THIS Is Why Airliners Burn Off Fuel Rather Than Dumping It

"user314" (user314) 01/14/2020 at 17:01 • Filed to: Planelopnik, Boeing 777, Boeing, lax, California

4

54

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

A Delta Air Lines Boeing 777 !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! LAX for Shanghai !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! trouble on take-off, and prior to returning to the airport for an emergency landing jettisoned fuel to lower the airliner’s weight. Unfortunately, the Triple Seven was above an elementary school when it dumped the fuel, resulting in 23 minor injuries among students and staff.
 

Brickman > user314 01/14/2020 at 17:27

0

I wonder what that does to the vegetation ?

gettingoldercarguy > user314 01/14/2020 at 17:33

2

Clearly they’re making it rain... f or lawyers.

boredalways > Brickman 01/14/2020 at 17:34

0

It’s L.A. — what do you think?

Wacko > user314 01/14/2020 at 17:37

1

The fact they do that over populated areas is insane.  

boredalways > user314 01/14/2020 at 17:38

7

Yes, I understand why fuel was jettisoned. I just don’t understand why it was done over a populated area.

Anyway, can't wait for the inevitable lawsuit(s).

ttyymmnn > user314 01/14/2020 at 17:49

11

Pretty sure those are chemtrails, dude.

Seriously, though, dafuq were they thinking dumping over the school? If only there was an ocean close by they could have dumped over....

RallyWrench > user314 01/14/2020 at 18:16

0

WTF? LAX is literally on the beach, why not dump over the ocean? It’s an environmental issue, obviously, but given the choice...

WilliamsSW > user314 01/14/2020 at 18:16

1

Well, it’s not like there was a large body of water anywhere nearby to dump it in...

RallyWrench > ttyymmnn 01/14/2020 at 18:16

3

If only the runway ended at the beach, right? 

WilliamsSW > ttyymmnn 01/14/2020 at 18:17

3

Lol I just posted similar without reading this.

No excuse for this at LAX...

WilliamsSW > RallyWrench 01/14/2020 at 18:26

0

Lol I’ve flown out of LAX probably 20 times, and I think 100% of takeoffs were west bound. 

pitstop_pitowski > user314 01/14/2020 at 19:07

3

Quick thinking by the teaching staff to make sure that  no kids were vaping during the fuel dump event certainly must have saved hundreds of lives.

Chariotoflove > user314 01/14/2020 at 19:44

0

son of a...

shop-teacher > user314 01/14/2020 at 21:34

0

*slow clap*

Way to go boys.

bubblestheturtle > user314 01/14/2020 at 21:53

0

Planes don’t “burn off” fuel except by flying for a long period. There isn’t an option for that during emergency circumstances . Hence the dump valves.
I am curious as to why the captain decided to dump over the city instead of the ocean however. There may have been reasons that flying over the ocean was not possible, but those actions will be reviewed by the airline, the FAA, the union, his/her coworkers, and a bunch randos commenting on blogs.
The truth is out there.

facw > user314 01/14/2020 at 22:07

0

So this is how it flew:

Looks like it needed to land facing west (LAX only has east-west runways), and clearly they wanted to get on the ground quickly. Seems like they could have had a counter clockwise pattern to dump fuel over the ocean, but it also looks like they didn’t want to dump until they were basically in position to glide in.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-14/tracking-delta-flight-89s-path-before-it-dumped-fuel-on-an-elementary-school

KOAMEX > facw 01/14/2020 at 22:20

0

I don’t know what the procedures are in case of an emergency, but I reckon ‘they’ could have stopped takeoffs / diverted landings in one runway so it could land east bound. IDK...can a  pilot/FAA person clarify this?

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > WilliamsSW 01/14/2020 at 22:30

1

Most of the takeoffs are westbound, but there are rare occasions, almost always weather related, when they need to reverse the pattern. But even when the pattern is reversed it won’t take but a few minutes to get out over water for a fuel dump.

I haven’t read all of the details of this incident, but it doesn’t sound like the problems encountered were of such a severe nature as to require dumping fuel over land. Even the most severe incident that I witnessed, a Swissair MD-11 experiencing a violent engine failure at rotation, didn’t require that the aircraft return immediately to the airport. The pilots were calm and professional, dumped the fuel over the ocean and then came back for an uneventful  landing.

coqui70 > ttyymmnn 01/14/2020 at 23:29

2

Seriously - do a couple of race tracks over the Pacific before hauling it in. Fucking Delta.

coqui70 > gettingoldercarguy 01/14/2020 at 23:31

1

The “Hammer” has a crisis team enroute with consent forms as we speak!

facw > KOAMEX 01/14/2020 at 23:35

3

They easily could have stopped traffic, but unless they can control the wind, they probably don’t want to flip the runway direction. You want to take off and land into the wind because it means you have more airflow over the wing at a given speed, so you can takeoff and land at lower speeds. Landing with the wind means a higher speed landing, and a longer landing roll, both of which are more dangerous.

ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com > ttyymmnn 01/14/2020 at 23:59

2

A few articles mention severe engine trouble. Looking at the flight path, they basically, and immediately, circled directly back around to land. It sounds like flying a few racetracks to dump fuel in a more desirable location wasn’t an  option. If it was, I'm guessing we'll be reading about a couple of pilots out a job soon enough.

ttyymmnn > ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com 01/15/2020 at 00:11

1

Compressor stalls.

https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4d1f4f9a&opt=0

SHARPSPEED > user314 01/15/2020 at 09:04

0

That photo looks straight out of a “Seconds From Distaster” type of show on TruTV. 

A737FLYER > ttyymmnn 01/15/2020 at 09:37

1

K nowing what’s on the ground below you, unless it’s an airport, is not a high priority for airline crews. Was the aircraft being vectored on headings from ATC? Seems like they’re the culprits. Also, if shedding weight is the only way to keep the thing in the air, dump fuel, and do it NOW.

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 01/15/2020 at 09:38

1

It’s the LA Basin.  If they have to get on the ground ASAP, someone’s going to get wet.

user314 > SHARPSPEED 01/15/2020 at 09:44

0

Right?

Planeguy > user314 01/15/2020 at 09:51

0

The flight was DL89. It’s heading was 262 when passing over the school.

ttyymmnn > A737FLYER 01/15/2020 at 09:53

0

I certainly get that. Aviation Heral d said they suffered compressor stalls but had them under control.  https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4d1f4f9a&opt=0

SBA Thanks You For All The Fish > Planeguy 01/15/2020 at 10:07

0

It was on approach and still dumping fuel?

user314 > Brickman 01/15/2020 at 10:18

7

There’s unburned vegetation in LA?

facw > SBA Thanks You For All The Fish 01/15/2020 at 10:50

1

Yep, seems like they waited until they were lined up to dump (see my other post with the LA Times map) . There’s a certain logic to that, but it meant they were definitely going to be dumping over a populated area.

Brickman > user314 01/15/2020 at 10:53

4

True, but I see some green. The lawyers are seeing green too :P

SBA Thanks You For All The Fish > facw 01/15/2020 at 11:05

2

Hmmmm, if they’d got the Left Hand Pattern they’d have had plenty of time to figure it out as they cruised over the Channel out around Catalina. When we use 25R on departure out of there for East Coast flights I’m sometimes surprised at how long we are over water before making landfall again somewhere SE of Seal Beach.

With the Right Hand Pattern (assume they departed on 24L?) according to the FlightTracker ADS-B data they were probably over land pretty quickly at Palisades and the Valley. And lots of people.

Punchline is that if they declared immediately.... WTF give them the RH pattern? And, did whoever was running the calculations for allowable  weight for Landing screw up and figure out too late they needed to dump?

It’s a very confusing story.

SBA Thanks You For All The Fish > facw 01/15/2020 at 11:16

1

This was the summary off LiveATC.net, by way of PPRUNE transcription...

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > facw 01/15/2020 at 11:54

0

Standard flight patterns are clockwise though which is probably why they took that route. It’s possible they may have made the turn back following the standard route and then realized they needed to dump fuel.

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Holding_Pattern#Standard_Holding_Pattern

facw > MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s 01/15/2020 at 11:59

0

I mean this wasn’t a holding pattern, it was a landing pattern. I assume they got vectored that way because they had taken off from a northern runway and ATC didn’t want them crossing with traffic taking off from the runways to the south (though they still had to cross the approaches to the northern runways, since they landed on 25R (a southern runway), which is the longest.

Ash78, voting early and often > user314 01/15/2020 at 12:32

0

Temporary s kin and lung irrit ation vs overrunning the runway and a fiery death for 300 people. Pretty easy call.

Brian H > bubblestheturtle 01/15/2020 at 12:33

1

Yep, most planes that dump fuel are above 8000ft. In which case the fuel is vaporize and never reaches the ground. This is a very rar e case where that wasn't an option.  Could he gone somewhere else to do?   Maybe but maybe not.  Depends on what the emergency is.

BahamaTodd > user314 01/15/2020 at 13:18

1

There will be an investigation into this. The pilot initially told the air traffic controller that a fuel dump was not necessary. Then shortly before landing they are dumping fuel.

AlfaCorse > BahamaTodd 01/15/2020 at 14:18

0

The ATC just asked if he wanted to go into holding position to dump fuel, not if he was going to dump fuel. The captain apparently decided it was more important to get back on the ground sooner than later and dumped fuel while being vectored back. The reasoning behind the decision,  I guess we don’t know yet.

BahamaTodd > AlfaCorse 01/15/2020 at 15:11

1

Starting at 1:20 the pilot said that they had everything under control and that they were not critical. ATC asks again if they need to dump fuel and the pilot responds “Negative” and requests vectors to land on 25R.

Now after that exchange something could have changed so we’ll have to wait for the result of the investigation.

IchBinKagy > user314 01/15/2020 at 15:54

0

This is not a good way to say things like this, in aviation there is a reason for EVERYTHING. The only time an aircraft burns fuel rather than dumping is if it doesn’t have a fuel jettison system or if the landing isn’t urgent. In this situation the aircraft had an engine issue, obviously reason to land immediately. Generally fuel dumping is done above 6000 feet so it atomizes before it reaches the ground. The jet shouldn’t have been dumping that low, it shouldn’t be a debate about dump vs. burn. It was the crews fault for the issue. The crew also specifically said they did not need to do a holding pattern to dump, if they were dumping that low they obviously did, they also didn’t inform ATC of the dump. At LAX, if they had said yes to the hold they would have been brought higher over the ocean. They also would have been perfectly fine dumping over the school had they been higher. ATC and  pilots are obviously not going to memorize the location of every school and park all over the world just to avoid dumping on it, especially seeing as dumping is a very safe and very common procedure when done correctly.

IchBinKagy > KOAMEX 01/15/2020 at 16:00

0

The way runways are chosen is based on the wind, in la the winds are usually west bound, and when the wind is calm the westbound runways are standard. Aircraft takeoff and landing facing into the wind. And airplane landing that heavy with wind pushing them would not be safe as there is a possibility they can’t stop in time. This is why they didn't use the runways facing east.

KOAMEX > facw 01/15/2020 at 16:25

0

I have a very basic understanding of landing patterns, wind, etc....but doesn’t LAX flip the patterns at night anyway bc of noise concerns ? I guess my real question would be if theres a point / threshold where   an emergency becomes an “oh shit, this plane needs to land ASAP in whichever direction no matter what ” situation - and who (on the ground) makes the call?

AlfaCorse > BahamaTodd 01/15/2020 at 16:25

0

Although maybe it sounds similar at first t he ATC did not ask if he needed to dump fuel, they specifically asked if he wanted to enter a hold to dump fuel. It is an important distinction, and it may have been deemed u necessary by the captain for several reasons. For example  the captain could have said “ negative” because they were already in the process of dumping fuel and would soon be near MLW by the time they were vectored back to LAX, or by the time it would have taken to establish a holding pattern anyway.

BahamaTodd > AlfaCorse 01/15/2020 at 16:53

0

They should not be dumping fu el unless ATC is notified. ATC needs to notify other aircraft to avoid the area.

A large amount of the radio transmissions is missing from that video. We’ll see what comes from the investigation.

AlfaCorse > BahamaTodd 01/15/2020 at 17:20

0

Yes, ideally they should have notified ATC, but declaring a M ayday situation gives the pilots a lot of discretion to do what they need to do to get the plane safely on the ground.  Priority goes to flying the plane before communicating.  In the moment they may have been concentrating on flying the plane and running through checklists and didn’t think it was critical to mention it to ATC . O f course they will have to answer for the decisions that they made, and it seems to have been a strange one. I don’t know why they didn’t, I guess we will find out once all the info comes out.

facw > KOAMEX 01/15/2020 at 19:16

1

LAX apparently tries to have planes both depart and arrive on the west side between midnight and 6:30am (the over-ocean option) . However this is only done when winds are calm enough to permit it to be done safely.

For a plane that could potentially have an engine issue at any time, they’d almost certainly want to have it land into the wind if at all possible. Presumably ATC decides (with heavy deference to the pilots) if a plane’s situation is dire enough that they just need to get on any runway in any direction ASAP (obviously the people flying the plane have ultimate control, in the sense that they can disregard ATC if they think it’s necessary, it’s not like anyone at ATC can stop them).

Bang Ding Ow > WilliamsSW 01/16/2020 at 09:12

0

If wind/wx permit, they will be, for Noise A batement

Bang Ding Ow > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/16/2020 at 09:20

0

An MD-11 has 3 engines.

A B777 has 2.

Can you math?

3-1 = 2

2 - 1 =1

That 777 CA is probably in the top 1500 out of 14000 pilots on the Delta seniority list. He’s not Captain on a widebody because he has poor ADM, CRM, and is a  terrible stick, and only has 40 hours PIC.

If you have only 1 healthy engine, the Captain does n’t care about noise, schoolchildren , the environment , feminazis on Twitter, Epstein didn’t kill himself, or that all you neckbeards with 0 hours of jet time have an opinion.

His #1 job is to get that tube full of skulls back on the ground.

Please go back to your everyday boring lives pumping gas and pouring coffee, and let the professionals with 20,000 hours of experience take care of the big boy stuff.

Bang Ding Ow > MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s 01/16/2020 at 09:23

0

No no no.

Standard holds are  right turns , normal traffic patterns are left hand .

Stop trying to Google things and make believe you’re a pilot.

They simply got radar vectors back to the airport.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > Bang Ding Ow 01/16/2020 at 09:35

0

I get that, I figured they were planning on entering a holding pattern to burn off fuel and then decided they needed a more immediate landing.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > facw 01/16/2020 at 09:36

0

This is all speculation, but I think they may have entered into a holding pattern to burn off fuel and then decided they needed a more immediate landing and dumped the fuel.