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.
I am guessing if its done intentionally the pilots were likely following whatever procedures outlined by Delta's higher-ups, technicians or papers the pilots desperately consulated to seek advice to deal with their unfamiliar and tense ordeal which probably pressured the pilots to do something a certain way or else threatened with discipline up to termination if done otherwise. Whether it was not to dump fuel at first when they encountered compressor issues at 8000 ft over the ocean and had to turn back, and suddenly change to must dump the fuel without allowing ATC/FAA know at the very end, as damage might exceed the fuel costs. The pilots didn't want to risk their jobs and trusted whatever their higher ups said. The reality of working in the corporate world, I guess many people would have similar experiences in their offices too. It appears Delta policy does require fuel to be dumped in this case(which obviously should had been done immediately over the ocean when that engine failed, obviously the plane was very heavily fueled for the journey well past recommended landing weight, no doubts required), though the airline tried to skirt this policy initially as they believe its under control and that LAX has long runways that landing overweight won't be an issue yet changed its mind at the last moment and tried to get away with it. So in the end Delta Airlines is surely the ones responsible for everything that happened, even if the fuel dump valve accidentally opened. Not so surprising given how bad the airline industry is these days as they would even rather drag their paying passengers for their own mistakes the gate agent was likely only following their high ups when that happened, though those higher ups now ever regret making that decision.
Last edited by citizensadvocate; 01-16-2020 at 06:26 PM..
I am guessing if its done intentionally the pilots were likely following whatever procedures outlined by Delta's higher-ups, technicians or papers the pilots desperately consulated to seek advice to deal with their unfamiliar ordeal which probably pressured the pilots to do something a certain way or else threatened with discipline up to termination if done otherwise. Whether it was not to dump fuel at first when they encountered compressor issues at 8000 ft over the ocean and had to turn back, and then changed their stance to dumping the fuel without allowing ATC/FAA know at the very end, as damage might exceed the fuel costs. The pilots didn't want to risk their jobs and trusted whatever their higher ups said. The reality of working in the corporate world, I guess many people would have similar experiences in their offices too. It appears Delta policy does require fuel to be dumped in this case(which obviously should had been done immediately over the ocean when that engine failed, obviously the plane was very heavily fueled for the journey well past recommended landing weight, no doubts required), though the airline tried to skirt this policy initially as they believe its under control and that LAX has long runways that landing overweight won't be an issue yet changed its mind at the last moment and tried to get away with it. So in the end Delta Airlines is surely the ones responsible for everything that happened, even if the fuel dump valve accidentally opened. Not so surprising given how bad the airline industry is these days as they would even rather drag their paying passengers for their own mistakes the gate agent was likely only following their high ups when that happened, though those higher ups now ever regret making that decision.
I've been under the impression that the captain is the absolute and final authority in the cockpit, and airline management would not impose penalties on him for acting a certain way, especially in an emergency situation, unless the captain was egregiously in error. Is this not the case?
I've been under the impression that the captain is the absolute and final authority in the cockpit, and airline management would not impose penalties on him for acting a certain way, especially in an emergency situation, unless the captain was egregiously in error. Is this not the case?
True, though it wasn't truly an emergency at first as they plane was still under control and there was no fire or other life and death situation and a twin-engine plane could still fly for hours with only one engine(otherwise they won't be allowed to fly to Hawaii or Australia), and this pilot probably was confused on how to handle the uniquely urgent yet not dire situation without consulting Delta procedures and think he better do things by the book and whatever the airline instructs him to do, I don't see any mention of how much flying experience he had under his belt in any of the stories. He was probably instructed by technicians or his handbooks not to release any fuel at first as the situation was under control and the airport runway was long (thus saving the fuel), but then were pressured to release fuel after being threatened that the possible damage to the aircraft would place it out of service for a long time meaning great loses for the airline for something that could otherwise be fixed in less than a day, and that landing with a full tank over maximum landing weight violates Delta policies no matter what, except when its absolutely unavoidable, much misunderstandings and confusion. Or that the fuel release value accidentally released in the confusion while the plane was on final approach. Though isn't it common sense to dump fuel first if all possible should a widebody plane fueled for such a long journey need to land so early into the journey as it would be very heavy and bad for it? I mean most another large widebody airlines would do so, even if it's just landing for a medical emergency? There was no reason/excuse not to when they were over the ocean and know they need to come back anyways even though it not serious they cannot fly all the way to their destination with only one engine. Of course, smaller planes such as Southwest or Jetblue have no such capability would just need to circle or land overweight. There seems no reason for the pilot to not say yes when asked the first time over the ocean, less he was pressured by some irrational instructions just to help Delta save some bucks on jet fuel costs as an overweight landing in LAX would likely not damage the aircraft or cause a long down time.
If its truely an emergency(ie the plane is engulfed in an uncontrollable fire, complete failure on all engines) wouldn't the pilot and ATC just have the plane turned around and come straight back from where it came with ATC terminating all arrivals and departures in the airport and summoning all the emergency services to the runway? Rather than have them circle to reenter the normal traffic pattern, Overweight and damage should take a back seat in this case as the plane is likely to be written off afterwards or out of service for a long time anyways. Actually jet fuel or aviation kerosene is more volatile and dangerous when there is less of it is in the tank than more as less kerosene would mean more room for explosive vapors to form in the voids of the tank that would explode if the tank is ruptured and sparks fly all over. Thus most jet fuel induced fires happen after landing despite being low on fuel.
Last edited by citizensadvocate; 01-16-2020 at 08:08 PM..
I am guessing if its done intentionally the pilots were likely following whatever procedures outlined by Delta's higher-ups, technicians or papers the pilots desperately consulated to seek advice to deal with their unfamiliar and tense ordeal which probably pressured the pilots to do something a certain way or else threatened with discipline up to termination if done otherwise. Whether it was not to dump fuel at first when they encountered compressor issues at 8000 ft over the ocean and had to turn back, and suddenly change to must dump the fuel without allowing ATC/FAA know at the very end, as damage might exceed the fuel costs. The pilots didn't want to risk their jobs and trusted whatever their higher ups said. The reality of working in the corporate world, I guess many people would have similar experiences in their offices too. It appears Delta policy does require fuel to be dumped in this case(which obviously should had been done immediately over the ocean when that engine failed, obviously the plane was very heavily fueled for the journey well past recommended landing weight, no doubts required), though the airline tried to skirt this policy initially as they believe its under control and that LAX has long runways that landing overweight won't be an issue yet changed its mind at the last moment and tried to get away with it. So in the end Delta Airlines is surely the ones responsible for everything that happened, even if the fuel dump valve accidentally opened. Not so surprising given how bad the airline industry is these days as they would even rather drag their paying passengers for their own mistakes the gate agent was likely only following their high ups when that happened, though those higher ups now ever regret making that decision.
That is why I would find the Cockpit voice recordings interesting. You could hear (at least one side) of any discussions with the Company on their channel and any interaction between the crew.
I'm pretty sure the report won't say "the pilot was too lazy to spend 30 minutes dumping the fuel over the ocean".
It will say that the pilots were in too big a hurry to get on the ground, and they should have first taken time to dump fuel over the ocean. Just as the ATC had expected them to do, and how 99.99% of other pilots would have handled the situation. Again multiple aviation experts have come out an publicly condemned the crew's actions.
Like I said before, they had two correct options and one wrong one. They chose the wrong one.
Quote:
"The question investigators are going to ask is that if you're going to dump fuel, why didn't you advise air traffic control, and why didn't you go where fuel dumping is approved, which would not be over a highly populated area?" Cox said. "If you had an on-board fire or something like that, it makes absolute sense to do that. But this was not that case."
The crew of Delta Flight 89 did not inform air traffic control that it was going to dump fuel, according to a review of communications, the Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday. Typically, air traffic controllers direct planes to appropriate fuel-dumping areas, the agency said in a statement.
"I'm just puzzled why these folks decided to do it this way," said Aero Consulting Experts Chief Executive Ross Aimer, a retired United Airlines pilot.
Quote:
Aimer said another option could have been to land the plane "heavy," which is safe in certain situations.
"It's not a big deal to land with heavy weight, and in this case it would have been fine, because they had good weather along with a long and dry runway," he said. "Most of us would have just landed heavy, because the airplane could sustain with one engine."
When planes land heavy, they must undergo extra inspections to assess any damage, he said, adding that the procedure would not endanger passengers.
"It seems right now that they made a mistake," he said. "I don't know why they were in such a hurry, because it appears this was not a type of emergency where you needed to get down immediately."
When I flew the OV-10 we could run it on diesel, no problem. There was an adjustable setting on the side of the engine inside the wheel well that could be changed with an Allen wrench (hex key). And where I am now, we have a few older military vehicles (a couple Hummers and an M39 deuce-and-a-half) that run just fine on JP-8 jet fuel. An F-22 even flew as a test on biodiesel. The two fuels, while not directly interchangeable, are similar enough.
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.
