An immediate return above MLW is routinely covered in the take off briefing, an uncontrolled fire for example would require this , you won’t waste time dumping.

landing below MLW is desirable not essential, the aircraft won’t have a problem , other than possibly melting the tyre plugs,but will have to undergo a maintenance check. Freighters for example routinely land just on their MLW.

The main reason for fuel dumping is to reduce the landing distance required, on the 747 for example 3000kg of fuel dumped equals 1kt off the approach speed. Having operated heavy loaded 74s out of LAX  the runways there are fine for a return above MLW

Generally it’s best to either secure the aircraft, dump and prepare in slow time then fly an orderly approach or if all hell has broken lose just get it on the ground doing what checks you can in the time available if you have capacity, but prioritise the landing.

I only mention the above points for the benefit of simmers considering how to plan for such events, I’m not commenting on or judging the actions of the actual incident recently seen in LA

Jon

19 hours ago, Mace said:

You mean from soiled undergarments?  Possibly.

Not only that, but from kerosene- doused clothing from the people out in the open beneath the jet's approach path. Sorry doused is too strong a word, but you know what media hype is like.. More like sprayed, or probably "lightly spritzed"

Re the video, a couple of dubious statements of fact in there, the fuel figures given during the incident for example were in thousands of pounds, not tons as stated here on the video,

I’m not convinced about the wisdom of pilots producing these sorts of videos to be honest with people setting themselves up as authorities, It may indeed be beneficial to disseminate information out to the wider public and enthusiasts from behind the closed doors of aviation but you are in very real danger of making yourself look a right tit in front of your colleagues,..just saying.

 I’m pleased at least no judgement was passed by this guy. 

I believe that depends on what part of the world one is from Jon. Weight is weight whether reported as metric tons, pounds, or kilograms.

At least jet fuel is gluten free and vegan, so it made the day a little bit more healthy for everyone.

5 hours ago, jon b said:

Re the video, a couple of dubious statements of fact in there...

There was a surprising amount of incorrect statements in this video, but I guess that's one of the drawbacks when you trying to create as many views for your videos  as possible...

18 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

There was a surprising amount of incorrect statements in this video, but I guess that's one of the drawbacks when you trying to create as many views for your videos  as possible...

And there's the rub, and why I learned after a few years here to take "arguments from authority" with a big grain of sand, as I have noticed over time that those posts that essentially say "I'm an experienced pilot, take my word for this" are almost inevitably contradicted by (yet) another pilot also "speaking from authority" until the subject becomes pretty hopelessly muddled with groups of people taking one side or another.....

13 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

And there's the rub, and why I learned after a few years here to take "arguments from authority" with a big grain of sand...

That's a very good idea. I still remember an interview with Chuck Yeager where he said:  Never believe what a single pilot tells you, not even if it's me.

Concerning the "I'm an experienced pilot, take my word for this" part. Pilots who are type rated on at least similar aircraft usually can provide much more accurate info than pilots who don't have any experience with the type of aircraft concerned.

34 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

So the only way to learn is trial and error? 

I think Chuck was being a little dramatic on this one and painting a rather wide stroke. 

Of course not. 

I obviously understood Chucks sentence in a different way. IMO he means that the opinion of just one pilot is too little and you should talk/listen to other pilots as well.  

 

8 hours ago, n4gix said:

I believe that depends on what part of the world one is from Jon. Weight is weight whether reported as metric tons, pounds, or kilograms.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1403701653  That’s what the crew of Air Canada 143 thought 😄😄

 

Sorry, I probably sounded a bit negative in my previous comment,I guess fellow pilots aren’t really the intended audience for these videos.

Personally I  always enjoyed the videos from Q8pilot about x-plane stuff.

 

15 hours ago, FDEdev said:

......Pilots who are type rated on at least similar aircraft usually can provide much more accurate info than pilots who don't have any experience with the type of aircraft concerned....

This guy is one of the go-to youtubers (777 pilot although not current at the moment) and I believe Mentour Pilot gave him a shout-out for good reason:

 

Yes, that guy was good, and I also went on to watch part 2 of his video. I think the difference in this video is the guy has been around the block a few times and has been there and done it and that comes across in his video.

Here’s a little priceless nugget of information for you if you have been inspired to look at fuel dumping  in one of your PMDG or equivalent heavy Boeing  jets in the sim.

In the second video there was mention of the 777 having a MLW selector on the fuel Jettison panel. Instead of doing the maths in an emergency of how much fuel you need to remain to land at MLW and setting that manually,just select the MLW position and the system takes your ZFW from the FMC and automatically works out the fuel required to remain. The fuel to remain figure on the EICAS will start flashing to tell you to to turn off the jettison override pumps and complete the jettison procedure.

So having done all that you can now immediately commence your approach and landing knowing you are safely below MLW as you selected the MLW position on the selector right? ......no, here’s the gotcha the MLW position will actually give you MLW plus 3 tons ! So there’s a good chance you’ll actually land overweight if you go straight in.

It’s in the manuals but it’s often been overlooked and caught people out in real world scenarios in the past.It’s not a major issue but it’s the difference between an overweight landing check or not.

 

The MLW selector is a selectable factory option so might not appear in every aircraft, plus my comments are referring to the 747-400 system, but I suspect the 777, 787 etc  will have  the same or similar 3000kg buffer but I don’t know for certain  ?

 

I was listening to the RT of the incident the other day.  What amazes me is the amount of time he had to tell atc over again how much fuel he had on and how many punters on board. 

3 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

...the amount of time he had to tell atc over again...

Indeed. Even Juan Brown commented on it as if the controllers don't talk to each other. Maybe that would depend on workload, but I would have thought obtaining a detailed hand-over about an incident and possible emergency was crucial?

30 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Indeed. Even Juan Brown commented on it as if the controllers don't talk to each other. Maybe that would depend on workload, but I would have thought obtaining a detailed hand-over about an incident and possible emergency was crucial?

I've said before on here the amount of ASRS we get about ATC issues in the USA is high. But its normally only Jfk and Mia we get them not Lax.