Airplane declaring an emergency dumps fuel that lands on a school playground.

[bcla]

https://www.latimes.com/california/...hool-playground-en-route-to-lax-officials-say
This doesn't make much sense, but it states it was a 777-200 and was diverted. The times seem kind of odd though. It's saying that it landed (same time zone but a +1 meaning the next calendar day) about 12 hours later, even though it quickly turned around.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL89/history/20200114/1929Z/KLAX/ZSPD
Most planes can safely land on a full load of fuel, but they prefer to lighten the load if possible in order to reduce stress on the landing gear. A lot of planes these days don't even have fuel dumps. I believe it's an option on 777s. However, they're complaining about it at this school because it's in a poor neighborhood where they think they might consider the kids to be more expendable than if this were a more affluent neighborhood.

 

[morgan98]

Well, I would think in an emergency situation and they are dumping the fuel, I hardly think they can target where it lands. A school playground is not that big, so I do not believe it was done on purpose because those kids were more "expendable."

 

[bcla]

Well, I would think in an emergency situation and they are dumping the fuel, I hardly think they can target where it lands. A school playground is not that big, so I do not believe it was done on purpose because those kids were more "expendable."

Apparently this neighborhood feels like they're picked on. The residents fought to close down a battery recycling plant that was putting out high levels of arsenic and lead.

However, it's been my understanding that few planes really need to dump fuel before landing. The main issue is that the landing gear has to be checked out and perhaps the plane put out of service if there's anything out of spec.

The airports around my area are all close to the water and when they do any fuel dumps it usually ends up in San Francisco Bay.

 

[HopperFan]

I saw on the news, said many had skin irritations and breathing issues.

Fuel is usually dumped over water or rural land. They left LAX for Shanghai ..... so yeah there is a whole lot of water out there they could have dumped in ... instead of a highly developed area. I'd say this was a bit of a fail on Delta's part.

 

[fla4fun]

I agree. Knowing that LAX is close the Pacific, there isn’t any reason why, if they HAD to dump fuel, that they should have dumped it over land at all. I can understand why the victims would be upset.

 

[bcla]

I saw on the news, said many had skin irritations and breathing issues.

Fuel is usually dumped over water or rural land. They left LAX for Shanghai ..... so yeah there is a whole lot of water out there they could have dumped in ... instead of a highly developed area. I'd say this was a bit of a fail on Delta's part.

The flight pattern shows that they turned around almost immediately after about 10 miles over the Pacific. The flight pattern looks like an hourglass (or kind of like a laboratory beaker), and the fuel dump seemed to be on the final approach where it was well inland.

 

[spiders]

Airplanes going overseas carry a lot of fuel. That's a lot of weight. When they end up landing early, they end up being overweight. The article said it was an engine issue that forced the return. If you're having an engine issue then you're probably not going to go out to sea to dump it. In addition, if you're having engine issues then it's going to be even more difficult to stop when you're overweight once you hit the runway.

Furthermore, depending on how high you are, most fuel evaporates before it hits the ground.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I saw on the news, said many had skin irritations and breathing issues.

Fuel is usually dumped over water or rural land. They left LAX for Shanghai ..... so yeah there is a whole lot of water out there they could have dumped in ... instead of a highly developed area. I'd say this was a bit of a fail on Delta's part.

There is a whole lot of water nearby, but that doesn't mean they could have dumped there. Due to the curvature of the earth, flight paths aren't straight. They're parabolic. The flight path from LAX to Shanghai actually takes the plane over California, Oregon, and then Alaska before heading back down to Shanghai. The plane was low but gaining altitude for the short time it was over the ocean. So not the time to consider a dump. And it didn't deviate from normal flight path until it was over land where they set it up for an Eastern approach. With emergency declared, they didn't have the luxury of saying hey, let's just go fly out over the ocean again for 20 extra minutes, make a dump, and come back. Cudahy is in the approach path from the East. It's not like they said hey let's go dump jet fuel on the poor kids. No. Cudahy just happened to be there. And why didn't they dump over a richer neighborhood, say Inglewood? Because they'd be way too low at that point to do so.

 

[bcla]

Airplanes going overseas carry a lot of fuel. That's a lot of weight. When they end up landing early, they end up being overweight. The article said it was an engine issue that forced the return. If you're having an engine issue then you're probably not going to go out to sea to dump it. In addition, if you're having engine issues then it's going to be even more difficult to stop when you're overweight once you hit the runway.

Furthermore, depending on how high you are, most fuel evaporates before it hits the ground.

Seeing the flight pattern relative to where this school was, the fuel dump was on the final emergency approach, so it was really low.

However, any plane can land on a full load of fuel. Certainly a 777 could.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_3_07/AERO_Q307_article3.pdf​

SAFETY AND ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS​

Landing overweight and fuel jettisoning are both considered safe procedures: there are no accidents on record attributed to either cause. In the preamble to amendment 25-18 to FAR part 25, relative to fuel jettison, the FAA stated, “there has been no adverse service experience with airplanes certificated under Part 25 involved in overweight landings.” Furthermore, service experience indicates that damage due to overweight landing is extremely rare.​

​

Obviously, landing at weights above the maximum design landing weight reduces the normal performance margins. an overweight landing with an engine inoperative or a system failure may be less desirable than landing below maximum landing weight. Yet, delaying the landing with a malfunctioning system or engine failure in order
to reduce weight or jettison fuel may expose the airplane to additional system deterioration that can make the situation worse. The pilot in command is in the best position to assess all relevant factors and determine the best course of action.​

 

[spiders]

Seeing the flight pattern relative to where this school was, the fuel dump was on the final emergency approach, so it was really low.

However, any plane can land on a full load of fuel. Certainly a 777 could.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_3_07/AERO_Q307_article3.pdf​

SAFETY AND ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS​

Landing overweight and fuel jettisoning are both considered safe procedures: there are no accidents on record attributed to either cause. In the preamble to amendment 25-18 to FAR part 25, relative to fuel jettison, the FAA stated, “there has been no adverse service experience with airplanes certificated under Part 25 involved in overweight landings.” Furthermore, service experience indicates that damage due to overweight landing is extremely rare.​

​

Obviously, landing at weights above the maximum design landing weight reduces the normal performance margins. an overweight landing with an engine inoperative or a system failure may be less desirable than landing below maximum landing weight. Yet, delaying the landing with a malfunctioning system or engine failure in order​

to reduce weight or jettison fuel may expose the airplane to additional system deterioration that can make the situation worse. The pilot in command is in the best position to assess all relevant factors and determine the best course of action.​

They can but that doesn't mean they will if they have an option. You could get in your car and drive with underinflated tires, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Ecological impacts are certainly not a concern if the alternative is land overweight, with engine issues, and possibly set your brakes on fire. If any pilot wants to consider the environmental impact of dumping fuel over a safe landing then please let me know so I can get off.

 

[bcla]

No, there wasn't a whole lot of water they could have dumped in. Due to the curvature of the earth, flight paths aren't straight. They're parabolic. The flight path from LAX to Shanghai actually takes the plane over California, Oregon, and then Alaska before heading back down to Shanghai. The plane wouldn't have had the altitude for the short time it was over the ocean to even consider a dump. And it didn't deviate from normal flight path until it was over land where they set it up for an Eastern approach. With emergency declared, they didn't have the luxury of saying hey, let's just go fly out over the ocean again for 20 extra minutes, make a dump, and come back. Cudahy is in the approach path from the East. It's not like they said hey let's go dump jet fuel on the poor kids. No. Cudahy just happened to be there. And why didn't they dump over say Inglewood? Because they'd be way too low at that point to do so.

Here's the flight path:

I checked previous Flight 89 patterns, and they all make a right over water and over Malibu. The deviation was past Calabasas where it turned sharp right over San Fernando Valley.

 

[bcla]

They can but that doesn't mean they will if they have an option. You could get in your car and drive with underinflated tires, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Ecological impacts are certainly not a concern if the alternative is land overweight, with engine issues, and possibly set your brakes on fire. If any pilot wants to consider the environmental impact of dumping fuel over a safe landing then please let me know so I can get off.

If it was a full 737 or 757 the pilot would have just landed since there is no fuel dump. It's considered a safe procedure even if it's not ideal. I remember discussing this with an aircraft engineer who said the primary concern would be stress on the landing gear, and where the gear would require a mandatory inspection before putting it back in service.

 

[spiders]

If it was a full 737 or 757 the pilot would have just landed since there is no fuel dump. It's considered a safe procedure even if it's not ideal. I remember discussing this with an aircraft engineer who said the primary concern would be stress on the landing gear, and where the gear would require a mandatory inspection before putting it back in service.

Yes but we're not talking about a 737 or a 757. We're talking about an airplane that has the capability to dump so it dumped it because that was the safest thing to do. If you don't have potentially one of our engines to use for reverse thrust then your going to put even extra stress on your brakes which has the potential to cause a fire. I'd put my money on that the pilot requested fire trucks standing by at the runway.

And even regular planes, without an emergency, who take on extra fuel because they think they might have to deviate around weather or hold and then later end up not needing the extra fuel, usually request lower altitudes much earlier because they want to burn the extra fuel by the time they get to their destination.

 

[sam_gordon]

If it was a full 737 or 757 the pilot would have just landed since there is no fuel dump. It's considered a safe procedure even if it's not ideal. I remember discussing this with an aircraft engineer who said the primary concern would be stress on the landing gear, and where the gear would require a mandatory inspection before putting it back in service.

Are you a commercial airline pilot? Have you put in hundreds of hours flying these size planes, going through simulators to test emergency procedures? If so, then your "remembered discussion" (funny, you seem to "remember" a lot of discussions with various people who back your theories) holds some weight. But, I'm guessing that's not the case. Assuming that, you shouldn't be second guessing the decisions these professionals have made. I'm sure if TPTB felt they made the wrong decision, they'll be held accountable.

 

[bcla]

Are you a commercial airline pilot? Have you put in hundreds of hours flying these size planes, going through simulators to test emergency procedures? If so, then your "remembered discussion" (funny, you seem to "remember" a lot of discussions with various people who back your theories) holds some weight. But, I'm guessing that's not the case. Assuming that, you shouldn't be second guessing the decisions these professionals have made. I'm sure if TPTB felt they made the wrong decision, they'll be held accountable.

At the very least I'm thinking Delta is going to be paying for all the decontamination and emergency response. This was actually a lot more than just one school that ended up getting emergency responders.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1217186450535378945

 

[sam_gordon]

At the very least I'm thinking Delta is going to be paying for all the decontamination and emergency response. This was actually a lot more than just one school that ended up getting emergency responders.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1217186450535378945

If so, that's part of the price of doing business for them. I was responding to your insistence that they didn't need to dump fuel...

Most planes can safely land on a full load of fuel

it's been my understanding that few planes really need to dump fuel before landing.

any plane can land on a full load of fuel.

If it was a full 737 or 757 the pilot would have just landed since there is no fuel dump.

Like I asked, do you have training/experience with these kinds of planes? Have you studied any emergency procedures? Then how about we trust what the pilots did?

 

[bcla]

Like I asked, do you have training/experience with these kinds of planes? Have you studied any emergency procedures? Then how about we trust what the pilots did?

Well - there's that specific article from Boeing noting that overweight landing is considered safe. I have no reason to doubt that.

I contacted the aircraft engineer. Apparently they hear this stuff quickly and he said the normal procedure is to run it until the fuel is burned off enough for an acceptable landing weight.

 

[DLgal]

This is being made into a much bigger deal than it actually is. It's jet fuel, not napalm. The treatment for skin contact is "soap and water" according to the MSDS for aviation jet fuel. If skin irritation persists, it's easily treated by a doctor.

No one was doused in gallons of full strength jet fuel here. No one was taken to the hospital. I imagine affected kids were sent home to change clothes and shower or were cleaned up at school and parents called. Military pilots and airplane mechanics end up covered in jet fuel often. A one time exposure isn't harmful.

The good news is, the plane safely landed and there wasn't an air tragedy.

 

[Brett Wyman]

This is being made into a much bigger deal than it actually is. It's jet fuel, not napalm. The treatment for skin contact is "soap and water" according to the MSDS for aviation jet fuel. If skin irritation persists, it's easily treated by a doctor.

No one was doused in gallons of full strength jet fuel here. No one was taken to the hospital. I imagine affected kids were sent home to change clothes and shower or were cleaned up at school and parents called. Military pilots and airplane mechanics end up covered in jet fuel often. A one time exposure isn't harmful.

The good news is, the plane safely landed and there wasn't an air tragedy.

None the less not great PR for Delta. Of course better than the negative PR for a crash of course. I trust the pilot did what he thought was best for the safety of his/her passengers.

 

[fly girl]

As we don't know the details of what the emergency was, I will say it had to be serious enough for the pilots to immediately turn around. (Example, they got a fire indicator warning as well.) If they believed they had time to dump fuel over the ocean, they would have. Obviously, they felt they didn't.

In the upcoming days we will learn the details. I am just thankful the plane landed safely and no one was seriously injured.

I agree with @DLgal the media is making it out to be like Delta purposefully dumped in a poor neighborhood. Unfortunately, it was in their flight path, and the pilots must have felt it was safer to dump the fuel than land with it. I am very sorry for those on the ground, but they will be ok.