a significant impact on the ability to climb on a go around inducing a whole new set of problems not associated with landing heavy. Another concern would be sink rate. You’re on one engine, dropping like a lead balloon and you start shedding what weight you can to reduce the sink rate.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
incitatus
Posts: 3373
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:22 pm

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.



Delta offers Los Angeles children free tan!
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14946
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:24 pm

D L X wrote:
They first said 212 on the radio when asked by Approach, then 209.8, both while still downwind. I’m going to guess they were dumping at the time. I wouldn’t be surprised that they got it under MLW by the time they landed.


That was pounds of fuel onboard, they could have been burning 15-20000 lb/hr. 2200 lb is only 5-10 minutes.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
BA777FO
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:27 pm

DL717 wrote:
I think one thing that is being overlooked here, and maybe it’s buried somewhere in the piles of nonsense posts, and that is a potential go around. The aircraft appears to have been over speed by 20-30 knots which may have presented a last minute concern about not being able to land at all. That’s pretty hot for a heavy. They may also have even encountered some flight control issues on final we are unaware of. While we don’t know all the facts, excessive weight would have a significant impact on the ability to climb on a go around inducing a whole new set of problems not associated with landing heavy. Another concern would be sink rate. You’re on one engine, dropping like a lead balloon and you start shedding what weight you can to reduce the sink rate.


A potential go-around could have been avoided, or at least the probability lessened, if a proper approach briefing was conducted. By the looks of it, they barely had time to look at the ECL notes let alone a proper approach brief. The weight issue should have been discussed as part of the decision making process and approach brief and a discussion as to whether they needed to complete the Overweight Landing checklist. Unless there was smoke in the cabin/flight deck or something else serious was going on that we don't yet know about such an expedited approach seems unnecessary and potentially starts lining up the proverbial holes in the swiss cheese.

Looking at the tables, a Trent 895 777 at 30 degrees C (which it wasn't) and at 260 tonnes (it was lighter) would still give a go-around climb gradient in excess of 3 degrees. 300ft per nm per mile isn't a great rate of climb but it's sufficient out to sea and no worse than an EFATO at MTOW.
Last edited by BA777FO on Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
theaviator380
Posts: 682
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:44 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:32 pm

BA777FO wrote:
theaviator380 wrote:
BA777FO wrote:

Regardless of age, they would have to demonztrate their continued competence of situations like this in a simulator every 6 months (at least we do in the UK). Regarding the comment about it being confusing with different pilots talking to ATC that's exactly how this situation should play out. If the Captain was handling, he would handle the aircraft up to the point the Engine surge/lim/stall checklist was complete and the after takeoff checklist complete. Up to that point the FO would be communicating with ATC. Then, the captain would hand over control of the aircraft to the FO so that the captain can manage the event. That'll involve diagnosis and information gathering from various sources, option generation, decision making and assigning tasks. The captain would then resume control after the landing checklist was complete to handle the landing. That's how a properly managed non-normal event should be tackled. It's absolutely normal that control of the aircraft and the radio would be switched at certain times.

I say this as someone with 4,000+ of 777 experience and nearly 10,000 hours total time in Boeing jet aircraft: very scenarios require an overweight landing outside of smoke, fire or fume events. If the problem was an engine stall and the engine returned to within normal parameters at idle or approaching idle then there's no immediate requirement to get it on the ground. Butbit's a big if that that was all that was wrong. On running their full diagnosis they may have uncovered other issues. We don't know, so let the investigation take its course.

LAX to PVG is what, a 12 hour flight? They'd have about 90,000kgs of fuel on board, they'd probably have to dump about 60,000kgs of that to get to MLW. That would take about 40 minutes - it jettisons from the centre tank quicker than the main tanks. The fuel jettison checklist on the 777 is not complicated, in fact, it takes about as much time to click through to it on the ECL as it does to action it. There was a suggestion earlier that someone woulf action that in an EFATO before asking for the gear up - that's nonsense! Fly the aircraft, goodness. Jettison checklist wouldn't come before the QRH for the engine issue was completed. The default setting to jettison is to dump to MLW so it is a straight forward checklist. Dumping out to sea would seem infinitely sensible, the Boeing 777/787 FCTM states that dumping should occur above 4,000ft to ensure complete vapourisation.

A few other questions that were asked regarding performance - at that kind of weight on a single engins approach speeds would be high. Vref+5 probably somewhere in the region of 170 knots. That's a lot of energy to lose on landing. 5 tonnes of dumping would make maybe 2 or 3 knots difference to final approach speed - so not much. Nor would it decrease the required landing distance by much more than 100-200m. At max autobrake or autobrake 4, and only one reverser those brakes will be warm. That's another issue that will need careful management after landing.

The whole scenario is rather strange, a contained engine issue doesn't require a landing ASAP, only nearest suitable.

However, unlike the Anetters baying for blood, hopefully lessons will be learned rather than a desire for a witch hunt.




May sound daft question (I am neither pilot nor engineer), the recommended altitude for fuel dump is based on fuel type (knowing there are types of aviation fuel?) and not based on aircraft whether it's Boeing or Airbus?

Also I have read few authentic places it should be above 5-6K feet on the contrary you saying 4k as per Boeing FCTM.


4,000ft is a minimum stated by the 777/787 FCTM to ensure complete vapourisation. It's not a contradiction, it's a suggestion in the FCTM to ensure complete vapourisation prior to ground contact.

As a company we'd only typically jettison above 8,000ft. Local procedures may differ from state to state as to where or how high they would like crews to undertake a jettison if required.

Looking at the flightaware flight path there's absolutely no way this crew could have conducted a proper decision making process and hence would suggest why they were dumping so low to the ground. The approach should not have commenced until the jettison was complete and the fuel jettison checklist complete. How much of an approach briefing could they have conducted? A NITS brief to cabin crew? Guessing a lot of this would have been omitted.

The report into this will make interesting reading.



Thanks Officer for detailed response ! much appreciated. Always good to hear from experts !
 
cschleic
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:45 pm

Seat1F wrote:
N649DL wrote:
Jesus Christ, people need to re-watch the intro to the 1993 movie "Short Cuts" to clued in on this.

Also, WTF were the stupid teachers and/or police officers doing at this time? You got 60 kids outside and see a low lying aircraft on a approach = Get them to Safety. They had warning, as the principal or superintendent or LAPD should've had radio warning to hear this type of communication. This could've happened so many times before over time (it's an approach pattern going into LAX), what's LAUSD's and/or LAPD's excuse? Just phone the Press and complain?


Huh?? So ATC didn't even know that the plane would do a fuel dump but the teachers and police are supposed to have known and taken action in advance? Get real.


Well N649DL the school is under the general final approach path to LAX so they probably get planes over it all the time. They're all supposed to have radios with someone familiar enough with pilot transmissions to listen all day long? Yeah, get real and quit the blame game.
 
johns624
Posts: 2696
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:50 pm

N212R wrote:
a bunch of burned kiddies.
Oh, please!
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:56 pm

It appears from Forbes that the fuel dump laid a swath over six schools. DL admits the fuel dump and has setup a hotline for those affected.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabeltogo ... 8a7f123d4b

In my experience with schools, they are sensitive to student health - they have hundreds of kids in a big petri dish, and liability is a big concern (kids are resilient, but parents can be freaky sometimes). If it appears that the building and playground has had some sort of 'fuel event,' you can safely assume 911 is being called and the fire department will be coming.
 
User avatar
GE90man
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:10 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:10 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
That is one of the most confusing conversation with ATC.

Initially crew said "we had an engine compressor stall, we got it back under control", later said "it just stalled and we got them terminated for now".
Similarly emergency, later not critcal,
Don't need to hold or dump, later dumped fuel,
No assistance needed, immediately yeah roll the equipment

That stuck out to me too. As the flight went on, it sounded like the pilots were more and more stressed. Perhaps they had something else to deal with as the situation unfolded.
 
DLASFlyer
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:06 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:16 pm

Being a 777, the captain and FO were probably very experienced, making this all the more strange if it was a mistake.
 
musman9853
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:20 pm

boeing773er wrote:
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.


big difference between fish and freaking jet fuel. its a carcinogen. exposure is unsafe.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
DALMD80
Posts: 488
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:32 pm

Seat1F wrote:
N649DL wrote:
Jesus Christ, people need to re-watch the intro to the 1993 movie "Short Cuts" to clued in on this.

Also, WTF were the stupid teachers and/or police officers doing at this time? You got 60 kids outside and see a low lying aircraft on a approach = Get them to Safety. They had warning, as the principal or superintendent or LAPD should've had radio warning to hear this type of communication. This could've happened so many times before over time (it's an approach pattern going into LAX), what's LAUSD's and/or LAPD's excuse? Just phone the Press and complain?


Huh?? So ATC didn't even know that the plane would do a fuel dump but the teachers and police are supposed to have known and taken action in advance? Get real.

No, but a plane with something that looks like smoke coming out of it (according to one of the students) on approach should set off some alarms.
Farewell to the Mad Dogs- the first week of June 2020 will be remembered by most of us here on A.net as the day the Mad Dogs left.
 
D L X
Posts: 12671
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:34 pm

zeke wrote:
D L X wrote:
They first said 212 on the radio when asked by Approach, then 209.8, both while still downwind. I’m going to guess they were dumping at the time. I wouldn’t be surprised that they got it under MLW by the time they landed.


That was pounds of fuel onboard, they could have been burning 15-20000 lb/hr. 2200 lb is only 5-10 minutes.

Ah. Thanks for the info!

So, not enough info from this to determine landing weight, correct?
 
highflier92660
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:16 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:38 pm

No better public relations for Delta Air Lines than having one of their Boeing triple-sevens flying low over Los Angeles, Jet-A pouring out of the dump chutes, with an enormous Delta (plus logo) emblazoned on the underside of their aircraft.

I'm sure that the airline will defend the crew, but unless there was an urgency to put the a/c on the ground, they should have uttered a couple of explicative words of resignation and gone out over the Pacific near the channel islands to dump fuel.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:42 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
dragon6172 wrote:
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.


It is the pilots call to dump fuel and Emergency or Mayday gives the pilots a lot of discretion......However they are going to to have to answer for every decision. To dump fuel at 2000 feet is a blatant and willful disregard of the FOM/FM and they better have a good reason or certificate action is a real possibility.

They had a compressor stall, contained it and had both engines still running. If you wanted to dump gas they had the ability and time to do it at 8000 feet out over the ocean. If they wanted to come back immediately they could land over weight.

The crew is going to have a hard time defending this in my opinion. Declaring an emergency is not a get out of jail free card.



Since you must have copies of these manuals, could you please the us readers exactly what they say regarding fuel dumping? BTW, they are the FCOM, and I don't what you are referring to when you say FM. Maybe the FCTM (flight crew training manual). QRH?


Thanks
 
mcdu
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:46 pm

zkojq wrote:
I'm siding with the flight crew here. They did what they had to do to get their aircraft safety back to terra firma and stopped before the runway end. Overweight landings are potentially fraught with danger. Ever kilo lighter the plane is, the less likely the brakes are to overheat and cause the tires to explode.


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.


With that in mind I'd like to blame the children for not getting out of the way fast enough. ;) :duck:


Except that the planes are designed to land up to the max weight if needed and not have the brakes catch on fire....I don’t think Mark Forkner worked on the 777 program so it might be safe from Boeing lies about design.
 
DoctorVenkman
Topic Author
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:47 pm

DLASFlyer wrote:
Being a 777, the captain and FO were probably very experienced, making this all the more strange if it was a mistake.


This forum often assumes that an experienced flight crew cannot make mistakes, but at the end of the day even very-experienced flight crews are human. Mistakes happen. At this stage it's way too early to rule out a crew error.
 
User avatar
YSAPW
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:50 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:55 pm

Oh how do I love the smell of Napalm and Lawsuits in the morning.
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:04 pm

LAX is a very busy airport. It is the origin for a lot of long haul and ULH flights (very large MTOWs). Engine failures at takeoff -- especially compressor stalls -- are not unheard of events. All airlines operating out of LAX surely have particular procedures in place for just this sort of event at LAX. I can't imagine that this flight -- for whatever reason -- followed whatever Delta's approved procedure is. It will be interesting to hear the whole story.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
flyPIT
Posts: 1880
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:21 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:11 pm

BA777FO wrote:
Regardless of age, they would have to demonztrate their continued competence of situations like this in a simulator every 6 months (at least we do in the UK). Regarding the comment about it being confusing with different pilots talking to ATC that's exactly how this situation should play out. If the Captain was handling, he would handle the aircraft up to the point the Engine surge/lim/stall checklist was complete and the after takeoff checklist complete. Up to that point the FO would be communicating with ATC. Then, the captain would hand over control of the aircraft to the FO so that the captain can manage the event. That'll involve diagnosis and information gathering from various sources, option generation, decision making and assigning tasks. The captain would then resume control after the landing checklist was complete to handle the landing. That's how a properly managed non-normal event should be tackled. It's absolutely normal that control of the aircraft and the radio would be switched at certain times.

I say this as someone with 4,000+ of 777 experience and nearly 10,000 hours total time in Boeing jet aircraft: very scenarios require an overweight landing outside of smoke, fire or fume events. If the problem was an engine stall and the engine returned to within normal parameters at idle or approaching idle then there's no immediate requirement to get it on the ground. Butbit's a big if that that was all that was wrong. On running their full diagnosis they may have uncovered other issues. We don't know, so let the investigation take its course.

LAX to PVG is what, a 12 hour flight? They'd have about 90,000kgs of fuel on board, they'd probably have to dump about 60,000kgs of that to get to MLW. That would take about 40 minutes - it jettisons from the centre tank quicker than the main tanks. The fuel jettison checklist on the 777 is not complicated, in fact, it takes about as much time to click through to it on the ECL as it does to action it. There was a suggestion earlier that someone woulf action that in an EFATO before asking for the gear up - that's nonsense! Fly the aircraft, goodness. Jettison checklist wouldn't come before the QRH for the engine issue was completed. The default setting to jettison is to dump to MLW so it is a straight forward checklist. Dumping out to sea would seem infinitely sensible, the Boeing 777/787 FCTM states that dumping should occur above 4,000ft to ensure complete vapourisation.

A few other questions that were asked regarding performance - at that kind of weight on a single engins approach speeds would be high. Vref+5 probably somewhere in the region of 170 knots. That's a lot of energy to lose on landing. 5 tonnes of dumping would make maybe 2 or 3 knots difference to final approach speed - so not much. Nor would it decrease the required landing distance by much more than 100-200m. At max autobrake or autobrake 4, and only one reverser those brakes will be warm. That's another issue that will need careful management after landing.

The whole scenario is rather strange, a contained engine issue doesn't require a landing ASAP, only nearest suitable.

However, unlike the Anetters baying for blood, hopefully lessons will be learned rather than a desire for a witch hunt.


The statements I highlighted in red will vary from carrier to carrier. Some airlines will have the Pilot Flying continue to fly the rest of the flight while the Pilot Monitoring does the managing and checklists, irregardless of who is the PF or PM. That's how it is at my carrier but I prefer how your carrier does it. Once things have stabilized the Captain should be the one managing and running checklists. Why? Because in a seniority based system, on average, the Captain would have completed more training events and real life events involving checklists, emergency procedures, coordinating things with dispatch and maintenance, etc etc specific to that carrier's policies and procedures.

But on the issue of who actually lands, I don't think it matters as much. Again, in a seniority based system the Captain may have been at Delta for 30 years.... 29.5 on the 737 and perhaps only 6 months on the B777. The more junior FO may have only been at the company for only a few years or so... but could have 5,000 hours in a B777 from a previous gig at Emirates for example. My point is just because one is a Captain does not automatically imply he/she is a better stick and rudder person when it comes to landing. A Captain who realizes this is a good manager.

Regarding the landing performance, I'm not sure about a B777 but on my current aircraft if an airplane meets takeoff performance criteria then it automatically meets landing performance criteria to that same runway even if overweight.
FLYi
 
N212R
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:18 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:19 pm

BA777FO wrote:
Regardless of age, they would have to demonztrate their continued competence of situations like this in a simulator every 6 months (at least we do in the UK). Regarding the comment about it being confusing with different pilots talking to ATC that's exactly how this situation should play out. If the Captain was handling, he would handle the aircraft up to the point the Engine surge/lim/stall checklist was complete and the after takeoff checklist complete. Up to that point the FO would be communicating with ATC. Then, the captain would hand over control of the aircraft to the FO so that the captain can manage the event. That'll involve diagnosis and information gathering from various sources, option generation, decision making and assigning tasks. The captain would then resume control after the landing checklist was complete to handle the landing. That's how a properly managed non-normal event should be tackled. It's absolutely normal that control of the aircraft and the radio would be switched at certain times.

I say this as someone with 4,000+ of 777 experience and nearly 10,000 hours total time in Boeing jet aircraft: very scenarios require an overweight landing outside of smoke, fire or fume events. If the problem was an engine stall and the engine returned to within normal parameters at idle or approaching idle then there's no immediate requirement to get it on the ground. Butbit's a big if that that was all that was wrong. On running their full diagnosis they may have uncovered other issues. We don't know, so let the investigation take its course.

LAX to PVG is what, a 12 hour flight? They'd have about 90,000kgs of fuel on board, they'd probably have to dump about 60,000kgs of that to get to MLW. That would take about 40 minutes - it jettisons from the centre tank quicker than the main tanks. The fuel jettison checklist on the 777 is not complicated, in fact, it takes about as much time to click through to it on the ECL as it does to action it. There was a suggestion earlier that someone woulf action that in an EFATO before asking for the gear up - that's nonsense! Fly the aircraft, goodness. Jettison checklist wouldn't come before the QRH for the engine issue was completed. The default setting to jettison is to dump to MLW so it is a straight forward checklist. Dumping out to sea would seem infinitely sensible, the Boeing 777/787 FCTM states that dumping should occur above 4,000ft to ensure complete vapourisation.

A few other questions that were asked regarding performance - at that kind of weight on a single engins approach speeds would be high. Vref+5 probably somewhere in the region of 170 knots. That's a lot of energy to lose on landing. 5 tonnes of dumping would make maybe 2 or 3 knots difference to final approach speed - so not much. Nor would it decrease the required landing distance by much more than 100-200m. At max autobrake or autobrake 4, and only one reverser those brakes will be warm. That's another issue that will need careful management after landing.

The whole scenario is rather strange, a contained engine issue doesn't require a landing ASAP, only nearest suitable.

However, unlike the Anetters baying for blood, hopefully lessons will be learned rather than a desire for a witch hunt.


Your contribution deserves better neighbors but thank you nonetheless for a concise, professional and no-spin summary.
 
SEA
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:21 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:23 pm

DALMD80 wrote:
Seat1F wrote:
N649DL wrote:
Jesus Christ, people need to re-watch the intro to the 1993 movie "Short Cuts" to clued in on this.

Also, WTF were the stupid teachers and/or police officers doing at this time? You got 60 kids outside and see a low lying aircraft on a approach = Get them to Safety. They had warning, as the principal or superintendent or LAPD should've had radio warning to hear this type of communication. This could've happened so many times before over time (it's an approach pattern going into LAX), what's LAUSD's and/or LAPD's excuse? Just phone the Press and complain?


Huh?? So ATC didn't even know that the plane would do a fuel dump but the teachers and police are supposed to have known and taken action in advance? Get real.

No, but a plane with something that looks like smoke coming out of it (according to one of the students) on approach should set off some alarms.


Good luck rounding up 60 children in the maybe two to three seconds of warning you have when the plane comes into sight.
 
toobz
Posts: 870
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:33 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:25 pm

oh the kids will be just fine. and the parents will get a few extra dollars in their account, thanks to the American judicial system.
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:31 pm

mcdu wrote:
Except that the planes are designed to land up to the max weight if needed and not have the brakes catch on fire...


I believe the max energy RTO test done during certification of the airplane is designed to show that the airplane can safely sit 5 minutes (or something like that) with no intervention from fire services with the brakes on fire. The brakes are expected -- depending on wear level -- to catch fire during max braking on a MTOW airplane.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:37 pm

YSAPW wrote:
Oh how do I love the smell of Napalm and Lawsuits in the morning.



Not like this was agent orange. This will wash off easily. Probably the average fueler gets more him/here in a week than these kids got on them in 3 minutes.
 
D L X
Posts: 12671
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:37 pm

toobz wrote:
oh the kids will be just fine.


You have utterly no way to know that.

toobz wrote:
and the parents will get a few extra dollars in their account, thanks to the American judicial system.


You know, comments like these make me realize (as a lawyer) that part of why Americans in general dislike lawyers is because they think law suits are an act of anger. And that if a person was doing their best, people shouldn't get angry at them, even if they are hurt. Accidents happen.

That's not what law suits are about. Law suits are to redress injuries suffered, regardless of whether the injury was intentional. (Though, intentional or negligent injury can be met with punitive damages, i.e., damages that are meant to punish.)

If you break something, you buy it. Don't get mad at the American judicial system for enforcing that very American maxim.
 
D L X
Posts: 12671
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:40 pm

BravoOne wrote:
YSAPW wrote:
Oh how do I love the smell of Napalm and Lawsuits in the morning.



Not like this was agent orange. This will wash off easily. Probably the average fueler gets more him/here in a week than these kids got on them in 3 minutes.



Read this, and tell me if you would like this to have happened to you.

Jouhou wrote:
OK, I'm feeling a little disgusted at people downplaying the effects of getting soaked in kerosene here. So clarification before all the pilots here thinks it's no big deal to soak people on the ground with kerosene: it's dropping from overhead. You know where you really don't want to get kerosene? Your EYES. It does not feel good. If you don't need to dump fuel on people, and with limited information right now it's unknown if it was necessary, don't do it. Please. It's weird anyone is downplaying the idea of a playground full of kids writhing in pain because they just got kerosene in their eyes because they're probably not wearing eye protection.

It causes me burning irritation in my eye when I splash a drop on my damn cheek ffs. And I'm wearing eye protection when I'm dealing with it.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1439055&start=150#p21936581
 
asdf
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:41 pm

D L X wrote:
toobz wrote:
oh the kids will be just fine.


You have utterly no way to know that.

toobz wrote:
and the parents will get a few extra dollars in their account, thanks to the American judicial system.


You know, comments like these make me realize (as a lawyer) that part of why Americans in general dislike lawyers is because they think law suits are an act of anger. And that if a person was doing their best, people shouldn't get angry at them, even if they are hurt. Accidents happen.

That's not what law suits are about. Law suits are to redress injuries suffered, regardless of whether the injury was intentional. (Though, intentional or negligent injury can be met with punitive damages, i.e., damages that are meant to punish.)

If you break something, you buy it. Don't get mad at the American judicial system for enforcing that very American maxim.


what difference does it make if they dump @8000 or @4000 or @2000
ist mainly cosmetics
the vapor and its substances dont disappear magically on their ay down to Mother Earth
it may be a different concentration because from a higher altitude it spreads more
but this should give you only about 50% more or less concentration
and it gives you about 50% more affected area

so what
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4787
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:52 pm

It’s insanity that they never told atc they were dumping. ATC even asked if they needed to dump and they didn’t say they were.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5572
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:57 pm

I don’t live in Cali, but from all the California Prop 65 warnings I see on purchased goods; I’m pretty Californians are scared to leave their houses for fear of cancer.

The problem with the US legal system and the lawyers is EVERYTHING is an injury. Because their income depends on finding injuries, we have to live with them

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... ticle3.pdf
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:15 pm

D L X wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
YSAPW wrote:
Oh how do I love the smell of Napalm and Lawsuits in the morning.



Not like this was agent orange. This will wash off easily. Probably the average fueler gets more him/here in a week than these kids got on them in 3 minutes.



Read this, and tell me if you would like this to have happened to you.

Jouhou wrote:
OK, I'm feeling a little disgusted at people downplaying the effects of getting soaked in kerosene here. So clarification before all the pilots here thinks it's no big deal to soak people on the ground with kerosene: it's dropping from overhead. You know where you really don't want to get kerosene? Your EYES. It does not feel good. If you don't need to dump fuel on people, and with limited information right now it's unknown if it was necessary, don't do it. Please. It's weird anyone is downplaying the idea of a playground full of kids writhing in pain because they just got kerosene in their eyes because they're probably not wearing eye protection.

It causes me burning irritation in my eye when I splash a drop on my damn cheek ffs. And I'm wearing eye protection when I'm dealing with it.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1439055&start=150#p21936581




Looks like he is posturing for some free DL tickets and no I would not like it but as long as thee is no permanent injury or damage, it's just a small item in the scheme of life. getting Jet A on you does not cause pain or burn. I suspect that lots of kids in LA inhale much worse.
 
N212R
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:18 pm

Re: A DL 772, Flying LAX-PVG, Makes Emergency Landing And Dumps Fuel On School

Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:26 pm

D L X wrote:
You have utterly no way to know that.


Have it your way. The kids will be deeply, profoundly scarred for life. Call in the bleeding heart psychological and scientific "experts". Which is how your plaintiff lawyers will spin it to ensure the maximum pay out. Worst of all, there will be some idiotic judge who will accord the judgement.

That too would seem to be an American maxim.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 12

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos