No more [in flight emergency] dumping of fuel?

[v8Statesman]

I vaguely remember as a child that a flight that had to return to port for a technical issue dumped fuel to get to landing weight.

Recently I was on an ORD-NRT flight that returned to ORD for faulty toilets

The landing was HARD and very fast. Then the captain came on and said we had to sit and wait for a visual inspection of the plane as we landed well over maximum landing weight.

Is fuel dumping a thing of the past due to some "save the dolphins" mentality or just an AA policy of "screw the aircraft, it's insured. We can't afford to waste that precious fuel?"


Sent from my Telstra iPhone using the Australian Frequent Flyer application.

 

[markis10]

Not all aircraft can dump fuel, and in some cases it's not a good idea anyway.

 

[v8Statesman]

This was a 777. Unsure of type. (200 or 300) I suspect 200 though.


Sent from my Telstra iPhone using the Australian Frequent Flyer application.

 

[markis10]

777s can dump fuel, however sometimes it's better to just put it down ASAP.

 

[Mattg]

777s can dump fuel, however sometimes it's better to just put it down ASAP.

If the issue was faulty toilets, then I'm not sure what the rush would've been. Unless the real reason for the return was much more severe...

 

[v8Statesman]

If the issue was faulty toilets, then I'm not sure what the rush would've been. Unless the real reason for the return was much more severe...

That was kind of my thinking also!

 

[markis10]

Faulty toilets does sound a bit odd, I suspect something more was amiss....

 

[v8Statesman]

Faulty toilets does sound a bit odd, I suspect something more was amiss....

After take off, a PA announcement said that there was only 2 working toilets on the starboard side in the "Main Cabin" (Economy). Plane was full, so that would have been a bit awkward for a 12 hour flight.

Oddly, they kept going saying they where told by ground staff to "fly higher" and that should get the others working. WTF?!?!?!

 

[cove]

Maybe they were worried about sh.. hitting the fan of the jet blades.

 

[medhead]

After take off, a PA announcement said that there was only 2 working toilets on the starboard side in the "Main Cabin" (Economy). Plane was full, so that would have been a bit awkward for a 12 hour flight.

Oddly, they kept going saying they where told by ground staff to "fly higher" and that should get the others working. WTF?!?!?!

A pressure differential thing? There is substantial airflow when flushed. Are the tanks unpressurised and hence flying higher gives more "suck" as pressure decreases in the tanks? (altitude I guess, increasing in the tank)


Sent from the Throne

 

[AVC]

Faulty toilets does sound a bit odd, I suspect something more was amiss....

Maybe they were also out of coffee.


And what's the rationale for dumping? (fuel). With the right glideslope they can still land soft enough. Is it to save the trucks from some sort of brake/tyre death, or to prevent there being a massive fireball if the plane cracks up?

I'm off to "ask the pilot"

 

[777]

Is fuel dumping a thing of the past due to some "save the dolphins" mentality or just an AA policy of "screw the aircraft, it's insured. We can't afford to waste that precious fuel?"

Call me a Dolphin hugger but a faulty toilet is not a legit reason to spew a bunch of fuel into the atmosphere. It's probably as simple as the regulations allow you to dump fuel IN AN EMERGENCY and this didn't qualify?

 

[markis10]

Maybe they were also out of coffee.


And what's the rationale for dumping? (fuel). With the right glideslope they can still land soft enough. Is it to save the trucks from some sort of brake/tyre death, or to prevent there being a massive fireball if the plane cracks up?

I'm off to "ask the pilot"

Aircraft dump to get the aircraft below maximum landing weight, the question has been asked:

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....tions/ask-the-pilot-30478-223.html#post633540

 

[NM]

Call me a Dolphin hugger but a faulty toilet is not a legit reason to spew a bunch of fuel into the atmosphere. It's probably as simple as the regulations allow you to dump fuel IN AN EMERGENCY and this didn't qualify?

Then there is the debate about the difference in the environmental effects of dumping verses burning. Circle for a few hours to burn the fuel to get below max landing weight or dump it to get there quicker. In reality, the dolphins don't come into play if dumped at sufficient altitude as the fuel vapourises long before reaching the ground/sea. So is burnt or unburnt fuel worse for the environment? I don't know the answer and I suspect the answer starts with "well, it depends ...".

However, I suspect you are correct regarding the non-dump as there was no emergency ... unless you are the 25th person in the queue waiting to release that last cup of coffee .

 

[NM]

Maybe they were also out of coffee.


And what's the rationale for dumping? (fuel). With the right glideslope they can still land soft enough. Is it to save the trucks from some sort of brake/tyre death, or to prevent there being a massive fireball if the plane cracks up?

I'm off to "ask the pilot"

Landing above max landing weight (which can be done) generally requires a faster approach speed and increases risks in several areas - more chance of damage to the aircraft if the sink-rate is high at touch-down, more runway length required to stop, add other factors like poor weather or cross winds and things become more risky etc. Flying is about minimising the risks within your control and managing the rest of them. So if there is time available, dumping fuel during an emergency is going to help minimise other risks. But if its just a matter of getting onto the ground then landing overweight is better than some of the alternates.