Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 12
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4323
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:34 pm

If Delta were smart, they usually are from a PR standpoint, I would have roundtrip tickets booked in these kids names to Disney for spring break, as well as hotel and allowance for the family. A tour of the Delta facilities at LAX to meet some pilots etc., and a donation to a college fund for these kids as well as a few years of paid health insurance. There's nothing good of this that will come from fighting it. They already lost the fight in the court of public opinion, which is the one that ultimately counts (UA found this out a few years ago).
 
32andBelow
Posts: 5001
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 5:36 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
If Delta were smart, they usually are from a PR standpoint, I would have roundtrip tickets booked in these kids names to Disney for spring break, as well as hotel and allowance for the family. A tour of the Delta facilities at LAX to meet some pilots etc., and a donation to a college fund for these kids as well as a few years of paid health insurance. There's nothing good of this that will come from fighting it. They already lost the fight in the court of public opinion, which is the one that ultimately counts (UA found this out a few years ago).

They live in LA. They don’t need to go to Disney world lmao.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4323
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:38 pm

32andBelow wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
If Delta were smart, they usually are from a PR standpoint, I would have roundtrip tickets booked in these kids names to Disney for spring break, as well as hotel and allowance for the family. A tour of the Delta facilities at LAX to meet some pilots etc., and a donation to a college fund for these kids as well as a few years of paid health insurance. There's nothing good of this that will come from fighting it. They already lost the fight in the court of public opinion, which is the one that ultimately counts (UA found this out a few years ago).

They live in LA. They don’t need to go to Disney world lmao.


You're telling me an elementary kid wouldn't want to fly to Orlando to see Mickey and Company? You think they'd really care? And really it wouldn't even be about them, it would be about putting some good news in the press.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:44 pm

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.

Soaking people in kerosene?

The evidence we have ( https://ktla.com/2020/01/14/lax-bound-a ... -assessed/ ) is some minor injuries treated at the scene and released, no hospitalizations, so not consistent with soaking people in kerosene.

Yes it does not feel good (it irritates eyes, skin, throat and lungs and smells bad) but we have NO evidence of "kids writing in pain", despite the idea that the media would gladly produce such evidence if it existed.

Students complained of having itchy skin and eyes, and sore throats. They told KTLA the incident led to confusion and fear around the campus.

A number of people also complained of the fuel's noxious odor in the aftermath. Many students walking away from the school in Cudahy could be seen covering their noses with hands, clothing and even surgical masks.

Officials with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health are advising residents who were in the impacted areas to avoid contact with any remaining chemical residue.

Students who were exposed to the jet fuel have been sent home with instruction on how to thoroughly clean themselves and their clothes, according to a news release from the department.

The drop on your cheek didn't start at 250+ knots and didn't have to fall 2000+ feet till it got to you and was much more concentrated than 10 grams per square meter as per our earlier calculations.

These kids had some discomfort and needed some assistance (maybe a good eye wash, maybe some time with an oxygen mask) but I think you are taking your experience and projecting it inaccurately onto this event.

If you think I'm "downplaying" this event, please give me evidence that I'm wrong other than your anecdotal evidence from a totally different event.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
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 5:50 pm

BravoOne wrote:
D L X wrote:
BravoOne wrote:


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.


Getting any petroleum distillate in your eyes burns. Getting hydraulic oil which is far less volatile in your eyes is unpleasant and generally involves an emergency eye wash and an ambulance when I'm working.
情報
 
User avatar
SuseJ772
Posts: 1000
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:13 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:52 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
If Delta were smart, they usually are from a PR standpoint, I would have roundtrip tickets booked in these kids names to Disney for spring break, as well as hotel and allowance for the family. A tour of the Delta facilities at LAX to meet some pilots etc., and a donation to a college fund for these kids as well as a few years of paid health insurance. There's nothing good of this that will come from fighting it. They already lost the fight in the court of public opinion, which is the one that ultimately counts (UA found this out a few years ago).

They live in LA. They don’t need to go to Disney world lmao.


You're telling me an elementary kid wouldn't want to fly to Orlando to see Mickey and Company? You think they'd really care? And really it wouldn't even be about them, it would be about putting some good news in the press.


No what I think he is saying is that their is Disneyland in LA. If they want to see Mickey, the flight isn’t necessary ;)
Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
 
airhansa
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:18 pm

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:52 pm

Delta should pay for the healthcare costs of anyone affected by the fuel dump. I think it's wrong however to pressure pilots from going against fuel dumps due to minor irritation (or worse to a degree) since it could end in disaster for the plane otherwise - though I would be supportive of a measure requiring pilots to find open space (ideally sea) before dumping fuel if possible.

E.g. as a pilot you'd usually be required to conider flying at an altitude considered "clear" by ATC before being allowed to fly VFR. A similar procedure should be considered for fuel dumps.
 
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 5:58 pm

Revelation wrote:
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.

Soaking people in kerosene?

The evidence we have ( https://ktla.com/2020/01/14/lax-bound-a ... -assessed/ ) is some minor injuries treated at the scene and released, no hospitalizations, so not consistent with soaking people in kerosene.

Yes it does not feel good (it irritates eyes, skin, throat and lungs and smells bad) but we have NO evidence of "kids writing in pain", despite the idea that the media would gladly produce such evidence if it existed.

Students complained of having itchy skin and eyes, and sore throats. They told KTLA the incident led to confusion and fear around the campus.

A number of people also complained of the fuel's noxious odor in the aftermath. Many students walking away from the school in Cudahy could be seen covering their noses with hands, clothing and even surgical masks.

Officials with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health are advising residents who were in the impacted areas to avoid contact with any remaining chemical residue.

Students who were exposed to the jet fuel have been sent home with instruction on how to thoroughly clean themselves and their clothes, according to a news release from the department.

The drop on your cheek didn't start at 250+ knots and didn't have to fall 2000+ feet till it got to you and was much more concentrated than 10 grams per square meter as per our earlier calculations.

These kids had some discomfort and needed some assistance (maybe a good eye wash, maybe some time with an oxygen mask) but I think you are taking your experience and projecting it inaccurately onto this event.

If you think I'm "downplaying" this event, please give me evidence that I'm wrong other than your anecdotal evidence from a totally different event.


Ok, how often do you get covered with kerosene, because I get it on me a lot. Some of my skin gets itchy when I don't wash it off. That's not a big deal. It's when it's near or in the eye when it really sucks. And yes the solution is simple (wash eyes) it does burn. Pretty much anything other than saline in the eyes feels somewhere on the scale of unpleasant. I break the rules and only wear eye protection, I'm supposed to be wearing a face shield too. So it would seem OSHA thinks there's a strong risk too.


Now have we established that the fuel dump was necessary yet??? Because the premise of people downplaying the incident was the aircraft was in dire danger.
情報
 
Western727
Posts: 1785
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:38 pm

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:14 pm

SuseJ772 wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
They live in LA. They don’t need to go to Disney world lmao.


You're telling me an elementary kid wouldn't want to fly to Orlando to see Mickey and Company? You think they'd really care? And really it wouldn't even be about them, it would be about putting some good news in the press.


No what I think he is saying is that their is Disneyland in LA. If they want to see Mickey, the flight isn’t necessary ;)


Indeed. And as someone who grew up til age 7 in southern California, I can attest that Orlando isn't all that attractive to kids there; the LA basin has everything Orlando offers and more, and to boot the weather in the LA basin is generally better.
Jack @ AUS
 
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 6:15 pm

Of course we would had just as much Monday morning quarterbacking had they extended over the ocean, using up time and had further problems causing a much worse outcome, ala Swissair 111.
 
Tedd
Posts: 474
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:22 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:18 pm

zeke wrote:
lowbank wrote:
Having worked at a RR site that tested Trents on a weekly basis, it sounds nothing like a normal heathy Trent 1000. It sounds like a piston engine.


Must be some new STC that I don’t know about to put the much smaller Trent 1000 on a 777.[/quote

I think lowbank meant Trent 800 which as it happens was the most popular choice for B772`s & a far
more reliable turbine than Trent 1000. Before anyone gets too critical on the engine involved, it should
be pointed out that if it was a compressor stall, this can happen to any make of engine & seems a fairly
common occurrence....just saying as there`s a few on here itching to denounce RR on the back of their
Trent 1000 woes :)
 
D L X
Posts: 12680
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 6:21 pm

BravoOne wrote:
Of course we would had just as much Monday morning quarterbacking had they extended over the ocean, using up time and had further problems causing a much worse outcome, ala Swissair 111.

Would weeeeeee?

I think the big question given the fuel dump is what was going on that made these ETOPS pilots decide they needed to get down immediately?
 
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 6:22 pm

Of course we would had just as much Monday morning quarterbacking had they extended over the ocean, using up time and had further problems causing a much worse outcome, ala Swissair 111.

"Now have we established that the fuel dump was necessary yet??? Because the premise of people downplaying the incident was the aircraft was in dire danger."

Anytime you lose 50% of your power you have a bonafide emergency. I may have missed it but did they actually shut the engine down, or just reduce power? On a side note, I along with few others took delivery of this airplane when it was new.
 
winginit
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:24 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
If the captain has an reasonable excuse, we will hear about it soon enough.


I'm quite sure we won't hear a peep about it. Everyone will have forgotten about this by next week and I have to imagine justifications will be handled internally.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:26 pm

Jouhou wrote:
Ok, how often do you get covered with kerosene, because I get it on me a lot. Some of my skin gets itchy when I don't wash it off. That's not a big deal. It's when it's near or in the eye when it really sucks. And yes the solution is simple (wash eyes) it does burn. Pretty much anything other than saline in the eyes feels somewhere on the scale of unpleasant. I break the rules and only wear eye protection, I'm supposed to be wearing a face shield too. So it would seem OSHA thinks there's a strong risk too.

"Covered with kerosene" simply does not match the evidence we have. We see video of an aircraft spraying kerosene >2000 feet above the ground so seven football fields up. Conservative math says it was around 10 grams per square meter in the highest concentration. At best we're not even talking about a spray, we're talking about a light mist. The evidence from the medical side agrees, no one was hospitalized.

Jouhou wrote:
Now have we established that the fuel dump was necessary yet??? Because the premise of people downplaying the incident was the aircraft was in dire danger.

We know the pilots flying the plane called for an emergency, so they have a lot of discretion on what they can do. We also know that a plane load of passengers crashing into an urban area causes a lot more than eye irritation. If you want proof, I can share some security camera videos showing the airliner Iran just shot down hitting the ground.
Last edited by Revelation on Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 999
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:26 pm

JarradS wrote:
Has anyone mentioned Chemtrails yet?

Yes. Go back around 100 replies from your own post. Page 2, number 13 from the top, reply 63.
 
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 6:26 pm

Tedd wrote:
zeke wrote:
lowbank wrote:
Having worked at a RR site that tested Trents on a weekly basis, it sounds nothing like a normal heathy Trent 1000. It sounds like a piston engine.


Must be some new STC that I don’t know about to put the much smaller Trent 1000 on a 777.[/quote

I think lowbank meant Trent 800 which as it happens was the most popular choice for B772`s & a far
more reliable turbine than Trent 1000. Before anyone gets too critical on the engine involved, it should
be pointed out that if it was a compressor stall, this can happen to any make of engine & seems a fairly
common occurrence....just saying as there`s a few on here itching to denounce RR on the back of their
Trent 1000 woes :)


I already posted a video proving the one everyone is commenting on features the sound of a different aircraft in the background.
情報
 
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 6:32 pm

Revelation wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
Ok, how often do you get covered with kerosene, because I get it on me a lot. Some of my skin gets itchy when I don't wash it off. That's not a big deal. It's when it's near or in the eye when it really sucks. And yes the solution is simple (wash eyes) it does burn. Pretty much anything other than saline in the eyes feels somewhere on the scale of unpleasant. I break the rules and only wear eye protection, I'm supposed to be wearing a face shield too. So it would seem OSHA thinks there's a strong risk too.

"Covered with kerosene" simply does not match the evidence we have. We see video of an aircraft spraying kerosene >2000 feet above the ground so seven football fields up. Conservative math says it was around 10 grams per square meter in the highest concentration. At best we're not even talking about a spray, we're talking about a light mist. The evidence from the medical side agrees, no one was hospitalized.

Jouhou wrote:
Now have we established that the fuel dump was necessary yet??? Because the premise of people downplaying the incident was the aircraft was in dire danger.

We know the pilots flying the plane called for an emergency, so they have a lot of discretion on what they can do. We also know that a plane load of passengers crashing into an urban area causes a lot more than eye irritation. If you want proof, I can share some videos of the airliner Iran just shot down hitting the ground.


What good would hospitalization do if the only thing that can be done is to wash the eyes? Miserable painful experiences are not necessarily something hospital worthy.

And as I repeatedly point out, everyone seems to thing the aircraft was in big trouble because people assume pilots aren't human and don't sometimes have poor judgement. Also that damn video with the other aircraft making sounds. It seems people won't watch another video and realize that one early in the thread was zoomed in and doesn't feature the sound of the incident aircraft at all
情報
 
BA777FO
Posts: 580
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 6:34 pm

flyPIT 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.


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.


Those are fair points and I'm broadly in agreement. You're right regarding experience on type - Asiana crash in SFO is a case in point. I'm guessing it's the same at most airlines/in most jurisdictions that FOs still have to demonstrate single engine ILS, G/A, and landing in the sim every 6 months. So FOs are capable of landing it. But then again, a 777 is one of the easiest aircraft to land single engine, especially if TAC is working! The 737 was a pain! But a single engine landing is a single engine landing - even a skipper with 6 months on type should have no issue with it.

You're right about being able to land on any runway you can take off from - it should apply to any aircraft. However, brakes will get hot (and you'll be in the fuse plug melt zone) if you have to land single engine close to MTOW on a short-ish runway.
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 999
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:36 pm

D L X wrote:
Can you point to the unsupported conclusions drawn in this thread?

For example reply 10, 21, 23, 25 and 28. Do you need more?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:37 pm

Tedd wrote:
zeke wrote:
lowbank wrote:
Having worked at a RR site that tested Trents on a weekly basis, it sounds nothing like a normal heathy Trent 1000. It sounds like a piston engine.

Must be some new STC that I don’t know about to put the much smaller Trent 1000 on a 777.

I think lowbank meant Trent 800 which as it happens was the most popular choice for B772`s & a far
more reliable turbine than Trent 1000.

Yet he isn't wrong when he says "it sounds nothing like a normal heathy Trent 1000. It sounds like a piston engine".

Hooray for a.net pedantry.

D L X wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
Of course we would had just as much Monday morning quarterbacking had they extended over the ocean, using up time and had further problems causing a much worse outcome, ala Swissair 111.

Would weeeeeee?

I think the big question given the fuel dump is what was going on that made these ETOPS pilots decide they needed to get down immediately?

ETOPS says land at the nearest suitable airport, which is what they did.

Jouhou wrote:
And as I repeatedly point out, everyone seems to thing the aircraft was in big trouble because people assume pilots aren't human and don't sometimes have poor judgement.

The pilots showed excellent judgment, they and all their passengers walked away after the airplane lost half its thrust.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
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 6:45 pm

Revelation wrote:
Tedd wrote:
zeke wrote:

Must be some new STC that I don’t know about to put the much smaller Trent 1000 on a 777.

I think lowbank meant Trent 800 which as it happens was the most popular choice for B772`s & a far
more reliable turbine than Trent 1000.

Yet he isn't wrong when he says "it sounds nothing like a normal heathy Trent 1000. It sounds like a piston engine".

Hooray for a.net pedantry.

D L X wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
Of course we would had just as much Monday morning quarterbacking had they extended over the ocean, using up time and had further problems causing a much worse outcome, ala Swissair 111.

Would weeeeeee?

I think the big question given the fuel dump is what was going on that made these ETOPS pilots decide they needed to get down immediately?

ETOPS says land at the nearest suitable airport, which is what they did.

Jouhou wrote:
And as I repeatedly point out, everyone seems to thing the aircraft was in big trouble because people assume pilots aren't human and don't sometimes have poor judgement.

The pilots showed excellent judgment, they and all their passengers walked away after the airplane lost half its thrust.


ETOPS has little if anything to do with this event. They were taking off and still within 60 minutes of the airport. The FARs say land at the nearest suitable airport, which is what they did and that is covered in FAR Part 121 for this operation. ETOPS is covered in an Advisory Circular AC120-42B/C. We are talking semantics here so while we all know what we mean, there still a slight difference.:)
 
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 6:45 pm

Revelation wrote:
Tedd wrote:
zeke wrote:

Must be some new STC that I don’t know about to put the much smaller Trent 1000 on a 777.

I think lowbank meant Trent 800 which as it happens was the most popular choice for B772`s & a far
more reliable turbine than Trent 1000.

Yet he isn't wrong when he says "it sounds nothing like a normal heathy Trent 1000. It sounds like a piston engine".

Hooray for a.net pedantry.

D L X wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
Of course we would had just as much Monday morning quarterbacking had they extended over the ocean, using up time and had further problems causing a much worse outcome, ala Swissair 111.

Would weeeeeee?

I think the big question given the fuel dump is what was going on that made these ETOPS pilots decide they needed to get down immediately?

ETOPS says land at the nearest suitable airport, which is what they did.

Jouhou wrote:
And as I repeatedly point out, everyone seems to thing the aircraft was in big trouble because people assume pilots aren't human and don't sometimes have poor judgement.

The pilots showed excellent judgment, they and all their passengers walked away after the airplane lost half its thrust.


ETOPS has little if anything to do with this event. They were taking off and still within 60 minutes of the airport. The FARs say land at the nearest suitable airport, which is what they did and that is covered in FAR Part 121 for this operation. ETOPS is covered in an Advisory Circular AC120-42B/C. We are talking semantics here so while we all know what we mean, there still a slight difference.:)
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 999
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:47 pm

Redwood839 wrote:
Totally sounds like a Trent.

n797mx wrote:
...sounds nothing like a Trent.

Maybe you guys should meet and talk.
 
D L X
Posts: 12680
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 6:47 pm

Revelation wrote:
ETOPS says land at the nearest suitable airport, which is what they did.

I'm trying to ask an honest question here -- does it require that you land immediately, to the exclusion of staying out at sea to dump fuel?
 
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 6:47 pm

Revelation wrote:
Tedd wrote:
zeke wrote:

Must be some new STC that I don’t know about to put the much smaller Trent 1000 on a 777.

I think lowbank meant Trent 800 which as it happens was the most popular choice for B772`s & a far
more reliable turbine than Trent 1000.

Yet he isn't wrong when he says "it sounds nothing like a normal heathy Trent 1000. It sounds like a piston engine".

Hooray for a.net pedantry.

D L X wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
Of course we would had just as much Monday morning quarterbacking had they extended over the ocean, using up time and had further problems causing a much worse outcome, ala Swissair 111.

Would weeeeeee?

I think the big question given the fuel dump is what was going on that made these ETOPS pilots decide they needed to get down immediately?

ETOPS says land at the nearest suitable airport, which is what they did.

Jouhou wrote:
And as I repeatedly point out, everyone seems to thing the aircraft was in big trouble because people assume pilots aren't human and don't sometimes have poor judgement.

The pilots showed excellent judgment, they and all their passengers walked away after the airplane lost half its thrust.


OMG watch the damn video I posted, I've said it twice in a row now (now three), the engines do NOT sound like Piston engines. And they restarted the problem engine at reduced power.

https://youtu.be/QurhDod9B1U

There's a chance they were being lazy and not flying out in a better area to dump. We don't know yet though.
Last edited by Jouhou on Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
情報
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 999
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:51 pm

NiMar wrote:
If I were a parent of one of those kids I'd be suing the beep out of DL. Raining carcinogens on them...

Why the obsession with money? Do you actually have children?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:55 pm

32andBelow wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
If Delta were smart, they usually are from a PR standpoint, I would have roundtrip tickets booked in these kids names to Disney for spring break, as well as hotel and allowance for the family. A tour of the Delta facilities at LAX to meet some pilots etc., and a donation to a college fund for these kids as well as a few years of paid health insurance. There's nothing good of this that will come from fighting it. They already lost the fight in the court of public opinion, which is the one that ultimately counts (UA found this out a few years ago).

They live in LA. They don’t need to go to Disney world lmao.

It’s a 30 minute drive with traffic from their town to Disneyland.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
lowbank
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:10 pm

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:58 pm

zeke wrote:
lowbank wrote:
Having worked at a RR site that tested Trents on a weekly basis, it sounds nothing like a normal heathy Trent 1000. It sounds like a piston engine.


Must be some new STC that I don’t know about to put the much smaller Trent 1000 on a 777.


I was having a quick read before I went to work, only when I got there did I read it was a 777. I have not read any more of the thread tonight but all day have been wondering why they were in such a rush to get down due to a compressor stall on one engine..
Every days a school day.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:59 pm

D L X wrote:
Revelation wrote:
ETOPS says land at the nearest suitable airport, which is what they did.

I'm trying to ask an honest question here -- does it require that you land immediately, to the exclusion of staying out at sea to dump fuel?

No.

Any engine out situation in a twin, ETOPS or not, requires diverting to the nearest suitable airport but it doesn’t mean you declare and emergency. If it’s not a fire situation, You can circle, enter pattern, land normally, pull up to a gate.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:01 pm

D L X wrote:
Revelation wrote:
ETOPS says land at the nearest suitable airport, which is what they did.

I'm trying to ask an honest question here -- does it require that you land immediately, to the exclusion of staying out at sea to dump fuel?

No, all ETOPS says is you can now be much further away from a diversion airport, so I was wrong, BravoOne got it right:

BravoOne wrote:
ETOPS has little if anything to do with this event. They were taking off and still within 60 minutes of the airport. The FARs say land at the nearest suitable airport, which is what they did and that is covered in FAR Part 121 for this operation. ETOPS is covered in an Advisory Circular AC120-42B/C. We are talking semantics here so while we all know what we mean, there still a slight difference.:)

So I quoted the right statement but gave the wrong justification.

Jouhou wrote:
There's a chance they were being lazy and not flying out in a better area to dump. We don't know yet though.

C'mon, being lazy? Since you're a fan of videos, watch the damn ATC one ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIA90evz8gs ) and ask yourself if the voices sound like they are being lazy. My vote is they are being damned concerned.

The thing we do know is all their passengers survived at the unfortunate cost of the misting event causing some cases of eye and throat irritation. The plane is on the ground safely, the rest is for the lawyers to sort out.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
lowbank
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:10 pm

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:01 pm

Tedd wrote:
zeke wrote:
lowbank wrote:
Having worked at a RR site that tested Trents on a weekly basis, it sounds nothing like a normal heathy Trent 1000. It sounds like a piston engine.


Must be some new STC that I don’t know about to put the much smaller Trent 1000 on a 777.[/quote

I think lowbank meant Trent 800 which as it happens was the most popular choice for B772`s & a far
more reliable turbine than Trent 1000. Before anyone gets too critical on the engine involved, it should
be pointed out that if it was a compressor stall, this can happen to any make of engine & seems a fairly
common occurrence....just saying as there`s a few on here itching to denounce RR on the back of their
Trent 1000 woes :)



I was speed reading having my breakfast and saw the T1000 mentioned and didn’t check the aircraft model. That will teach me.
Every days a school day.
 
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 7:04 pm

D L X wrote:
Revelation wrote:
ETOPS says land at the nearest suitable airport, which is what they did.

I'm trying to ask an honest question here -- does it require that you land immediately, to the exclusion of staying out at sea to dump fuel?



Talk to Swissair 111 and see how that worked for them. Different scenario, but same concept.
 
D L X
Posts: 12680
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 7:11 pm

BravoOne wrote:
D L X wrote:
Revelation wrote:
ETOPS says land at the nearest suitable airport, which is what they did.

I'm trying to ask an honest question here -- does it require that you land immediately, to the exclusion of staying out at sea to dump fuel?



Talk to Swissair 111 and see how that worked for them. Different scenario, but same concept.

Different scenario appears to be quite the understatement.

Compressor stall versus plane on fire.
 
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 7:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
D L X wrote:
Revelation wrote:
ETOPS says land at the nearest suitable airport, which is what they did.

I'm trying to ask an honest question here -- does it require that you land immediately, to the exclusion of staying out at sea to dump fuel?

No, all ETOPS says is you can now be much further away from a diversion airport, so I was wrong, BravoOne got it right:

BravoOne wrote:
ETOPS has little if anything to do with this event. They were taking off and still within 60 minutes of the airport. The FARs say land at the nearest suitable airport, which is what they did and that is covered in FAR Part 121 for this operation. ETOPS is covered in an Advisory Circular AC120-42B/C. We are talking semantics here so while we all know what we mean, there still a slight difference.:)

So I quoted the right statement but gave the wrong justification.

Jouhou wrote:
There's a chance they were being lazy and not flying out in a better area to dump. We don't know yet though.

C'mon, being lazy? Since you're a fan of videos, watch the damn ATC one ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIA90evz8gs ) and ask yourself if the voices sound like they are being lazy. My vote is they are being damned concerned.

The thing we do know is all their passengers survived at the unfortunate cost of the misting event causing some cases of eye and throat irritation. The plane is on the ground safely, the rest is for the lawyers to sort out.


My concern is the amount of people who think kerosene is fine to dump on people and that everyone complaining are a bunch of whiners who should be grateful for their free shower. And I dunno, don't you sort of have to declare an emergency at a busy airport like LAX if you ever want to land in a timely manner on the runway of your choosing when you're overweight?
情報
 
DL777200LR
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 12:15 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:15 pm

wjcandee wrote:
usflyguy wrote:
2nd DL772 they’re, obviously, missing items on their ETOPS checks or just aren’t doing them completely. Profits before people.


Seriously? Any DL mechs care to comment on this?


No point of even commenting on a Ridiculous and uninformed statement like that.
Nothing better than the sound of a 77W GE90-115B on engine start.
 
DL777200LR
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 12:15 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:19 pm

CaptHadley wrote:
zeke wrote:
D L X wrote:
Enough to make Much of a difference on landing weight?


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?


It’s called an emergency and the pilots acted in how they deemed necessary to return to LAX ASAP
Nothing better than the sound of a 77W GE90-115B on engine start.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1979
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:28 pm

Jouhou wrote:
Now have we established that the fuel dump was necessary yet??? Because the premise of people downplaying the incident was the aircraft was in dire danger.

It certainly isn't common for aircraft with an engine issue to return this quickly _and_ dump fuel after an engine failure:
- dumped fuel for 80 minutes http://avherald.com/h?article=4d1692ef&opt=0
- landed 60 minutes after departure http://avherald.com/h?article=4cfd755f&opt=0
- dumped fuel for 75 minutes http://avherald.com/h?article=4cee877b&opt=0
- dumped fuel for 60 minutes http://avherald.com/h?article=4ccfafd6&opt=0
- dumped fuel for 90 minutes http://avherald.com/h?article=4cb7f09f&opt=0
- dumped fuel for 75 minutes http://avherald.com/h?article=4cb7362d&opt=0
- dumped fuel for 110 minutes http://avherald.com/h?article=4cb7362d&opt=0
- landed 23 minutes after departure presumably without dumping fuel http://avherald.com/h?article=4cb6a09d&opt=0
- landed 25 minutes after departure without dumping fuel http://avherald.com/h?article=49fee6cb&opt=0
- landed 27 minutes after departure "heavy" http://avherald.com/h?article=4ca986bf&opt=0
- landed 15 minutes after departure, no report of dumping fuel http://avherald.com/h?article=4c99b17b&opt=0
- landed 30 minutes after departure overweight without dumping fuel, 11 tyres deflated http://avherald.com/h?article=49e9311d&opt=0
- landed 20 minutes after departure overweight without dumping fuel http://avherald.com/h?article=4cb98862&opt=0
- landed 8 minutes after departure overweight without dumping fuel http://avherald.com/h?article=4b4ea714&opt=0

Most crews seem to decide either that the situation is safe enough to fly a holding pattern and burn or dump fuel, or that the situation is urgent enough to warrant an overweight landing.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 9040
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:29 pm

D L X wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
D L X wrote:
I'm trying to ask an honest question here -- does it require that you land immediately, to the exclusion of staying out at sea to dump fuel?



Talk to Swissair 111 and see how that worked for them. Different scenario, but same concept.

Different scenario appears to be quite the understatement.

Compressor stall versus plane on fire.


Not different scenario. Swissair thought that what they had wasn't that serious; they didn't know the full extent of their situation, so they dutifully followed the checklist without a care in the world and spent a bunch of time to get ready for landing. Then...uh oh.

Point is that unless you can be sure what the actual deal is, you do the safest thing and get it on the ground.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1979
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:32 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
NiMar wrote:
If I were a parent of one of those kids I'd be suing the beep out of DL. Raining carcinogens on them...

Why the obsession with money? Do you actually have children?

Because money is the only thing airline executives care about?
 
32andBelow
Posts: 5001
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 7:42 pm

DL777200LR 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?


It’s called an emergency and the pilots acted in how they deemed necessary to return to LAX ASAP

That doesn’t excuse them from explaining that they were dumping fuel to ATC so ATC could make the required transmissions to other aircraft and give them vectors to a better area (the ocean). They were getting vectors anyways so what would they care if the vectors were over the ocean. They weren’t even ready to shoot the approach when SOCAL get them resequenced.
 
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 7:42 pm

LTCM wrote:
Delta didn't want to pull the aircraft out for overweight landing inspections so they exposed countless people to toxic jet fuel instead.

If that turns out to be the reason, then there should be severe penalties.

But with an engine problem, wouldn't the aircraft be on the ground for a long time for inspection, even without landing overweight? So there would be no advantage to dumping fuel in terms of aircraft availability?

Or is it possible that an engine inspection could be shorter than an overweight landing inspection, and there could be an advantage?
 
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 7:45 pm

asdf wrote:
what difference does it make if they dump @8000 or @4000 or @2000
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

Isn't dispersal area squared of height? So 4000 ft should have 4x area (1/4 concentration) compared to 2000 ft. And 8000 ft should have 16x area (1/16 concentration) compared to 2000 ft.
 
D L X
Posts: 12680
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 7:56 pm

wjcandee wrote:
D L X wrote:
BravoOne wrote:


Talk to Swissair 111 and see how that worked for them. Different scenario, but same concept.

Different scenario appears to be quite the understatement.

Compressor stall versus plane on fire.


Not different scenario. Swissair thought that what they had wasn't that serious; they didn't know the full extent of their situation, so they dutifully followed the checklist without a care in the world and spent a bunch of time to get ready for landing. Then...uh oh.

Point is that unless you can be sure what the actual deal is, you do the safest thing and get it on the ground.

Baloney! Swissair 111 knew they had an electrical fire. Unless DL89 indicated to ATC in the part of the transmission that was not recorded, we have no reason to believe DL89 thought they had anything other than a compressor stall.

This isn’t to say DL89 didn’t do the right thing, but I really cannot see the relevance of SR111 to this thread.
 
btfarrwm
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:50 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:00 pm

32andBelow wrote:
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.


To be more accurate, ATC asked if they needed to HOLD for dumping fuel. The pilot's only answer to that question was "Negative". The question from ATC was ambiguous.

Does this situation get investigated by the FAA to the point that data on the CVR would be analysed? That would be very interesting.
 
cat3appr50
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:44 pm

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:07 pm

From calcs. for a B777 200 with 181 passengers and negligible cargo, and block fuel for the KLAX to ZSPD dispatch route (with winds aloft), with normal contingency, reserves, and alternate fuel, and based on the estimated fuel burn from the engine issue diversion point back to KLAX for landing...it would IMO require around 90,000 +/- lbs. of fuel to be jettisoned to land back at KLAX at MLW. The estimated jettison time for that fuel quantity would be around 17 minutes (btw same as actual time from the reported engine issue time to landing Rwy. 25R back at KLAX). So there could have been some fuel still being jettisoned when over the noted Elementary School to get to MLW.

That being said, IMO a landing slightly above the MLW would not have been an issue relative to stopping fuel jettison before that residential area (school) at low altitude (FlightAware reported 2,375'). But of course, we'll have to wait for an objective report of what the pilots were actually faced with, relative to their decisions. We don't know if they were also faced with a fuel jettison system issue.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:27 pm

btfarrwm wrote:
To be more accurate, ATC asked if they needed to HOLD for dumping fuel. The pilot's only answer to that question was "Negative". The question from ATC was ambiguous.

Does this situation get investigated by the FAA to the point that data on the CVR would be analysed? That would be very interesting.

Since we're all critics here, I'll point out that it's not ATC's job to be injecting things into the pilots thought processes such as dumping fuel while the pilots are already busy working on other things. If the crew wanted to be routed out to sea to dump fuel they would have asked. ATC also asked for souls onboard and fuel amount twice, creating needless workload on the crew. ATC also asked if they should roll equipment twice. If you don't get the first answer, just shut up and roll the damn equipment, better too much caution than not enough. These aren't overly strong criticisms but it seems the ATC side was not very mindful of the pilot's workload.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2368
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:34 pm

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?


Aviation Kerosene is notoriously hard to ignite (you can actually drop a match in it) unless it's aerosol'd, hence why there are fuel injectors in the combustion chambers of the engines.

Zero chance whatsover you'd have a "stream of fire" zipping up into the air, Die-Hard style.

SMALL chance if you had enough fuel dispersed into the air on the ground that it could ignite, and even then, probably no more than a small poof. And even that is probably more akin to winning the lottery.
 
DALMD80
Posts: 501
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 8:35 pm

LTCM wrote:
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.

No, they didn't want to expose the passengers to the risk of overrun and possibly a fire on landing. I won't dispute that it's not good that kids were exposed to jet fuel, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a small price to pay. Imagine what we would be talking about if they HADN'T dumped fuel.
2 things- Wear a mask, and vote. It's that simple.
 
ATCJesus
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2019 3:39 am

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

Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:46 pm

Revelation wrote:
btfarrwm wrote:
To be more accurate, ATC asked if they needed to HOLD for dumping fuel. The pilot's only answer to that question was "Negative". The question from ATC was ambiguous.

Does this situation get investigated by the FAA to the point that data on the CVR would be analysed? That would be very interesting.

Since we're all critics here, I'll point out that it's not ATC's job to be injecting things into the pilots thought processes such as dumping fuel while the pilots are already busy working on other things. If the crew wanted to be routed out to sea to dump fuel they would have asked. ATC also asked for souls onboard and fuel amount twice, creating needless workload on the crew. ATC also asked if they should roll equipment twice. If you don't get the first answer, just shut up and roll the damn equipment, better too much caution than not enough. These aren't overly strong criticisms but it seems the ATC side was not very mindful of the pilot's workload.


Not quite.... asking about holding to dump fuel is very important here. If they want to dump fuel he is going to turn him out to the ocean, if not then he’s going to turn him right back over LA to get back ASAP.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 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