Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday January 16 2020, @03:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the plain-dumps-no-longer-what-they-used-to-be dept.

BBC

At least 60 people, many of them children, were treated for skin irritation and breathing problems.

Fuel may be dumped in emergency landings, but only over designated areas and at a high altitude, aviation rules stipulate.

The Delta Airlines flight returned to the airport due to an engine issue.

Delta confirmed in a statement that the passenger plane had released fuel to reduce its landing weight.

The children and adults treated following the dumping incident were connected with at least six local schools. All the injuries are said to be minor.
...
Allen Kenitzer, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration, told Reuters news agency: "The FAA is thoroughly investigating the circumstances behind this incident. There are special fuel-dumping procedures for aircraft operating into and out of any major US airport.

"These procedures call for fuel to be dumped over designated unpopulated areas, typically at higher altitudes so the fuel atomises and disperses before it reaches the ground."

Business Traveler has other details

A Delta Air Lines Boeing 777-200 bound for Shanghai Pudong that was making an emergency landing dumped fuel on six schools in Los Angeles, mildly injuring 60 adults and children, according to media reports.
...
The students and staff members complained of minor skin irritation and breathing problems, but all declined transportation to hospitals, the newspaper added.
...
The Los Angeles Times reports that the plane flew north over Malibu within four minutes after takeoff at 11:32am (local time). After encountering an engine problem, the journey back to the airport, in which the airline said it dumped fuel over urban southeastern Los Angeles County, took a looping route over the San Fernando Valley. The flight, which never flew higher than 8,000 feet, then moved over Griffith Park not long after, heading into southeastern LA County. Minutes later, the flight began making its return to LAX, looping back west.

Flight tracking website FlightRadar24 posted an image on Twitter of the plane's flight path:

Flight path of flight #DL89 that returned to Los Angeles International Airport 24 minutes after departurehttps://t.co/JPER0N19p6 pic.twitter.com/XwJalaZfZq
        — Flightradar24 (@flightradar24) January 14, 2020

...
Several videos of the plane dumping fuel have emerged on social media, such as the one below: [linky]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 16 2020, @06:06PM (18 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 16 2020, @06:06PM (#944135) Journal

    Unless the situation was critical, you don't do this shit over a densely populated area

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @06:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @06:21PM (#944143)

    Meh -- California. Kids. Who cares.

  • (Score: 2) by mobydisk on Thursday January 16 2020, @07:00PM (15 children)

    by mobydisk (5472) on Thursday January 16 2020, @07:00PM (#944157)

    This was an emergency situation.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday January 16 2020, @07:14PM (14 children)

      by sjames (2882) on Thursday January 16 2020, @07:14PM (#944163) Journal

      Then they should have said yes when ATC asked them if they needed to dump fuel.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday January 16 2020, @07:42PM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday January 16 2020, @07:42PM (#944182) Homepage

        Well, if the plane was going to China, the pilots were probably foreigners who grew up with that "dump-anywhere" mentality shitting in the streets. And San Francisco and L.A. are full of those types, which explains a lot. We should be lucky we don't have those kinds of scum running our nuclear power plants, but thanks to diversity, who knows what will happen in the near future?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 16 2020, @08:07PM (12 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 16 2020, @08:07PM (#944197)

        Then they should have said yes when ATC asked them if they needed to dump fuel.

        Yes, but... having made that one human error, what do you do next? Oil up the locals, or take on increased risk of a crash?

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by sjames on Thursday January 16 2020, @08:27PM (11 children)

          by sjames (2882) on Thursday January 16 2020, @08:27PM (#944218) Journal

          Tell ATC that on second thought, you do need to dump fuel.

          The issue was that the plane was losing one of it's two engines. They had time to dump over an unpopulated area.

          Given the flight plan and how soon after takeoff they had the problem, the need to dump fuel was a no-brainer. I'm not so sure it's even possible to take off with enough fuel to fly across the ocean and not be over landing weight.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 17 2020, @12:28AM (9 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 17 2020, @12:28AM (#944325)

            I wasn't in the cockpit... if it was as minor of an emergency as you say, then of course your analysis is correct.

            If taking another turn out over the bay would have, in the pilot's opinion, increased the danger to the aircraft and passengers... that may actually be why he told ATC that he didn't need "dump fuel" routing, because he knew they would have given him a less direct return approach and he didn't need that, he just needed to get down ASAP before something truly bad happened, and the direct route allowed him to dump enough fuel to land safely.

            Having said all that, I think they should fine the fuck out of the airline for this action, not only personal injury to the people who got sprayed, but also a significant punitive environmental damage fee ($100K seems like a start) and certainly 3x whatever it cost to do any cleanup/mitigation that was practical to do. And, even if the pilot's actions end up costing the airline $1M in fines and/or court costs, it may still be that the pilot made the right call. And, if he didn't - well, he can be fired.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17 2020, @02:18AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17 2020, @02:18AM (#944355)

              This sort of engine trouble happens from time to time. The way to get control of it is to throttle back and work with reduced thrust or cutoff the engine when bad enough. The pilot reported to ATC that they had it under control. Now, they cannot fly to their destination anymore and have to land relatively soon.

              So instead of carrying on, they are given their preferred runway due to the extra weight and put in normal traffic. It is important to note that they could have landed with all the weight in the plane up to the MTOW, which is why the pilots rejecting the route isn't completely surprising. It would not have been pretty. It would not feel good. The aircraft would need an overweight landing inspection, probably a hard landing inspection, and probably have to have been overhauled in the gear, but they could have done it. The question is whether they though it was worth the risk, given the massive damage it could have done.

              My two guesses are that they put the figures into the flight computer, it spit out the overweight condition, and they realized the amount of damage and $$$ that could cause, so they pulled the fuel dump. The second guess, which would also explain the lack of chatter, is that they lost the engine completely during the descent, forgot the 777-200 can land at MTOW on a runway the size of LAX on one engine (not all aircraft can), thought they could not climb out on a go-around, so they dumped fuel. Both of those could have been compounded by losing navigational awareness and thinking they were over the Pacific Ocean.

            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday January 18 2020, @03:12AM (7 children)

              by sjames (2882) on Saturday January 18 2020, @03:12AM (#944850) Journal

              Interestingly, according to other pilots interviewed, landing heavy was a safe option but would have required extra inspections of the plane after.

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 18 2020, @03:45AM (6 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday January 18 2020, @03:45AM (#944863)

                Makes me think of a Southwest flight I took, landed in Houston Hobby and was splashing the tarmac with jet fuel every time the wing flexed, cracks in the leading edge - right above the engine intake.

                As for the pilot-in-command's calls - I'd go with life-safety first, worry about the rest later. If the airline was skimping maintenance and it led to this situation (don't tell me about mandatory schedules, they have latitude in how rigorously they maintain over and above the legal requirements), then the airline should be the one to suck up whatever it cost to land the plane without killing people.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday January 18 2020, @09:16AM (5 children)

                  by sjames (2882) on Saturday January 18 2020, @09:16AM (#944928) Journal

                  I would have preferred, either declare the need to dump fuel and do it properly, or if the pilot didn't believe there was time for that, land heavy and the accountants can just get over it. If the pilot improperly dumped fuel out of fear for employer reprisal over the costs, I sincerely hope the courts slap them around until they rethink their (possibly unwritten) policies.

                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 18 2020, @04:53PM

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday January 18 2020, @04:53PM (#945003)

                    If the pilot improperly dumped fuel out of fear for employer reprisal over the costs, I sincerely hope the courts slap them around until they rethink their (possibly unwritten) policies.

                    Agreed, although I think any policies whether written or unwritten are irrelevant, what matters is that a commercial operation has - for very good reasons at the time - done significant damage to the environment, including the people that had to breathe that stuff - and that should be paid back by the commercial operation at a generous multiple of actual damages, both to compensate for the damages done, incidental costs of collection, and to make it unprofitable for commercial operations to have these accidents in the first place.

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 19 2020, @11:35PM (3 children)

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday January 19 2020, @11:35PM (#945543)

                    Here we go: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51162248 [bbc.com] I'm very conflicted, often disappointed, that it's up to individuals to attempt to claw punitive settlements out of corporations for this kind of abuse. I'd much rather see the city or state suing them for environmental damage and possibly cleanup costs (if there's anything that can be done to clean up...)

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday January 21 2020, @09:40AM (2 children)

                      by sjames (2882) on Tuesday January 21 2020, @09:40AM (#946271) Journal

                      It strikes me as very inefficient. The teachers sue, the parents file a different suit, the schools themselves yet another, etc. All for a single incident.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:31AM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:31AM (#947208)

                        Something something, class action lawsuit, something something, contingent lawyer fees.

                        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday January 25 2020, @08:01PM

                          by sjames (2882) on Saturday January 25 2020, @08:01PM (#948582) Journal
                          Something something lawyers make millions, plaintiffs get coupons.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17 2020, @02:21AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17 2020, @02:21AM (#944356)

            The 777-200 does not have to dump fuel. It can land all the way up to MTOW. LAX is long enough that they could even do it with one engine.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 16 2020, @08:03PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 16 2020, @08:03PM (#944195)

    Cargo (think: bottom of the maintenance and engine updating schedules) jets climbing out of MIA regularly dumped unburned kerosene along their flightpath, just because the damn things leaked, or didn't fully burn the fuel. They'd fly over the residential neighborhoods along Biscayne Bay, and I'd get brown spots on my leaves from the falling droplets.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]