When I first saw this article I thought people were over exaggerating:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jet-fuel-dump-california-schools-delta-air-lines-flight-89-emergency-landing-lax-today-2020-01-14-live-updates/

I decided to check on Flight Radar and the aircraft was at 2375 feet when it flew over the school, I thought they had to be above 5000 feet for this sort of aircraft when dumping?
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl89#23856f50 (Scroll it to 7:53 for the point over the school)

It was a compressor stall so they couldn't wait and it was probably still over weight when it landed judging by how quickly it returned, People on the ground said they could smell it

Anyone know where to find the ATC for this one?

Edited January 15, 20206 yr by Matthew Kane

Yeah, taking off with a full bag headed for Shanghai, I would guess he had north of 200,000 lbs of fuel on board.  When you lose half your thrust (more than half if it's windmilling) that heavy, you don't wait around to see if you can maybe sorta kinda finesse some acceleration and climb out before dumping fuel.  Planned fuel dumps to get down to max landing weight take place in a holding pattern out over the water, but this was an emergency dump to keep from putting the pointy-end of that 777 right into someone's neighborhood.  I think the 777 can only push around 5-6,000 lbs/min out the dump masts, so if in doubt, you need to hit the switches early to have any effect because it takes critical time to materially affect the GW.

I'm sure the phone banks at Jacoby and Meyers Scoundrels and Ambulance Chasers, LLC in LA were jammed tonight...Delta will probably have 500,000 Californians joining a crass action (sic) claiming grievous harm from having to smell kerosene for a few minutes.

 

 

 

I think he may have shed around 150,000 pounds from the report, you are correct the ambulance chasers will me lining up to sue Delta for this one

Edited January 15, 20206 yr by Matthew Kane

Doing some back-of-the-envelope math, figure he was dumping for 2 min at ~200 knots ground speed, that's 10,000 lbs...1540 gal over a little more than 41,000 feet, or about 2.4 ounces of fuel per linear foot, released almost a half mile over your head.

So maybe you might get a whiff of it...

But...this might be the first real sighting of an actual chemtrails event!  Just sayin'  😀

Maybe they need to fly even less Boeings.

https://www.news-daily.com/news/delta-s-key-to-success-it-doesn-t-fly-boeing/article_3d323300-e487-5abd-9a82-39f0e14c7cf4.html

3 minutes ago, Adrian123 said:

Maybe they need to fly even less Boeings.

Yes who knew when they committed to the C-Series (now A220) how well that one would work out for them. I don't acknowledge Karma but if it does exist this was the best example of it 🤣

Does the fuel vaporise before reaching the ground?

No way it would vaporize much at that altitude.  Im sure lawyers are lining up to sue.   But the alternative would be lining up to sue that they didnt dump fuel if they had landed way overweight with a very serious consequence.  Pick your poison but clearly if it really was an emergency, there is no time to climb and circle to dump fuel.  

Here is the ATC, it doesn't say at what point they started to dump the fuel but it doesn't seem to be right away, they did switch to another frequency so likely it was coordinated from there

19:39:30 Fuel was 212.0 altitude 7,775 feet
19:41:12 engine terminated altitude 6,750 feet
19:43:00 Fuel was 209.8 altitude 6,300 feet 
19:53:00 over the school at 2375 feet (at this point on another frequency)

 

Edited January 15, 20206 yr by Matthew Kane

Unusual situation to say the least...

Someone recorded a short video of the fuel dump.

Edited January 15, 20206 yr by Anders Bermann

Probably a good thing none of the kids were lighting up  cigarettes on the playground!

Probably far less of a financial impact to compensate the numbers suffering from fuel exposure than the 100's that may have perished in a catastrophic failure?....I'm no Lawyer though. 🙂

11 hours ago, Adrian123 said:

Maybe they need to fly even less Boeings.

https://www.news-daily.com/news/delta-s-key-to-success-it-doesn-t-fly-boeing/article_3d323300-e487-5abd-9a82-39f0e14c7cf4.html

Eh sorry but that article is just another sensationalizing media dig at Boeing. I'm not defending Boeing over what happened but the headline is misleading clickbait and the fact that Delta have an advantage because they're not affected by the MAX grounding is just plain obvious.

 

37 minutes ago, Adrian123 said:

Probably far less of a financial impact to compensate the numbers suffering from fuel exposure than the 100's that may have perished in a catastrophic failure?....

The most demanding scenario for the aircraft, its brakes and tires, is a rejected takeoff at MTOW.  Every landing is much less demanding on these parts and every aircraft can land at the same wheight it departed.

Furthermore fuel dumping is not required to get below MLW (e.g. the 767 and the 777 can only dump fuel from the center tank), but to be able to achieve the missed approach gradient in case of a go around. 

The fuel dumping philosophy has changed over the years and it's not 'standard' anymore these days for a re-landing.

Performance wise dumping is not necessary during the climb out since the engine out climb is a certification requirement.

 

Edited January 15, 20206 yr by FDEdev

So..Pilot error?