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

[bcla]

I didn't see this earlier. Looks like someone has some explaining to do.....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1217213895066169345

 

[jackers]

Have you never heard of exceptions? That could be standard policy, not emergency policy.

 

[sam_gordon]

I didn't see this earlier. Looks like someone has some explaining to do.....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1217213895066169345

Of course it should be investigated, but you even said their normal flight path takes them over land pretty quickly. We don't know what the emergency was or when it happened, and it was early in the flight, so they didn't have time to get to altitude. I know you think they could have landed without dumping fuel, apparently they felt they needed to. So, what should they have done? How quickly did they need to get back on the ground (that will determine if they had time to go to some unpopulated area or gain altitude before dumping)?

 

[bcla]

Have you never heard of exceptions? That could be standard policy, not emergency policy.

Fuel dumps are only for emergencies.

 

[HopperFan]

I didn't see this earlier. Looks like someone has some explaining to do.....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1217213895066169345

Saw an interview from an Aviation Consultant involved in these types of things. He said that there will be a full investigation and due to circumstances the pilot will be investigated for pilot error. Not just for the decision to dump but the altitude and location. OR was he instructed by someone at the airport to do it at this point/location?

Said the optimal altitude to dump is 10,000 feet and with the minimum it should be done to be at 5,000 feet. The pilot in this case waited until they were at approx 2,300 feet which is not safe, particularly over populated areas. The plane had only reached 8,000 feet at the point it turned and started back ..... so 5,000 feet, the last location they should have dumped, was likely somewhere in the middle of the turn and where they actually dumped. ..... And everything between 8,000 feet down through 5,000 feet happens to be over affluent neighborhoods.

 

[bcla]

Of course it should be investigated, but you even said their normal flight path takes them over land pretty quickly. We don't know what the emergency was or when it happened, and it was early in the flight, so they didn't have time to get to altitude. I know you think they could have landed without dumping fuel, apparently they felt they needed to. So, what should they have done? How quickly did they need to get back on the ground (that will determine if they had time to go to some unpopulated area or gain altitude before dumping)?

In the discussion someone posted this:

ATC specifically asked if they needed to dump fuel at higher altitude and they declined.

Here’s one of the comments in the vid:

James Thompson​

I am a former flight dispatcher for a large international airline and this is all kinds of wrong. I don't like second guessing the captain but I have to ask why he didn't shut down the engine and take the hold offered him out over the water. This is an ETOPS certified aircraft and can safely fly for hours on a single engine. He said himself they weren't critical. If it was critical an aircraft can be landed above max weight with some care. It might bend some metal but if the captain knows his stuff it is doable. I think there are going to be a lot of questions asked.​

 

[seashoreCM]

Are the doctors, ambulance companies, etc. supposed to or permitted to send their bills directly to the airline, leaving the children and their parents out of the loop and not liable?

Isn't the airline liable for pollution cleanup costs as a result of dumping fuels on land?

 

[Searc]

I didn't see this earlier. Looks like someone has some explaining to do.....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1217213895066169345

Doubtful any of that applies in an emergency situation.

 

[bcla]

Doubtful any of that applies in an emergency situation.

Again, any fuel dump has to be for some emergency.

 

[RedAngie]

Even though virtually all flights arrive at LAX in a westbound direction (over land), there have been times in emergencies when planes arrived eastbound from over the ocean.

Could the plane have been sent back over the ocean to dump fuel and then landed from that direction?

 

[bcla]

Even though virtually all flights arrive at LAX in a westbound direction (over land), there have been times in emergencies when planes arrived eastbound from over the ocean.

Could the plane have been sent back over the ocean to dump fuel and then landed from that direction?

This just seems weird. The usual is for aircraft to take off into the wind (to improve lift) and land into the wind (into a headwind).

But the routine path for this flight was just over the Pacific and north over the dry land portion of California. So it seems they deviated over land. You can see the flight path in the first few seconds of the vid I linked. Also in the chatter the captain specifically requested runway 25R "for weight". 25R is the longest runway they have - 12,923 ft long.

 

[DLgal]

This just seems weird. The usual is for aircraft to take off into the wind (to improve lift) and land into the wind (into a headwind).

This is not routinely done at most airports. They only have so many runways. I live close to SNA and I can tell you with certainty, ALL aircraft approach for landing from the northeast,fly over I-405 at a very low altitude, and land. You can see the planes coming in one after the other from my neighborhood. I never see planes taking off, because they all take off to the southwest, immediately head out over the ocean in Newport Beach, for noise pollution reasons, then make their turns to get on the correct heading. Every plane follows this protocol.

SNA has one runway. They take off and land no matter which way the wind is blowing.

 

[bcla]

SNA has one runway. They take off and land no matter which way the wind is blowing.

Actually 2. They have a shorter runway for general aviation. Remember when Harrison Ford landed on the wrong runway and buzzed a few commercial jets?

As for the main runway, like almost all runways it can be approached from either end. They can take a different approach if the wind is blowing in a different direction. The main runway is 2L/20R.

 

[DLgal]

Actually 2. They have a shorter runway for general aviation. Remember when Harrison Ford landed on the wrong runway and buzzed a few commercial jets?

As for the main runway, like almost all runways it can be approached from either end. They can take a different approach if the wind is blowing in a different direction. The main runway is 2L/20R.

But both runways are parallel. They never approach from the southwest to land, nor do they ever take off to the northeast. Never. Not even during the Santa Ana wind events.

 

[sam_gordon]

But both runways are parallel. They never approach from the southwest to land, nor do they ever take off to the northeast. Never. Not even during the Santa Ana wind events.

Planes will always try to land (and take off) into the prevailing wind. Here's a better explanation of when that might be different:
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-airports-change-runway-direction-for-take-off-and-landing

 

[Riddlepilot]

It's always fun to see how all the folks with pilot's license from Google flight school would have handled a situation that they don't have full information on. These guys could have very well screwed the pooch, but until there are more details it is a little early to talk about what they should have done, and how stupid they are.

 

[KPeterso]

But both runways are parallel. They never approach from the southwest to land, nor do they ever take off to the northeast. Never. Not even during the Santa Ana wind events.

Oh yes they do. My office is a couple blocks from SNA and we can see airplanes coming in to land. And when the winds are blowing, they take off the other direction. We always comment when we see the planes heading out the "wrong" way. They definitely turn the flight path around at SNA on a regular basis depending on the winds.

 

[DLgal]

Oh yes they do. My office is a couple blocks from SNA and we can see airplanes coming in to land. And when the winds are blowing, they take off the other direction. We always comment when we see the planes heading out the "wrong" way. They definitely turn the flight path around at SNA on a regular basis depending on the winds.

Do you ever see them LAND in the other direction? I haven't.

 

[Flight]

Fuel dumps are only for emergencies.

Or at the discretion of the Pilot in Command.

 

[bcla]

Or at the discretion of the Pilot in Command.

Here's an industry publication:

http://aeronauticsonline.com/delta-777-dumps-fuel-over-in-los-angeles/​

The aircraft returned for a safe landing less than 30 minutes after departing. The aircraft suffered from a compressor stall in the right-side engine, a Rolls Royce Trent 800 series. With only one engine, the crew decided there was not time to dump fuel over the ocean before returning to the airport.​

​

After reviewing the Air Traffic Control audio, it appears controllers asked the pilots of flight 89 if they needed to dump fuel. They responded by saying they did not need to dump fuel but decided to do so anyway. Had they accepted, controllers would have vectored them into a holding pattern over the ocean to dump the necessary fuel.​

And this is one of many articles in the same vein:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...about-los-angeles-fuel-dump-faa-idUSKBN1ZE2UQ​

“A review of yesterday’s air traffic control communications shows the Delta Flight 89 crew did not tell air traffic control that they needed to dump fuel,” the FAA said. “In this emergency situation, the fuel-dumping procedure did not occur at an optimal altitude that would have allowed the fuel to atomize properly.”​

​

Before making emergency landings, planes often dump fuel to reduce their weight for safety reasons. The FAA said in a statement that air crews will typically notify air traffic control of an emergency and indicate the need to dump fuel, with controllers then directing the crew to an appropriate fuel-dumping area. The agency said it is continuing to investigate the circumstances behind the incident.​

​

The Los Angeles Times obtained audio of the conversation, quoting a controller asking the Delta pilot about fuel.​

​

“OK, so you don’t need to hold to dump fuel or anything like that?” the control asked. The pilot responded, “Negative.”​

​

Delta said on Tuesday it shares “concerns regarding reported minor injuries to adults and children at a school in the area” and said the fuel was dumped to reach a safe landing weight.​