CC tried to pull-off:
Meanwhile, the rest of us are confused, quiet and feel like we just watched the neighbor kid self-own himself before being beaten up by a girl.
Dollars for Delta Dumping
- Thread starter Skåning
- Start date
CC tried to pull-off:
Meanwhile, the rest of us are confused, quiet and feel like we just watched the neighbor kid self-own himself before being beaten up by a girl.
Interesting. I would’ve figured there’d be at least some kind of lessons learned for the rest of the pilot group of the affected fleet, a “do this if you encounter X” and a “don’t do this….”.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
I mean the institutional “don’t dump fuel” thing is that.
Things that shouldn’t need to be stated, but yet, need to be reiterated on the how/when/why.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Skåning
Well-Known Member
Airlines don’t work that way. They sweep it under the rug and deflect/ignore/deny
Fair point there….
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
I actually had quite the discussion about it in initial, as the two DPS guys I had for that specific lesson where it’s covered (it is still in the syllabus) both had good points in favor and against.
The 767-400 can get rid of 2,200lbs/min from the center (good rate - you could pump it all overboard in about 40 minutes) while the -300s (with the same or so center volume) can only do half that rate for reasons that have never been made clear to me. The priority is still to land, and it’s a priority that makes sense.
We came up with if a distant diversion is required and if you are absolutely certain you won’t need the fuel and if ATC is okay with it (you can’t just do it—this isn’t ‘Nam and there are rules) then dump away, which seems reasonable and nuanced.
I would consider meeting all of those to be extremely remote.
Which, well:
Eeeeyep. And they’re fans of “they what? Don’t do that, then,” which is more or less how policies and rules change.
My big question is why when SoCal asked twice if they needed to remain over the ocean and dump, they said no. But then accept vectors inbound, and decide to initiate dump without even advising ATC, while over land and at low altitude. I’m just curious what the thought process was behind that.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
You’d have to ask them. Anything else is conjecture on my part.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
You’d think the pilots about to start service to one of the most dynamic in terms of weather, airports that I’ve ever been to, at max range in one of the least capable aircraft for the trip would just STFU and be humble.
Nope. Time for humble pie…
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
For a while we had a POI who's 11th Commandment was, Thou Shalt Not Land Over Weight. Back then we'd spin circles just off shore and dump (or in the case of the 767s we had with no jettison just spin in circles) until we were underweight and could land. Thankfully we've moved on to more... enlightened times, and the use case for dumping is now you coast out and then have to turn around for some reason. Both times I've had to do that recently, we've had between 30 and 90 minutes to prep the plane and dump fuel. We ended up stopping the fuel jettison early on the 30 minute transit and landed a few thousand pounds over weight. The 90 minute transit had us stopping the jettison 20 minutes before we checked in with approach.
That said, I did do an air turnback in the little Airbus (with no jettison on it) a while ago where we were all of 15 miles from the airport when we turned around. We (and the Flight Ops Managers) didn't want us to hold for 3 hours to get the landing weight down, so we just landed overweight, and it was the only time I've ever run out of stick authority during flare with an Airbus. had to go to the trim wheel to get the last bit of nose up.
///AMG
Well-Known Member
Depending on background, I’m sure there are 121 aviators out there who might be ignorant of the rules of fuel dumping. I’m guessing here, but I’d venture a guess that the WB guys equipped with dumps dont use them often in a career.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
You’d think the pilots about to start service to one of the most dynamic in terms of weather, airports that I’ve ever been to, at max range in one of the least capable aircraft for the trip would just STFU and be humble.
Nope. Time for humble pie…
What are you on about now?
You’re implying us going to KEF somehow means we need to tone done… something… or another.
What does that have anything to do with anything?
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
Is anyone else disappointed in the thread title? I was expecting a conversation about boss makes a dollar, I make a time that’s why I…
apps.apple.com
Poop at Work
Transform your bathroom breaks into profitable moments with Poop At Work - the ultimate earnings tracker for your throne time! This innovative app helps you calculate exactly how much you're earning during your bathroom breaks at work, turning mundane moments into money-making opportunities...
apps.apple.com
Basically the guidance since I've been here has been to not dump unless you absolutely need to. I can't even remember ever doing it in the sim as practice, so it really shows the new bias towards not dumping. The only two examples I can think of is either getting out of an area of terrain to a better alternate or your only landing runway available is too short to land overweight. I can't think of anywhere we fly the 767 where the second scenario would be an issue. The first case I can see when taking off heavy from an airport with critical terrain, with weather below CAT I, and losing an engine so now you can't autoland at your departure airport and have to go somewhere else across the mountains. That's also a very limited set of circumstances.
The one time I ever had to turn a heavy around was for a PACK failure at top of climb. We were fine to keep flying but I didn't want to go oceanic on a single PACK, and the company agreed. I told the FAs that we were going to be turning around, but to go ahead and do their service since pissed off passengers are better than pissed off and hungry. Plus if I was going to deal with an air return I wanted a slice of tiramisu' first. That gave us time to exhaust all the options on the satphone with maintenance control, and check with dispatch if there were any better airports downline to divert to that would make recovering the trip easier. When nothing worked and we decided our departure airport was the best choice, we turned around and just needed a couple extra delay vectors on the approach to be under weight.
The one time I ever had to turn a heavy around was for a PACK failure at top of climb. We were fine to keep flying but I didn't want to go oceanic on a single PACK, and the company agreed. I told the FAs that we were going to be turning around, but to go ahead and do their service since pissed off passengers are better than pissed off and hungry. Plus if I was going to deal with an air return I wanted a slice of tiramisu' first. That gave us time to exhaust all the options on the satphone with maintenance control, and check with dispatch if there were any better airports downline to divert to that would make recovering the trip easier. When nothing worked and we decided our departure airport was the best choice, we turned around and just needed a couple extra delay vectors on the approach to be under weight.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
Guys like you are gonna learn the hard way how to run a global airline.
I’ve got my popcorn ready
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
That’s…an unpleasant thing to figure out in the flare. Did your overweight landing procedures make any mention of it?
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Guys like you are gonna learn the hard way how to run a global airline.
I’ve got my popcorn ready
Again, what are you on about? Mgt will run the global airline as they see fit.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Nope. Which is strange because it's not like the 321 is a new airframe.