Dumping fuel over the Dakotas...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Portland (PDX)
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dumping fuel over the Dakotas...
I was on a Northwest flight from Detroit en route to Tokyo when they had to shut down an engine over the Dakotas. The captain came on and said we were heading for Seattle for a pit stop. I had never been on a flight before where they had to dump fuel. It was coming out of a wingtip like water from a 2.5 inch Larkin pipe (nozzle) at a multiple alarm fire (an old Detroit experience).
Curious about the dissipation of fuel over land and what if any health concerns there are for farmer Brown types puffing on a stogie. I realize the flammable limits of Jet A fuel would not be sufficient for a airburst type of ignition spread out over a large area. Half joking here, but wondering if the FAA, EPA or whoever gets a hair up their bureaucracy when fuel is dumped.
When fuel is dumped does a ****load of paperwork follow?
What sort of ballpark costs did NW realize with said dumped fuel? Plus three hours down time at SEA and missed connections at NRT that resulted in freebie hotels for passengers.
Someone told Airbus does not have the capability to dump fuel, that it was not included in their design.
Also, read some time ago that NW has one of the older fleets, something like 18 years on average.
Are the spar structures in the wings Magnafluxed or whatever on some type of preventive maintenance schedule.
Curious about the dissipation of fuel over land and what if any health concerns there are for farmer Brown types puffing on a stogie. I realize the flammable limits of Jet A fuel would not be sufficient for a airburst type of ignition spread out over a large area. Half joking here, but wondering if the FAA, EPA or whoever gets a hair up their bureaucracy when fuel is dumped.
When fuel is dumped does a ****load of paperwork follow?
What sort of ballpark costs did NW realize with said dumped fuel? Plus three hours down time at SEA and missed connections at NRT that resulted in freebie hotels for passengers.
Someone told Airbus does not have the capability to dump fuel, that it was not included in their design.
Also, read some time ago that NW has one of the older fleets, something like 18 years on average.
Are the spar structures in the wings Magnafluxed or whatever on some type of preventive maintenance schedule.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a minimum altitude specified for dumping in a non-emergency of 6000'. This should allow time for the dissipation of the fuel and fumes into the atmosphere. Obviously in a dire emergency, dumping can take place at any altitude. Even so, I have never seen publicity from anybody about "we were almost overcome by the stench.....it ruined my hair.....etc" Squirted out at high speed, I think it does become vapourised pretty quickly.
Only long range aeroplanes need the weight and complexity of a fuel dumping system due to the large difference between their take-off and maximum structural landing weights. I would therefore expect the A340 models to need one whereas the A300 wouldn't. The A380 certainly would.
As for costs of the incident, dumping is only done as a necessity, so it is irrelevant- it is a safety and relative emergency issue. The pilots don't have to do the paperwork!
Fleet age isn't all that relevant- a well maintained 18 year old airframe is not 'past it'. One would expect about 60-70,000 hours at that age. Older 747s and DC10s and Tristars can go for 100,000 hours plus with regular inspections and heavy maintenance, though costs do go up a lot. Shorthaul aeroplanes don't find it so easy to go on for so long because of the difficulty on scheduling them for 12 hours a day plus the increased pressurisation cycles causing higher fatigue.
Only long range aeroplanes need the weight and complexity of a fuel dumping system due to the large difference between their take-off and maximum structural landing weights. I would therefore expect the A340 models to need one whereas the A300 wouldn't. The A380 certainly would.
As for costs of the incident, dumping is only done as a necessity, so it is irrelevant- it is a safety and relative emergency issue. The pilots don't have to do the paperwork!
Fleet age isn't all that relevant- a well maintained 18 year old airframe is not 'past it'. One would expect about 60-70,000 hours at that age. Older 747s and DC10s and Tristars can go for 100,000 hours plus with regular inspections and heavy maintenance, though costs do go up a lot. Shorthaul aeroplanes don't find it so easy to go on for so long because of the difficulty on scheduling them for 12 hours a day plus the increased pressurisation cycles causing higher fatigue.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Donning my rumpled trenchcoat a la Columbo):
Something I don't quite understand about this flight DTW-NRT:
A great circle route takes you right up the Canadian north woods, well north of the Dakotas.
And if one donk quits early on, it would seem logical to divert to main base (MSP) to fix the problem - unless SEA happened to have the right stuff. But SEA is a long way off the great circle route.
Something I don't quite understand about this flight DTW-NRT:
A great circle route takes you right up the Canadian north woods, well north of the Dakotas.
And if one donk quits early on, it would seem logical to divert to main base (MSP) to fix the problem - unless SEA happened to have the right stuff. But SEA is a long way off the great circle route.
