Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

50 Tons of Fuel Dumped over Zurich - Edelweiss Flight 24

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    Did you forget the blue font or you didn't understand a thing?
    I'm not sure. I think you were saying that fuel dumping isn't necessary to ensure a safe landing because the airframes must be certified to land at MTOW and any runway you took off from can accomodate the higher landing speeds and longer stopping distance, however doing so will require a ground inspection and possibly reveal some component or structural damage that may cost the airline the equivalent of thousands of overweight baggage fees in lost revenue. Is that what you were saying?

    Comment


    • #17
      SMH

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Evan View Post

        I'm not sure. I think you were saying that fuel dumping isn't necessary to ensure a safe landing because the airframes must be certified to land at MTOW and any runway you took off from can accomodate the higher landing speeds and longer stopping distance, however doing so will require a ground inspection and possibly reveal some component or structural damage that may cost the airline the equivalent of thousands of overweight baggage fees in lost revenue. Is that what you were saying?
        It was a more relative thing, not an absolute one. The questions were

        1- Is it worth/sound to fly single engine for more than 40 minutes more than necessary and getting 80 / 100 nautical miles away from the airport (even beyond gliding range) ONLY to avoid the consequence of an overweight landing that involves only cost (no safety) and that most likely would be just check the QAR for the touchdown parameters and if confirmed ok you are good to go, and in the unlikely event that it is not ok you will need a visual inspection for possible damages that if ok you are good to go and in the even more unlikely event that not ok you will have a very costly structural repair or up to a full write off, but no injuries or loss of life, compared with the even more unlikely but infinitely more impactful consequences of suffering the loss of the second (and last) engine during the fuel dump diversion?
        2- How is flying single engine for more than 40 minutes more than necessary and getting 80 / 100 nautical miles away from the airport compatible with the "land at the closest suitable airport" mandate? If the industry agrees that yes, the fuel dump diversion is worthy, I would not be outraged but it looks to me that at least it should be clarified in the FAR. Even for the protection of the pilots and airlines. If one day the unlikely happens, it will be easy for the NTSB and FAA to blame the pilot and airline for not following (one interpretation of) the FAR.

        And no, do not disallow fuel dump. Even if one day the official policy/interpretation becomes that making a SAFE landing at the closest suitable airport has priority over dumping fuel, there are instances where, even if not necessary, dumping fuel would be convenient and it would not impact your ability to land at the closest airport (say a fuel failure at cruise) and others where dumping fuel is NECESSARY for a safe landing in the shortest time possible (say an engine failure combined with a flaps issue, or the airport that you took off is below landing minimums and the next closest suitable airport has a shorter runway), or where it may be necessary to dump fuel for other reasons (like to be able to reach an airport after a particularly severe loss of thrust, like 3 engines failing in a CD-8 or 2 engines failing in a heavy 727 that are struggling to keep the altitude and a flyable speed simultaneously).

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

          It was a more relative thing, not an absolute one. The questions were

          1- Is it worth/sound to fly single engine for more than 40 minutes more than necessary and getting 80 / 100 nautical miles away from the airport (even beyond gliding range) ONLY to avoid the consequence of an overweight landing that involves only cost (no safety) and that most likely would be just check the QAR for the touchdown parameters and if confirmed ok you are good to go, and in the unlikely event that it is not ok you will need a visual inspection for possible damages that if ok you are good to go and in the even more unlikely event that not ok you will have a very costly structural repair or up to a full write off, but no injuries or loss of life, compared with the even more unlikely but infinitely more impactful consequences of suffering the loss of the second (and last) engine during the fuel dump diversion?
          2- How is flying single engine for more than 40 minutes more than necessary and getting 80 / 100 nautical miles away from the airport compatible with the "land at the closest suitable airport" mandate? If the industry agrees that yes, the fuel dump diversion is worthy, I would not be outraged but it looks to me that at least it should be clarified in the FAR. Even for the protection of the pilots and airlines. If one day the unlikely happens, it will be easy for the NTSB and FAA to blame the pilot and airline for not following (one interpretation of) the FAR.

          And no, do not disallow fuel dump. Even if one day the official policy/interpretation becomes that making a SAFE landing at the closest suitable airport has priority over dumping fuel, there are instances where, even if not necessary, dumping fuel would be convenient and it would not impact your ability to land at the closest airport (say a fuel failure at cruise) and others where dumping fuel is NECESSARY for a safe landing in the shortest time possible (say an engine failure combined with a flaps issue, or the airport that you took off is below landing minimums and the next closest suitable airport has a shorter runway), or where it may be necessary to dump fuel for other reasons (like to be able to reach an airport after a particularly severe loss of thrust, like 3 engines failing in a CD-8 or 2 engines failing in a heavy 727 that are struggling to keep the altitude and a flyable speed simultaneously).
          If you ever apply for a DO position at an airline, don't bring this up!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

            It was a more relative thing, not an absolute one. The questions were

            1- Is it worth/sound to fly single engine for more than 40 minutes more than necessary and getting 80 / 100 nautical miles away from the airport (even beyond gliding range) ONLY to avoid the consequence of an overweight landing that involves only cost (no safety) and that most likely would be just check the QAR for the touchdown parameters and if confirmed ok you are good to go, and in the unlikely event that it is not ok you will need a visual inspection for possible damages that if ok you are good to go and in the even more unlikely event that not ok you will have a very costly structural repair or up to a full write off, but no injuries or loss of life, compared with the even more unlikely but infinitely more impactful consequences of suffering the loss of the second (and last) engine during the fuel dump diversion?
            2- How is flying single engine for more than 40 minutes more than necessary and getting 80 / 100 nautical miles away from the airport compatible with the "land at the closest suitable airport" mandate? If the industry agrees that yes, the fuel dump diversion is worthy, I would not be outraged but it looks to me that at least it should be clarified in the FAR. Even for the protection of the pilots and airlines. If one day the unlikely happens, it will be easy for the NTSB and FAA to blame the pilot and airline for not following (one interpretation of) the FAR.

            And no, do not disallow fuel dump. Even if one day the official policy/interpretation becomes that making a SAFE landing at the closest suitable airport has priority over dumping fuel, there are instances where, even if not necessary, dumping fuel would be convenient and it would not impact your ability to land at the closest airport (say a fuel failure at cruise) and others where dumping fuel is NECESSARY for a safe landing in the shortest time possible (say an engine failure combined with a flaps issue, or the airport that you took off is below landing minimums and the next closest suitable airport has a shorter runway), or where it may be necessary to dump fuel for other reasons (like to be able to reach an airport after a particularly severe loss of thrust, like 3 engines failing in a CD-8 or 2 engines failing in a heavy 727 that are struggling to keep the altitude and a flyable speed simultaneously).
            So perhaps make fuel dumping a bit more restrictive then by limiting when you can do it. As I said, I'm not going to get too ruffled on the issue because fuel dumping is a rare enough event, whereas the far greater concern to the environment is fuel storage and transport on the ground. But the industry hasn't really determined the full consequences of atmospheric fuel dumping. Some of those consequences remain unknown. Out of sight, out of mind is not the best policy here. It's a complex array of factors and chemistry.

            Jet fuel jettisoned from planes can be transported by the wind. Some of it is transformed photochemically to ozone and other components of smog. It has been shown to form aerosols as a result of reactions with atmospheric chemicals, but the specific composition of the particulate material is not known.
            The standard "safe" altitude of 5000-6000ft AGL is also not taking into account the air temperature variations. In very cold air, a great deal of Jet A/JP-8 can still reach the ground from that altitude! (see the USAF chart predictions below)

            The following is paraphrased from an Air Force study done in the 1980's:

            USAF aircraft jettison fuel (mostly highly-volatile JP4) nearly 1000 times a year, and the fuel released to the atmosphere amounts to more than 7000 metric tons (16 million pounds) per year—averaging 26,000 liters (7000 gal) per day. If done at proper altitudes, JP4 will evaporate and disperse, minimizing ground contamination. Jet A, however, is much less volatile and can be expected to entail greater levels of ground contamination ( the same is true of JP-8 ).
            Attached Files

            Comment


            • #21
              I have dumped fuel about a dozen times. I have never been sent anywhere to dump below 14000'.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                I have dumped fuel about a dozen times. I have never been sent anywhere to dump below 14000'.
                On a nice summer day I hope. That chart altitude is in meters! Below 0C surface temps, things get ugly from even that height.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by okgood View Post
                  ZURICH, Switzerland - On Wednesday, 1 January 2020, an Edelweiss Air Airbus A340-300 Flight 24 from Zurich to Cancun was climbing out of Zurich's runway 16 when the crew stopped the climb due to an abnormal indication for engine number 3 - which later turned out to be a false indication. The crew shut the engine down, dumped 50 tons of fuel, and returned to Zurich for a safe landing on runway 16. The aircraft remained on the ground for another 1.5 hours, then departed again and reached Cancun with a delay of about 3.5 hours.

                  Listen to (See) the ATC Conversation Here

                  What happens when you dump 50 tons of fuel only 12,000 feet above Zurich?
                  Always these metric numbers.. Nobody in professional aviation buys, handles or demands kerosene in metric numbers like kg or metric tons.

                  When you've ever seen a Lufthansa Flight Captain on the long haul on TV, he speaks of 'Blocks' when he talks about fuel. And if you don't know how a LH-B744 upper EICAS looks like..
                  In the lower right corner we always find the FOB, measured in US-pound, e.g. 234.9 or something like that.

                  Am I now the person who must convert your 50 tons into the international aviation language? Ok, but only because Christmas still is near.
                  50 metric tons or 50,000 kilograms are... 110,231 lb (US-pound), so I would find a 110.2 in my upper EICAS, if that were the only fuel on board (FOB).

                  That indeed is not less, not even in a 4 engined long haul jet.. Since I am a jetphotos member, with that special nickname, since more than 11 years, I have the B744 flight hours in mind, when you say 110.2 .

                  We all know the reason why the WK-A343 colleagues had to 'throw away' 110.2 lb of fuel, don't we. MLW, i.e. Maximum Landing Weight, they were much too heavy to simply return to Kloten. Good and professional reaction. Better return and restart the long haul in case of a doubt. I just wanted to say, good Star Alliance behaviour.

                  But Edelweiss is not a separate member of the Star Alliance. Nevertheless, since 2008 all Edelweiss flights provide miles&more, via Swiss International (IATA: LX) .
                  Good.
                  I need more Fortuna when I say Düsseldorf. Come On!
                  LH is member in the 747 club since April 1970. Jubilees do count, believe me.
                  Aviation enthusiast, since more than 30 years with home airport EDDL.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

                    I have, in my couple of years of experience in the aviation business, run into more than one person that just thrives on being the one that "knows the inside poop" before everyone else and just loves to let everyone know that they do. Loosing and engine, or shutting one down as a precaution and dumping some fuel to get below max landing weight before returning to land is NOT an emergency. Blowing a tire on takeoff and doing the same is NOT an emergency. If you didn't understand my post, reread it slowly.
                    Dear mate,
                    I read your post a several times, I may have a bug in my brain, but unfortunately I still didn't understand why you should have mentioned me in your post.

                    In my humble opinion, you did not act as expected between colleagues.
                    I think it's not like that among colleagues and it's disrespectful.

                    I finished here, Just think if you behaved properly. that's it.
                    All the best.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I see no problem of having such posts in the Aviation Safety forum. Incidents and how they are handled are also interesting.

                      Regards
                      Alex

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post

                        Always these metric numbers.. Nobody in professional aviation buys, handles or demands kerosene in metric numbers like kg or metric tons.

                        When you've ever seen a Lufthansa Flight Captain on the long haul on TV, he speaks of 'Blocks' when he talks about fuel. And if you don't know how a LH-B744 upper EICAS looks like..
                        In the lower right corner we always find the FOB, measured in US-pound, e.g. 234.9 or something like that.

                        Am I now the person who must convert your 50 tons into the international aviation language? Ok, but only because Christmas still is near.
                        50 metric tons or 50,000 kilograms are... 110,231 lb (US-pound), so I would find a 110.2 in my upper EICAS, if that were the only fuel on board (FOB).

                        That indeed is not less, not even in a 4 engined long haul jet.. Since I am a jetphotos member, with that special nickname, since more than 11 years, I have the B744 flight hours in mind, when you say 110.2 .

                        We all know the reason why the WK-A343 colleagues had to 'throw away' 110.2 lb of fuel, don't we. MLW, i.e. Maximum Landing Weight, they were much too heavy to simply return to Kloten. Good and professional reaction. Better return and restart the long haul in case of a doubt. I just wanted to say, good Star Alliance behaviour.

                        But Edelweiss is not a separate member of the Star Alliance. Nevertheless, since 2008 all Edelweiss flights provide miles&more, via Swiss International (IATA: LX) .
                        Good.
                        Funny LH, in the 19 years that I flew 747's for Atlas Air, (The largest 747 operator in the world,) all of our aircraft except for the 4 Dreamlifters measure and display fuel in KG. And "Block" fuel, is a reference to the fuel on board at the time you leave the chocks.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          https://images.app.goo.gl/m5L6RwNrTvuudRt39


                          LH, blow the picture up and look in the bottom right corner of the ECAS. Oh no Mr. Bill, fuel in kg x 1000. And that happens to be one of your Lufthansa birds!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ErezS View Post

                            In my humble opinion, you did not act as expected between colleagues.
                            I think it's not like that among colleagues and it's disrespectful.
                            Colleagues?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post

                              Colleagues?
                              Please note that the quote function automatically puts it in italics.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post

                                Colleagues?
                                Yes, absolutely.
                                We are all colleagues here, we have a common hobby, we are not supposed to offend each other.
                                I noticed that there are people here who are concerned with unimportant and nonsense things.
                                What to argue for? Is there any benefit to this?
                                I do not think so, so I end my participation here in this discussion.


                                P.S.
                                By the way, not everyone here is Americans or British with a high English language, some people from around the world here who are not native speakers of English, some of these people (me for example) use translation software, everyone should internalize it and treat it accordingly.
                                Most important in my opinion is to respect one another.
                                All the best!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X