News broke yesterday afternoon that a Delta 777 dumped fuel over several schools and homes in Los Angeles. What prompted this and was it justified?
Delta Engine Trouble Prompted Emergency Landing
Delta 89 from Los Angeles (LAX) to Shanghai (PVG) departed on-time from LAX on Tuesday. Shortly after takeoff, however, the 777-200 quickly made a U-turn and returned to the airport. The flight never climbed above 8,000 feet and was in the air for only about 25 minutes.
Delta blamed the issue on engine trouble:
“Shortly after takeoff, Delta flight 89 from LAX to Shanghai experienced an engine issue requiring the aircraft to return quickly to LAX.”
But rather than dumping fuel over the ocean at a higher altitude, as is standard protocol, the aircraft dumped fuel over densely populated South Central Los Angeles, showering homes, streets, and school children with pungent jet fuel.
70 paramedics and firefighters responded to the scene, treating nine adults and 17 children with minor injuries. The incident also prompted panic among many, who stepped outside to experience an acid rain-like phenomenon.
But Was Low-Altitude Fuel Dump Necessary?
Delta defended its fuel release:
“The aircraft landed safely after a release of fuel, which was required as part of normal procedure to reach a safe landing weight. We are in touch with Los Angeles World Airports and the LA County Fire Department and share concerns regarding reported minor injuries to adults and children at a school in the area.”
Now let’s be clear. No one thinks Delta “targeted” schools or any populated community with its jet fuel dump. I’m also willing to give the captain the benefit of the doubt until more details emerge.
But the incident certainly raises questions.
In a statement about the incident, the Federal Aviation Administration also questioned the specific circumstances surrounding the dump:
“There are special fuel-dumping procedures for aircraft operating into and out of any major U.S. airport. These procedures call for fuel to be dumped over designated unpopulated areas, typically at higher altitudes so the fuel atomizes and disperses before it reaches the ground.”
I’ve asked Delta for clarification on this matter and thus far, it is sticking to its statement above. Perhaps it is too early to weigh in, but Delta owes all of us–and especially Los Angeles residents like myself–an explanation as to what sort of dire emergency prompted what circumstantially appears to be a rushed landing.
Standard protocol if an engine goes out is to dump fuel over the ocean or other sparsely populated area at a higher altitude, calmly go through the emergency landing checklist, then land. Did the flight crew get a little panicked on this flight?
CONCLUSION
It is heartening news that no one was seriously injured by the fuel dump yesterday over Los Angeles. Now it is time to ask why that fuel dump was necessary.
Looks like a good SNL skit, coming soon. As an airline pilot myself (not a DL pilot) I was always under the perception that Delta pilots were absolutely the elite and perfect.
When the report comes out, unless there was some other emergency prompting the need to land immediately, there is no ryme, reason or excuse to ever dump fuel at low altitude over populated areas, especially with open water a few miles away.
It is an emergency and the QRH will always say land at the nearest practical airport, the pilots will use that to get out of any trouble.
The crew panicked, and used very bad judgment, as no evidence has been forthcoming that the aircraft was in imminent danger of crashing. The crew could have flown over the ocean, which was very close, and dumped the fuel. Instead, they took the easy way out, and dumped the fuel very close to the airport, over a populated area. Of course, Delta will back its pilots, as Delta looks at its bottom line, in the event of lawsuits, pertaining to the fuel dump.
If Capt. Chesley Sullenberger had been the pilot in command, he never would have authorized dumping fuel, at such a low altitutde over a heavily populated area. When all of the dust has cleared, and the NTSB issues its final report, I’m sure that the NTSB, as well as the FAA, will heavily criticize the decision of the pilot to authorize the dumping of the fuel at the location and altitude that it occurred at.
Without facts, this is a very uninformed opinion. There are a variety of potential, albeit rare, circumstances where a fuel dump like this is necessary and required. Among these are situations where aircraft control is compromised, which might preclude continued safe vectoring out to sea or to higher flight levels.
I think you have the wrong flight map up top…
They’ve got a YouTube video of the flight, with the audio between the tower and Delta, and twice at the very beginning of the emergency the pilot is asked if he needs to dump fuel, and he says no. Why he waited until he was only 2500 feet above the ground, 5 minutes before landing should be investigated.
I think you got the wrong photo there. I think you posted the El al diversion to Halifax from about a week ago.
If it was such a big emergency, why didn’t it dump fuel over the richer parts of LA that the plane flew over? Only the poorer sections of LA required fuel dumping?
Yes, if there is a declared emergency and such action is deemed necessary for the safety of passengers and crew.
Enlighten me on one point, of anyone knows. In an emergency is a plane allowed to dump fuel wherever it pleases? Consequences be damned
Absolutely. It falls under the legal concept of necessity, an affirmative defense. Any action is allowed if the circumstances necessitates such an action even against man made laws and regulation.
If It was an emergency which you had to land ASAP you don’t dump fuel. You just land overweight
If you have time to dump gas then why not go somewhere else?
The 777 line all airliners flies happy on 1 engine. Unless you had a n uncontrollable fire in which case absolutely forbidden to dump fuel.
It’s actually specifically stated in the FARs that during an emergency pilots “may take any action that they consider necessary under the circumstances.” Now, generally, the rule of “but don’t be a dick about it” would apply and since the other working engine can fly a 747 on its own and they were already over the ocean when the emergency arose, one would assume they would run the checklists, declare an emergency, dump fuel over the ocean and return, all without compromising safety, but maybe this is just another ‘innovation’ that DearLeader has chosen to bestow upon the world in their infinite and unquestionable wisdom. Who’s to say.
The plane looks fine even if on one engine
Why not wait to dump…
Or not dump at all….
If you can abort at V1 3/4 of the way down the runway (kinetic energy factor)
You can land at pretty close to the same speed at the beginning of the runway TDZ (TouchDown Zone) approx 1000′ into the runway …
If the bloody plane can complete the journey on just one engine as we are told why the hell was this such an emergency? Did both the engines have trouble?
When you’re single engine, you land as soon as practicable at the nearest suitable runway. You don’t know if the other engine is going to suffer from the same fate as the one that just went down. That being said, you can always land overweight, so something got missed by the crew on the way down…
“No one thinks Delta “targeted” schools or any populated community with its jet fuel dump.”
I don’t think anyone in their right mind ever thought that Delta targeted schools. That’s just poor writing and reporting on your end
Check the enlightened commentary at OMAAT.
Like what? The incessant and unfair charges of clickbait?
I always say , do not fly anyone else’s airplane. Unitl we have facts, who knows? Like I have said DL pilots are pure perfection, did not know they made mistakes.
There are a great many more questions.
1. They told ATC they were not dumping fuel. After they did with no notification.
2. They told ATC the emergency was NOT critical..yet later requested emergency equipment.
3. There was no need at all to dump fuel. Runway 25R was more than twice the length needed at their weight.
Pretty poor CRM it seems for what should have been a calm and easy return to the field for a (fairly) routine compressor stall in which the engine was not even fully shut down.
Having been through a LAX turnaround on a UA 777 due to a wing flap issue, we ended up flying in a circular pattern in the ocean, and it took an hour before we returned back to LAX. There were emergency vehicles following us during landing, and the captain used basically most of the runway for landing.
As far as the fuel dumping requirement goes, if you can eliminate a risk of fuel overage for landing (not just strictly weight), you would do so. Same reason why that JetBlue A320 flew in circle around LA before they landed when the landing gear was stuck.
@ptahca
I am basing this on a comment in AvHerald by a 777 Captain. Copied below:
“As I happen to be a B777 captain, I did the math. Taking into consideration the payload (181 sob) and about 105 tons of fuel required for this flight, the takeoff weight should be around 270 tons. They did not shut down the engine. Nevertheless, good practice is to land as if it is a single engine landing. You can land using flaps 30 or 20. Mainly for go around climb gradient. No problem here, when your go around is over the sea, in 16 deg. For landing distance- 270 tons with flaps 20, with max braking gives about 5,500 feet. 25R is 11,500 feet long and you can use normal braking. they started dumping late. Dump rate in 777 is 2.5 tons per minute (with center tank). Dumping 10 tons gives you about 2 knots less on approach speed and less than 200 feet landing distance. Not worth it. Contrary to the FCTM an harmful. Draw your own conclusions.”
Trump is at fault. If Warren were President, Delta wouldn’t this because she’d hit them with a $200M fine and guarantee against disciplinary action against the pilots.
Bloomberg and Booker are the only candidates not opposed to charter schools so if either were President, those kids would be indoors learning and studying.
A fair and balanced view point I would say. Well done.
There are certainly a lot of questions around this that deserve answers. I for one am struggling to align what has been reported regarding this flight with the crews actions in a way that makes sense. There is much we still don’t know though and I suspect and hope the FAA and Delta will be taking a hard look at this incident.
I’ll withhold final judgement until all the facts are available, but looking at the flight track the one question I would like answered is ‘would the plane have been able to overfly LAX to the ocean, dump fuel, then come back again’
They circled east then came straight in westbound to land, so it seems like something necessitated them to land immediately than to make another orbit around.
What I do not understand is this: VASAviation has posted the ATC audio in sync with the radar imagery. The crew of this flight is asked specifically by the controller if they need to dump fuel. The crew does not respond in the affirmative. There is no further mention of a fuel dump in the audio posted. One assumes that if the crew had notified of the need to dump, they would have been vectored over the ocean… Am I missing something here? Why is nobody talking about this??
Here’s the vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIA90evz8gs
The crew’s responsibility is to land the plane safely, and can do whatever is necessary to do so. Lack of communication of the dump doesn’t mean they lied to the controllers or forgot to tell them. First mantra in flight school: aviate, navigate, communicate. Communication with ATC comes last after flying the plan and navigating.
Perhaps a missile fired in error?
You can’t “complete the journey” on just one engine. ETOPS rules are typically to be within 90 minutes of an airport with one engine out. The aircraft must fly at a lower altitude with one engine and the fuel burn will be higher.
@Ulysses how do you know the crew “panicked” wehre you on the flight deck?
Gotta wonder if it would have been dangerous to have lit a match with the fuel raining down…
Was thinking about that, or if you were just about to start a barbecue.. . Pretty lucky, and sorry, this needs to be investigated. Sounds like a panic and not according to protocol.
The type of fuel jet planes use is pretty difficult to light up. You could throw a match into a pool of fuel and it wouldn’t burn. At least that’s what we’re fueling our Airbuses with. God knows what Boeing planes use. HA!
Delta is the worst. Clearly, they were worried if they didn’t dump the fuel, they might do minor damage to their precious plane. So, they dumped jet fuel over children, a school, and lower-income homes. Truly grotesque. I hope the parents of the children showered by Delta’s jet fuel sue Delta to heck and back. I see a combination of greed and incompetence — just what you’d expect from an airline based in corporations-first Atlanta.
To: Mike- I did not mean “panic” in the literal sense; I meant that in my opinion (having studied airline accidents for over 50 years), that the Delta crew used very bad judgment. We’ve seen this phenomenon occur in the past, when cockpit crews have to make emergency decisions. Sometimes, they get it right, and other times they don’t. As I stated earlier, based upon all of the information to date, it does not appear that the Delta aircraft was in imminent danger of crashing. Therefore, where was the rush to dump the fuel, at the time that it was done? Also, I had to laugh the way that the news media characterized the injuries as “minor”. How would anyone like having jet fuel dumped in your face, in your eyes, on your skin, as well as having to breathe in those noxious fumes. We really don’t know what the long term effects of such exposure will be.
Many thanks for the title that is not a lowlife clickbait like other blogs on boardingarea.
You. Deserve. A. Respect.
Respect.
My favorite part of this post (other than chuckling at the combination of ridiculous comments here sprinkled with informed commentary from my fellow aviators) is listening to the dudes in the video recording speaking Spanish.
The very 1st thing you hear is a man saying “They’re dumping gasoline. ”
As plane goes directly overhead, a scene no doubt they see MANY times so they know what a jet on approach is supposed to look like…a second man says “Well it’s either that or it’s spewing smoke or leaking water. Either way, something is not right.”
They NAILED it!