What else were the pilots supposed to do? I’m not seeing how there was any negligence or wrongdoing here. They were basically trying to ensure a safe emergency landing in a plane that could have had nearly 400 people aboard.
Spraying some jet fuel over the city seems like the far lesser of the two evils here.
I’m not advocating a crash and burn landing.
LAX is RIGHT next to the Pacific Ocean.
~VOW
Speaking generally, as I don’t know the details of this incident, it is normally perfectly safe to land overweight. It is also quite rare that an emergency is so serious that you can’t go to a safe fuel dumping area prior to landing.
Cudahy is nowhere close to the Pacific Ocean.
Fully overweight- as in with a full load of fuel, cargo and passengers? I thought there was a limit to how overweight an airliner can land, and it wasn’t necessarily full capacity on everything.
And VOW… you’re seriously advocating ditching in the ocean rather than spraying the jet fuel over the city? That seems insane to me.
Cudahy is apparently in the flight path to LAX. On TV they showed the path the plane took after takeoff, and it followed the coast up to Malibu, then circled inland.
~VOW
I did NOT say that!
The fuel could have been jettisoned over the ocean.
~VOW
Which makes me wonder what, exactly, the pilots thought the nature of the emergency was. With the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me (as a non-pilot) that it would have been perfectly safe to fly out over the ocean with the malfunctioning shut down before dumping fuel, or to land overweight. Did something lead the pilots to believe the situation was more serious than it actually turned out to be, I wonder?
That’s great that you could be so calm. I’d want a cigarette. Or at least a light…
A compressor stall, while not pleasant, is not a “get it on the ground, to hell with the consequences” event. The pilot stated that they had it under control to ATC and could easily have circled the pacific while dumping.
Also, landing heavy is not destructive to the AC. What it does is trigger additional inspection of gear, brakes and associated equipment. Something I’m sure Delta and the pilot wished to avoid but the whole process is nothing that would result in a potential crash.
I listened to available ATC but it will be interesting to see what comes from the official recordings. I admit that the situation could have been much worse than current evidence indicates.
By AC do you mean “aircraft”? If so, why in the world would you feel the need to abbreviate it? Or do you mean something else by AC? If so, why didn’t you type it out?
This is what the B777 flight crew training manual (FCTM) says:
So, yes, it should be fine right up to max take off weight. The main considerations would be whether you can stop ok, whether you can climb ok with one engine shut down, and that the airplane will need an engineering inspection.
The quote above says that stopping shouldn’t be a problem on a nice day. Go-around performance will need to be checked, but the take-off itself was predicated on being able to climb safely with a failed engine.
Further paragraph from the FCTM:
Dumping and/or burning fuel to reduce weight is an option, but it is not the only option. Fuel dumping is recommended for reducing landing weight when adequate time is available.
I’ve seen AC or A/C used before in place of “aircraft,” but it’s usually done only in aviation-related venues where the audience is most likely to be people familiar with that usage.
So in the present case, it seems the Delta crew may have gotten overly anxious about their circumstances. They even told ATC that they didn’t need to burn or dump fuel - and then they went ahead and dumped fuel, at low altitude, without relaying that info to ATC. :smack:
So a 777 is capable of safely landing at full take-off weight with every seat occupied, a full baggage hold and the tanks brimming with fuel. I’m sure that was a requirement of its design and certifications. Likely consequences are needing a bunch of inspection on the landing gear and probably needing some tires and brake pads, all of which will take the plane out of service for a while.
If you’re the pilot, would you want to do that if you have the ability to rapidly dump fuel and make a more “typical” landing that doesn’t fully stress the airplane to the far ends of its design limits, and not knowing if the brakes and tires are in peak condition or are at “yeah, they’re good enough until the next check” condition?
From a purely financial view - is dumping fuel cheaper than the inspections, repairs, and loss of use for however many days?
But there was a third evil that was even lessest.
I guess we’ll find out after the lawsuits start rolling in!
And then the argument will be, “But the safety of the passengers was an issue! Aren’t their lives worth anything?”
Sure! No question! But a playground full of little kids has value, too!
People seem to have difficulty with the speed of the aircraft and the protocols of jets circling an airport. Those “circles” can be 100, 200, or more miles in circumference. And a minute could mean a dump over a population area or empty ocean.
Obviously, if the plane is breaking into pieces or just burst into flames, protocol be damned. So, it all ends up being the judgment of the pilot.
And that is what we need now.
~VOW
I am not going to “Monday morning quarterback”. I was not in that cockpit at that time.
As an aircraft mechanic I can tell you that landing an aircraft overweight can and often does damage the aircraft. Having been on the team that does the inspections after an overweight landing, I will confirm that this is a big deal. That airplane will not fly passengers again for some time.
I do not recall many aircraft that had an overweight landing event that did not need some repairs to be airworthy again. Delta may get lucky with this one because of the crews dumping of fuel. In any case, the engine issue will need to be addressed.
edited to add; Yes dumping fuel is much cheaper than even a “clean inspection” where no damage is found. Barring lawsuits of course.
Typically the problem requiring the emergency landing is going to have the aircraft out of service for a while anyway. An engine change isn’t a five minute job.
As the pilot it is not our job to second guess commercial decisions. We do what is the safest option at the time. If a couple of equally safe options are available, e.g., a diversion to two similar airports at a similar distance, we may ask the company what their commercial preference is if we have the time.
I don’t fly the B777, but I work for a company that does and I have access to the manuals. “Cost of overweight landing inspection” doesn’t factor into the decision tree for pilots. In our ops manuals there is information about how to fly an overweight landing (sections quoted in my earlier post) and information about when and how to jettison fuel. The general company policy is that if there is time available to do it, fuel should be jettisoned down to the max landing weight. It also states that landing overweight is approved for emergencies with advice to “land at the nearest suitable airport” in the checklist.
The engine failure checklist does advise to “plan to land at the nearest suitable airfield” and so, if it was one of my company airplanes, the crew would be authorised to land immediately without dumping fuel.
On the other hand, B777s are often flying on routes that have a point many hours away from a suitable airfield. Some of my company B777s are approved for flights up to five and a half hours away from a suitable airfield. Therefore flying on one engine for five and a half hours has already been assessed as an acceptable risk. Although the non-normal checklist for an engine failure advises to land at the nearest suitable airfield, it would be quite reasonable to take the time to dump fuel if the captain thought it necessary.
It would be a rare situation that warranted fuel dumping but did not provide time to dump in a safe area. Delta may have had one of those rare cases; it will be interesting to read the report.
This is a red-letter day for me, my first scolding on the SDMB! 
Given the subject (and the fact that undeclared acronyms are a common occurance in this board) I assumed people were not going to think it was alternating current. In my defense, I work in the industry and frequent aviation boards.
The pilots don’t have to go down that decision tree, because the company manual already did it for them. The cost of the fuel jettisoned is much less than the potential damage to the plane, even without considering safety aspects apparently.