Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




solinator
05-09-2010, 04:22 PM
Continental jet makes emergency landing in N.J. - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-05-09-emergency-landing_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher)

How much fuel would a loaded 777 need to dump before it is able to make the emergency landing?


johnso29
05-09-2010, 04:41 PM
Well over 100,000 lbs I'm sure.

FPG120
05-09-2010, 06:11 PM
I heard they spilled about 170,000 lbs.


wmuflyboy
05-09-2010, 08:02 PM
all over my damn house

KC10 FATboy
05-09-2010, 09:31 PM
all over my damn house

Stop with the drama. They didn't dump fuel on your house ... and not even close to it. In this type of situation, I'm sure they were at altitude and in an approved fuel dumping holding pattern. Even if they weren't, the chances of a molecule of fuel landing on your house, is extremely remote.

solinator
05-09-2010, 09:40 PM
From a technical view point though, the 777 is too heavy to land with full tanks and payload. So I am wondering what would be the amount of weight they have to lose before they actually perform the landing. Must have been worrisome for the pax. I am glad everyone is alright.

HSLD
05-09-2010, 11:26 PM
From a technical view point though, the 777 is too heavy to land with full tanks and payload. So I am wondering what would be the amount of weight they have to lose before they actually perform the landing.

They would attempt to dump to at least maximum landing weight unless the emergency requires immediate landing. If an overweight landing is required, there are a number of technical issues that must be addressed, but it is possible.

80ktsClamp
05-10-2010, 05:49 AM
To expand on what HSLD said, the aircraft is capable of safely landing up to MTOW.

You prefer to dump to max landing unless there is a very urgent need to get on the ground ASAP (fire...).

HoursHore
05-10-2010, 06:14 AM
Stop with the drama. They didn't dump fuel on your house ... and not even close to it. In this type of situation, I'm sure they were at altitude and in an approved fuel dumping holding pattern. Even if they weren't, the chances of a molecule of fuel landing on your house, is extremely remote.


Pretty sure that was a joke.

Shaggy1970
05-10-2010, 06:24 AM
I am just pointing out a major point here and not trying to pick on anyone! We dump gas, to keep an airplane flying, not to get down to landing weight! During the certification process, every airplane has to demonstrate its ability to land and stop at max takeoff weight!

SoCalGuy
05-10-2010, 07:45 AM
I am just pointing out a major point here and not trying to pick on anyone! We dump gas, to keep an airplane flying, not to get down to landing weight! During the certification process, every airplane has to demonstrate its ability to land and stop at max takeoff weight!

+1 on that.

Just ask the CAL Crew on the DC-10 out of EWR that 'popped' an engine after T/O (then had trouble with a second engine). They 'showered' most of Newark with fuel as they limped around the pattern to get the plane back on the deck.

Just a 'wild guess' (and hearing from those who knew about it first hand), the last thing they were worried about was max landing weight/dump area.....something about shedding some lbs & putting a few feet of 'height' between the belly and the tree tops as they got it back to the airport to call the event "un-event-ful'.

I'm sure in most cases, crew's will do what they need to do with the time & factors delt to them when the crisis arises.

sailingfun
05-10-2010, 08:17 AM
From a technical view point though, the 777 is too heavy to land with full tanks and payload. So I am wondering what would be the amount of weight they have to lose before they actually perform the landing. Must have been worrisome for the pax. I am glad everyone is alright.


All Boeing twin jets are certified to safely land up to maximum structural takeoff weight. Most would dump down to a reasonable number but a safe landing can be accomplished at maximum takeoff weight. You will lose destroy the trucks and brakes from heat but the aircraft will land and stop just fine.

Airhoss
05-10-2010, 08:40 AM
The dump rate on 777-200B is 2500lbs per minute. The max landing weight is 460,000 Lbs MGTOW (structual) is 640,000 Lbs. So you can do the math. Minimum recommended dump alt is 5,000 AGL at 190kias or faster. That is so the bad old dirty fuel doesn't wand on your widdle house. ;)

The airplane is certified to land up to MGTOW but only autoland up to MGLW. An over weight landing requires an inspection before the aircraft can back into service.

I've landed the sim up to MGLW, besides being a considerably faster approach speed there are no adverse characteristics whatsoever.

Rocketiii
05-10-2010, 09:29 AM
Hoss, Its twice that. I think you mixed up kilos and pounds. And CAL 777s are modded to 470k MLW. Landing the 777 at Max Gross is like landing a 737-900 at any weight! :) It usually works out to around a 30 minute dump ballpark which is a good amount of time to prepare and let the FAs do their thing anyway. One note about the fuel dump, it is usually recommended to dump down to MLW unless you HAVE to get onto the ground. Then by all means dump all the way in and land with what you have. But to just dump to X amount because you didnt feel like wasting gas wont get you too many pats on the back at the FAA meeting at the big shiny table. Dumping gas is the cost of doing business with a large airline. If something goes wrong, especially if you have a malfunction that will increase your landing speed or decrease the effectivness of other components, you dont want to be explaining why you didnt dump fuel down to at least MLW. And there is a youtube video of it dumping, btw. And yes, some may land on your house!

Captain Bligh
05-10-2010, 10:01 AM
Wow. Lots of mis-info on this thread.

I'd done this a few years ago. The chief pilot met us at the gate when we got back and wanted verification of our altitude and geography while we'd dumped. He was preparing to fight a PR battle because several municipal fire departments at the urging of citizens had been in touch with, first the airport and ultimately the airline. They had the smell and mist of jet fuel raining around their towns.

As for the dump reasons, add an overweight landing inspection to the cost and risk of the whole mess if you decide to land over weight. If time and safety permit and the fuel can be jettisoned, it's just better all the way around. Slower approach speed, less brake energy to stop less mass, no inspection and more climb or go around performance which doubtfully would have been needed even engine out at MGTOW with the GE-90s.

TOGA LK
05-10-2010, 10:17 AM
From a technical view point though, the 777 is too heavy to land with full tanks and payload. So I am wondering what would be the amount of weight they have to lose before they actually perform the landing. Must have been worrisome for the pax. I am glad everyone is alright.

I thought all transport category aircraft were certified to land up to MTOW at touchdown rates not to exceed 6'/sec, 10'/sec at MLW. Depending on the emergency, I bet you could just put it on the deck.

solinator
05-10-2010, 12:49 PM
I thought all transport category aircraft were certified to land up to MTOW at touchdown rates not to exceed 6'/sec, 10'/sec at MLW. Depending on the emergency, I bet you could just put it on the deck.

I guess a more correct way of saying it is: The 777 can land at MGTOW (with some possible damage to the trucks/brakes, additional costs and risks).

Rocketiii
05-10-2010, 01:41 PM
Or, with a normal landing, it can land at Max Gross Takeoff Weight safely. The point is that the FAA will not be happy if you landed at above MLW and something went wrong and there was no urgent need to land before dumping completely. So jettison. Its a no brainer. Hell the electronic checklist on the B777 even prompts you to record position and time for the reports afterwards and you dont even need to remember to do it. Also, the overweight landing inspections are a non event if it wasnt a dramatic event. I have landed overweight in an emergency and it is just a quick visual inspection. I may be improperly inferring that some here would not dump down to MLW even if they had time.

Airhoss
05-10-2010, 04:48 PM
Hoss, Its twice that. I think you mixed up kilos and pounds. And CAL 777s are modded to 470k MLW. Landing the 777 at Max Gross is like landing a 737-900 at any weight! :) It usually works out to around a 30 minute dump ballpark which is a good amount of time to prepare and let the FAs do their thing anyway. One note about the fuel dump, it is usually recommended to dump down to MLW unless you HAVE to get onto the ground. Then by all means dump all the way in and land with what you have. But to just dump to X amount because you didnt feel like wasting gas wont get you too many pats on the back at the FAA meeting at the big shiny table. Dumping gas is the cost of doing business with a large airline. If something goes wrong, especially if you have a malfunction that will increase your landing speed or decrease the effectivness of other components, you dont want to be explaining why you didnt dump fuel down to at least MLW. And there is a youtube video of it dumping, btw. And yes, some may land on your house!

Rocketiii,

Your are correct I must be getting a serious case of the crusty brain syndrome..

From my old 777 FM....

Jettison time Estimate 5400 pounds per minute when jettisoning from all tanks and 3100 pounds per minute when jettisoning from main tanks only.

:confused: It must be the first symptom of the Alzheimer setting in.

strfyr51
05-10-2010, 05:01 PM
the overweight landing inspection severity is troggered by the rate of decent at touchdown. Anything below 360 FPM is good and requires a mominal inspection anything exceeding 360 FPM will require a more extensive inspection.

DustoffVT
05-10-2010, 07:18 PM
the overweight landing inspection severity is troggered by the rate of decent at touchdown. Anything below 360 FPM is good and requires a mominal inspection anything exceeding 360 FPM will require a more extensive inspection.

Troggered (adj): how you will feel after dealing with the CP's office, feds and media if you land overweight when you didn't really have to and take out the Walmart...

BlueMoon
05-10-2010, 07:55 PM
Stop with the drama. They didn't dump fuel on your house ... and not even close to it. In this type of situation, I'm sure they were at altitude and in an approved fuel dumping holding pattern. Even if they weren't, the chances of a molecule of fuel landing on your house, is extremely remote.

Sure sounded like a joke

SoCalGuy
05-11-2010, 03:58 AM
For those who say....."A picture speaks a 1000 words".....here it is.

CAL flt 9 EWR-NRT(Tokyo)...Apparently cut a hydraulic line after take off...dumped 147,000 lbs of fuel at 5000 feet over SBJ VOR (Western New Jersey area)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoUBWEqPu0Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoUBWEqPu0Q)

solinator
05-11-2010, 08:07 AM
Interesting what "civilians" say about planes:
YouTube - Continental Airlines 777 with 275 passengers dumping fuel over New Jersey ! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XORgDkaV_xk&NR=1)

"I think there is something wrong with it..." lmao :o

EasternATC
05-11-2010, 08:21 AM
Stop with the drama. They didn't dump fuel on your house ... and not even close to it. In this type of situation, I'm sure they were at altitude and in an approved fuel dumping holding pattern. Even if they weren't, the chances of a molecule of fuel landing on your house, is extremely remote.


There is no such animal in the National Airspace System, unless it's strictly military. Emergencies get to dump whenever and wherever needed, without regard to what lies underneath. ATC's only guideline is that 2000' above the terrain is preferred, and, of course, to keep other airplanes away.

penguin22
05-11-2010, 08:25 AM
this is from the Boeing B777 Flight Crew Training Manual...

"...fuel jettison above 4,000 feet AGL ensures complete fuel evaporation"

wmuflyboy
05-11-2010, 08:25 AM
Stop with the drama. They didn't dump fuel on your house ... and not even close to it. In this type of situation, I'm sure they were at altitude and in an approved fuel dumping holding pattern. Even if they weren't, the chances of a molecule of fuel landing on your house, is extremely remote.

yea dude it was a joke, relax. no hard feelings. plus, its only Jersey...

contrails
05-11-2010, 08:40 AM
yea dude it was a joke, relax. no hard feelings. plus, its only Jersey...

Exactly -- I say, dump more.

FlyingPirate
05-11-2010, 08:52 AM
How is this related?:rolleyes:

"In January, a United Airlines jetliner scraped its belly on a Newark runway after part of its landing gear failed to deploy"

solinator
05-11-2010, 09:05 AM
How is this related?:rolleyes:

"In January, a United Airlines jetliner scraped its belly on a Newark runway after part of its landing gear failed to deploy"

It's not related. I saw that and I was like... Why? Why is this here? lol

Maybe this is the writer's passive aggressive way of saying "United has had a few accidents recently"?

joe1946
05-11-2010, 10:44 AM
For those who say....."A picture speaks a 1000 words".....here it is.

CAL flt 9 EWR-NRT(Tokyo)...Apparently cut a hydraulic line after take off...dumped 147,000 lbs of fuel at 5000 feet over SBJ VOR (Western New Jersey area)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoUBWEqPu0Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoUBWEqPu0Q)
That is one of my two videos and it was my nine year old grandson making the comment about maybe something wrong and my comment about the landing gear down.:D
BTW you could download the native 165mb 1080p60 video file from Vimeo until the end of the week.
777 jet with 291 people dumping fuel over New Jersey ! on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/11599967)

Skyone
05-11-2010, 11:47 AM
It's all about choices. Lose an engine at MTOW, don't dump, and come around and land. Lose an engine at MTOW, dump down to MLW, and come around and land. Oops, have to do a go-around for:eek:......Landing at MTOW isn't the problem really, it's stopping or going around, and how you handle the brake fire and possible evacuation after the MTOW landing. So which choice is better? Fire/smoke/incapacitation, perhaps a different choice. Generally, I would dump for most situations except for fire/smoke/incapacitation. That's why you make the big (er, bigger I should say. Not big anymore) bucks.

joe1946
05-12-2010, 01:11 PM
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a21/jogiba/TM700/777sharp.jpg



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1