|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 15, 2020 1:34:08 GMT -5
LAX is right next to the ocean. The higher up they dump the fuel, the more it breaks up into an atomized mist rather than falling as drops. It's much less of a problem that way. I checked FlightAware and the typical profile of this flight is to break slightly into the Pacific Ocean and then hang a sharp right and fly over California. This one broke right again over San Fernando Valley and headed back for LAX. Is it possible the pilots may not be aware of the fuel dump procedure at LAX...or would that be SOP for pilots to review pre-flight?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 15, 2020 1:36:28 GMT -5
LAX is right next to the ocean. The higher up they dump the fuel, the more it breaks up into an atomized mist rather than falling as drops. It's much less of a problem that way. I checked FlightAware and the typical profile of this flight is to break slightly into the Pacific Ocean and then hang a sharp right and fly over California. This one broke right again over San Fernando Valley and headed back for LAX. Well, we know they were not going to fly a typical flight pattern anyway. The point is that they could have just flown out over the ocean and dumped the fuel there. The fact that they didn't seems to indicate they wanted very badly to immediately land ASAP. I saw one report that said they had a compressor stall in one engine. This is an event that may have led them to believe that it was extremely urgent to land immediately.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 15, 2020 2:14:20 GMT -5
ATC communication during the flight, although it does not reveal why there was a low altitude fuel dump:
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 15, 2020 2:48:12 GMT -5
ATC communication during the flight, although it does not reveal why there was a low altitude fuel dump: So the ATC asked if they needed to burn or dump fuel and they said no. Then as they were being directed into the approach they asked ATC to give them 3 minutes of delay for some reason. And as they then came in on final they were dumping fuel. I suspect this is going to go badly for that flight crew unless they can justify why they declined to dump fuel at first but then did it later right over a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on Jan 16, 2020 8:25:10 GMT -5
I checked FlightAware and the typical profile of this flight is to break slightly into the Pacific Ocean and then hang a sharp right and fly over California. This one broke right again over San Fernando Valley and headed back for LAX. Is it possible the pilots may not be aware of the fuel dump procedure at LAX...or would that be SOP for pilots to review pre-flight? I’d imagine the LAX to PVG flight is awarded to more senior crew members, so it would be a surprise if the capt & co-pilot is not aware of the SOP to dump fuel prior to landing at LAX.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 17, 2020 22:09:36 GMT -5
Is it possible the pilots may not be aware of the fuel dump procedure at LAX...or would that be SOP for pilots to review pre-flight? I’d imagine the LAX to PVG flight is awarded to more senior crew members, so it would be a surprise if the capt & co-pilot is not aware of the SOP to dump fuel prior to landing at LAX. Lawsuits already...hmmm...can't say much about the validity of the claim at this point, but the speed of the legal action...only in America. I just hope that there is a real case to answer here (which could be the case, but like I said, I don't know at this point) and not just some ambulence chasing lawyers smelling an opportunity: abc7.com/5859411/
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 17, 2020 22:11:59 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to drink it, but kerosene isn't especially toxic. Certainly not in small quantities.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jan 25, 2020 19:47:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 25, 2020 20:23:08 GMT -5
About time. I guess Boeing needs some good news, however minor, these days.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jan 25, 2020 20:28:28 GMT -5
About time. I guess Boeing needs some good news, however minor, these days. I want to see a test flight with the wing folded.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 27, 2020 15:07:51 GMT -5
I want to see a test flight with the wing folded. I'm not certain, but I don't think the plane is allowed to fly in that configuration.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jan 27, 2020 20:39:25 GMT -5
I want to see a test flight with the wing folded. I'm not certain, but I don't think the plane is allowed to fly in that configuration. Sure. However, my understanding is that it should be able to operate folded over, even though it isn't ideal. I'm guessing it's probably locked out somehow from flying in that configuration. I'm kind of fascinated by all this stuff that was never supposed to be done, like flying an F-14 with an asymmetric wing sweep.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 28, 2020 21:20:59 GMT -5
I'm not certain, but I don't think the plane is allowed to fly in that configuration. Sure. However, my understanding is that it should be able to operate folded over, even though it isn't ideal. I'm guessing it's probably locked out somehow from flying in that configuration. I'm kind of fascinated by all this stuff that was never supposed to be done, like flying an F-14 with an asymmetric wing sweep. There was a case where an Israeli Air Force F-15 had one half of it's wing missing yet was still somehow flyable. The pilot manage to bring the aircraft to land instead of ejecting:
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jan 28, 2020 22:25:59 GMT -5
Sure. However, my understanding is that it should be able to operate folded over, even though it isn't ideal. I'm guessing it's probably locked out somehow from flying in that configuration. I'm kind of fascinated by all this stuff that was never supposed to be done, like flying an F-14 with an asymmetric wing sweep. There was a case where an Israeli Air Force F-15 had one half of it's wing missing yet was still somehow flyable. The pilot manage to bring the aircraft to land instead of ejecting: Ever seen photos of battle damage to an A-10? With the F-14 I understand they had to make some adjustments, but the bigger deal was that it's a lifting body. This one lost half of its right wing in a mid-air collision with another Tomcat. The other Tomcat was lost and the crew safely ejected, but this one landed in Singapore. I guess it could fly but they weren't too sure of a carrier landing. This one is missing a stabilizer (not a wing):
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 28, 2020 22:30:51 GMT -5
There was a case where an Israeli Air Force F-15 had one half of it's wing missing yet was still somehow flyable. The pilot manage to bring the aircraft to land instead of ejecting: Ever seen photos of battle damage to an A-10? The A-10 is designed to take a lot of punishment, being a CAS aircraft which may require it to fly low and slow over enemy territory, so that's an exceptional aircraft.
|
|