Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well it's pretty obvious where Deltas next move should be, ask for certified C-D experts to assist on every heavy jet takeoff. They could advise on correct speeds to keep 650,000lbs of plane from stalling and pinwheeling into the weeds. Of course they would have their binoculars to pick out 3rd graders playing in school yards so avoiding fuel dumps there. The crew could handle the simple compressor stalls, picking out a runway (25R 12,000ft) and going thru checklists talking to ATC and fitting into a traffic pattern full of other planes and still keeping the plane from stalling. At C-D we know a 777 and a Buick are about the same to manage. And that lazy bastard crew should be sued for crop dusting every school in LA.
Would you have prefered I used the original headline of the story "Elementary school kids doused"? I think my title was a very accurate description. Maybe you would have preferred I titled it "Delta Boeing 777 flies over the rainbow to shower LA school children with butterflies, and unicorns". Would that have been good enough for you?
Delta jet in emergency sprays schools with fuel.
Nah, doesn't fit your narrative. BTW, you failed to answer whether you are a commercial pilot and if you've been briefed on the situation in the cockpit?
This story gets stranger and stranger. Reports are now that ATC asked twice if they would have to dump fuel and were told no then the pilot decides when below recommended altitude to dump (so the fuel would evaporate before getting to ground level to dump fuel? It would be interesting to hear the cockpit voice recordings. Was it a simple case of the pilot flipping the wrong switch causing the fuel dump or was it a conscious decision? Is there an automated system that calculates the weight and dumps fuel if it is too high for landing?
It is somewhat worse than that. When I was working on the flightline we would occasionally get new troops who would break out with rashes soon after beginning work on the flightline. Some of the additives caused allergic reactions that had not been known until they began working in the environment. It was mainly a problem in the avionic shops since during tech school they didn't run across components that had been contaminated with JP-4. Talking to crew chiefs they had a similar problem in the later part of tech school when they left the classroom environment and came in regular contact with aircraft. Since children are often more susceptable to environmental contaminants I can see some reason for concern especially when it seems that the dump should have occured before the aircraft got that low to give the liquid a chance to dissipate before reaching ground level.
I am surprised that being dosed by Kerosene can cause injuries.
I guess the much talked about "chemtrails" are real afterall.
It might had been unintentional, maybe accidentally flipped on in the confusion in the cockpit while on final approach. Or that the plane wasn't functioning right in the first place but pilots managed to stop it before the plane ended up on the runway.
Interestingly there were bragging about how Delta is a nice airline compared to the other two Legacy airlines but I guess probably not anymore. Though I am surprised is not United Airlines this time or China Eastern Airlines at least.
Though the worst case scenario is the pilots were going by advice of Delta airline technicians/ they were talking to who while the plane was over the Pacific waters when the compressor issue started insisted that fuel dumping was unnecessary, as Delta Airlines probably first insisted that the plane would not be damaged landing overweight thus no need to waste precious fuel they paid for, but the airline's techs changed their mind at the last minute after learning how heavy the plane was and that there is only one working engine that the plane is going to sustain much heavier damage costs ($200,000 vs $20,000 worth of fuel) than the fuel would had costed them, and downtime should it land overweight than the amount of fuel paid and insisted the pilot dump while hiding it from ATC/FAA since ATC would have them circle longer if they hear of it. One would think that the plane is fully fueled for such a long journey from LAX to Shanghai it should had been a no brainer they need to start dumping fuel shortly after the engine failed 8000 feet above the ocean. Based on the attitude of Delta's spokesperson on the media I am beginning to think this scenario is plausible as probably Delta probably put the companies bottom line and made a business decision, but Delta representatives that were guiding the pilots in what to do in a tense confusing situation probably did not realize how low the plane was flying at that time(and how close they were already to the ground/airport) then and thought they could get away with it as all the fuel should had evaporated on the way down. I bet the plane still landed well overweight anyways as they didn't get a chance to dump more fuel but the long runway minimized the damage caused which meant that move was unnecessary. Though most corporate slaves would listen to their higher ups especially if they are inexperienced or even if not in a confusing situation to keep their jobs even if they find certain things irrational.
Last edited by citizensadvocate; 01-16-2020 at 08:32 AM..
This is how I feel. If I was a passenger on that plane, I'm thankful the flight crew did everything necessary to land and to save lives.
I think this is an over simplification. The plane was not in immediate danger. It was not ready for a long overwater flight but there are no indications that it was a 'now or never' situation to save lives. I've seen nothing indicating that they could not have stayed higher and over a less populated area while dumping fuel.
Banning air traffic from populated areas pretty much kills all air traffic, including passenger flights going to any destination at all. To propose this after one fuel dumping episode is a colossal overreaction.
It actually won't there are plenty of non populated corridors in the US to fly whether its small Cessna or large airliner. Its not like the US is 70% urban. Even in dense sprawl California. Planes cause noise and pollution and quality of life issues daily. The worst offenders are those banner planes that just buzz around to show off their banners over residential areas.
My point is why target only drones as I almost never see or hear a drone. I can hand count the number of times I hear them but much louder planes are droning over everyday.
Airport runways can be built over the ocean or other bodies of water, and has been done in many areas which makes the landing path mostly over the ocean. LAX can be built over water easily. I know that in Denver planes can fly over only non populated areas to go to and from DEN.
This story gets stranger and stranger. Reports are now that ATC asked twice if they would have to dump fuel and were told no then the pilot decides when below recommended altitude to dump (so the fuel would evaporate before getting to ground level to dump fuel? It would be interesting to hear the cockpit voice recordings. Was it a simple case of the pilot flipping the wrong switch causing the fuel dump or was it a conscious decision? Is there an automated system that calculates the weight and dumps fuel if it is too high for landing?
What reports?
The audio of the communication between the aircraft and ATC is widely available. The first time ATC asks about holding to dump fuel (not dumping fuel; holding to dump fuel) it is included with numerous other questions. The aircraft's reply doesn't address the question of the holding. ATC then immediately asks again if the aircraft will need to hold to dump fuel. The aircraft then responds no. However, declining to hold to dump fuel is not stating that there will not be a fuel dump but rather that there will not be a hold prior to return. There is a contradiction between what you stated (being asked if they would dump - saying 'no' and then dumping) but there is no contradiction between what happened (being asked if they would hold - saying 'no' and then not holding).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
