Asiana Airlines Emergency Landing In SeaTac
 

Hmmm, dumping fuel over Puget Sound. Since it just took off, it must be loaded with fuel. Is it standard operating procedure to dump ALL of it or just some of it?

A single-engine approach will become a zero-engine approach if you dump all your fuel, won't it? :rolleyes:

I was lounging on the couch and saw him on downwind dumping fuel....right over my freakin' house!!! Bastard!!! :)

Mookie

"We're not sure what happened or what caused it," Cooper said.
He said it's not unusual for a small amount of "flame out" to occur when a plane takes off.

What on God's green earth does that mean?!?!?! It's Ok to "flame out" a little on take-off and that is a normal thing? I personally, and it is just my opinion, do not like the engines to flame out a little on takeoff. Maybe someone here can educate me that this is OK. Or was he saying it is OK to have a small amount of flames shooting out the back?!?!? That I have no problem with. Just as long as only a "small" amount of flames are shooting out the back of my engines, I am cool. Where do they get these folks?:eek:

"Witnesses reported seeing flames coming from one of the engines."

Holy COW! But this was Ok per the next statement:

"There were no apparent injuries to the 179 passengers onboard nor was there obvious damage to the plane's engines, he said."

At least there was no "obvious" damage to the engines!!! Only flames coming out of it. It should be OK after a quick engine run by maintenance.

Do you think maintenance will come back with it being a CND?

Me thinks SeaTac should be looking for a new "spokesperson.":eek:

I was watching KomoTv and a passenger was saying how much confidence he had in the pilots. He was very Pro-pilot which is a change for anything on TV. Cudos to that Pax.

Not to toot my own horn, but I took off out of Seatac at 1pm and didn't flameout either engine! (not even a small amount) :)

Got to Narita and they made us sit on the plane for an extra 10 minutes while they passed out flu masks and scanned everyone with a thermal camera.

Oh the Glamor

I got on an airplane once and Mx was on board. They said the engine was on fire earlier today, but they couldn't duplicate the problem. Ops check good, and they just wiped the smoke smudges off the tailpipe and off we were. Gotta love Mesa Mx! haha

Good for them. I take the easy route, and I just carry Tamiflu with me. *in best Rasputia voice* How YOU doing?!

If you dump above 6000 feet the fuel evaporates prior to reaching the ground.

Many airlines will only you have you dump enough fuel to make a safe overweight landing. (767 only lets you dump from the center tanks. Means if you were fully loaded with Jet A you will still land with ~ 80K of gas. )

I watched this happen from Golden Gardens. It was pretty sweet/dramatic looking, first time seeing a fuel dump.

All the airplanes that I know about that have a dump system make it physically impossible to dump all the fuel.

The ones that I have flown leave an undumpable quantity of 1 to 2 hours of cruise fuel consumption.

Joe

You can't transfer to the center tank and then dump that?

I bet the airlines just cringe when they have to dump gas! :eek:

On the triple (-200 series) you can dump everything out of the center and to the standpipes in the mains and you'll be left with 23K. The automation also lets you set a landing weight and then the jet closes the dump valves when you reach a safe landing weight.

Generally speaking, what are the ramifications of landing seriously overweight?

so long as its a smooth touchdown,just an overweight landing inspection by a mech is required, i once had the pleasure of dumping 30000 lbs of jetA over ann arbor,when a leading edge device didnt retract on the 727-200, we were at 10000 feet,so the fuel atomized,and never touched the ground in theory.

Seriously hot brakes, and maybe some seriously blown tires, and on a seriously bad day, damaged/collapsed landing gear. Seriously.

Boeing doesn't believe in allowing pilots to transfer fuel. Crossfeed yes, but not transfer while airborne.

Wow, you must be a serious guy to fly with! :D

Seriously,

NOT!!

Having spent 7 years as an instructor on the 777 I can seriously tell you that if you've got enough runway it is a serious non event. In fact it is often recommended to land over weight rather than dump as the over weight landing inspection is much cheaper than dumping fuel.

Seriously.

Which serious of the 777 did you instruct? 200 or 300?

A models and 200's. Serious

Shirley you're kidding.

I'm dead Shirley. And don't call me serious........

Asiana turned crosswind right over my house. I heard what sounded exactly like a pile-driver...in my back yard. I'd never heard compressor stalls live before...impressive.

Seriously loud aren't they?

Seriously....

If you only knew how much fuel has been dumped by KC-135s over the last 40 years.........

I watched it happen.

I was in my car, in Federal Way, and just happened to look up as it was climbing out of Sea-Tac. I typically do not watch aircraft but I gave this one a second look because it appeared to have the raked wing-tips which I have never seen on a 777. About 5 seconds later the #1 engine began to shoot flames and black smoke.

I too was pretty amazed at how loud it was.

The minimum altitude to dump fuel varies from country-to-country. Off the top of my head, I remember Germany is 3,000' AGL and Japan is 6,000' AGL.

I searched and found this little snippet, below, for information:

Once released, the fuel trails behind the aircraft and creates a pattern that looks much like a contrail. Kerosene evaporates rapidly in the atmosphere and very little typically survives in liquid form to reach the Earth's surface. The exact evaporative characteristics of dumped fuel depends on a number of factors like the altitude at which it was released, the atmospheric temperature, and the dumping pressure. Kerosene dumped at high altitude on a warm day tends to evaporate fastest. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sets requirements for when and how fuel dumping may occur in Order 7110.65P, Chapter 9, Section 5. This instruction stipulates that fuel can only be dumped above a minimum altitude of 2,000 ft (610 m), to improve its evaporation, and that a dumping aircraft must be separated from other air traffic by at least 5 miles (8 km). Air traffic controllers are also instructed to direct planes dumping fuel away from populated areas and over large bodies of water as much as possible. The same guidelines apply to military aircraft, and most air bases only permit fuel dumping in a specified area.

Airhoss.....you totally swiped my avatar! And your's is better looking! Wider and a mature boss with no soft spots. :)

I bet the EPA freaked on dumping over the Sound. Having dived the Sound many times, I can tell you Blinky the three eyed fish exist and is breeding will there.

577nitro.

Trophy quality is everything in this business.;)

I shot all 5 of mine with a .470 NE though..

I'll start dumping as soon as we reach V1 if looks like I'll never be coming home again. We are instructed to begin the dump IMMEDIATELY after losing
two, (of our three), engines. Given the choice, 6000 feet and above and away from people on the ground is my preference.
Cheers,
fbh

Seriously! ;)

Washington State's Ecology department now wants to sue Asiana for dumping fuel. UFB.

Seriously ?

;)

:D

If USA Today can be considered a "serious" source:

Washington state may fine Asiana Airlines for dumping fuel - USATODAY.com