Video of Air India 747 Emergency Landing at LAX

[Robert Easton]

http://cbs2.com/local/local_story_354022709.html

[[email protected]]

Whenever I read or hear about an airliner dumping fuel (in this case
off the coast of California no less) I think "Oh man, the Sierra Club
types are gonna lose their minds over this.."

I assume this was probably multiple thousands of pounds of Jet A which
doesn't just evaporate like 100LL, so is it safe to assume there's a
decent size slick on the surface? And if so is Air India responsible
for cleanup or EPA fines?

[Morgans]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Whenever I read or hear about an airliner dumping fuel (in this case
> off the coast of California no less) I think "Oh man, the Sierra Club
> types are gonna lose their minds over this.."
>
> I assume this was probably multiple thousands of pounds of Jet A which
> doesn't just evaporate like 100LL, so is it safe to assume there's a
> decent size slick on the surface? And if so is Air India responsible
> for cleanup or EPA fines?

Fuel dumping is done all the time with no or little environmental impact.
(mainly military planes) It leaves at the speed of the plane, mixes it
rapidly with the air, and evaporates very quickly. Think *giant* fuel
injectors.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

>>>It leaves at the speed of the plane, mixes it
rapidly with the air, and evaporates very quickly. Think *giant* fuel
injectors. <<<

I get the picture, but never imagined any kerosene based fuel would
evaporate so readily.

[Ramapriya]

Robert Easton wrote:
> http://cbs2.com/local/local_story_354022709.html


By the way, in such situations, why don't the flights carry on normally
towards their destination? After all, the landing gear would be needed
again only during touchdown, and the plane would by then have completed
its journey and burned up most of the fuel too, so many plusses there,
I'd imagine - unless there's something else that isn't obvious to me.

Ramapriya

[sfb]

Because they don't know the extent of the damage. Los Angles to
Frankfurt is the great circle across the Arctic which is not the best of
places to discover your airplane is broken.

"Ramapriya" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Robert Easton wrote:
>> http://cbs2.com/local/local_story_354022709.html
>
>
> By the way, in such situations, why don't the flights carry on
> normally
> towards their destination? After all, the landing gear would be needed
> again only during touchdown, and the plane would by then have
> completed
> its journey and burned up most of the fuel too, so many plusses there,
> I'd imagine - unless there's something else that isn't obvious to me.
>
> Ramapriya
>

[Ramapriya]

sfb wrote:
> Because they don't know the extent of the damage. Los Angles to
> Frankfurt is the great circle across the Arctic which is not the best of
> places to discover your airplane is broken.


>From what's described, it's a tire burst that was suffered by the 747,
so how it makes a difference? You still have to land the aircraft
anyway, so why not do it in Frankfurt than LA?

The one unwelcome scenario I can think of is that of an emergency
landing situation en route (due to some other reason), in which case
you'd prefer an airport to come down in rather than unknown terrain
without a proper set of wheels.

Ramapriya

[[email protected]]

Ramapriya wrote:
> >From what's described, it's a tire burst that was suffered by the 747,
> so how it makes a difference? You still have to land the aircraft
> anyway, so why not do it in Frankfurt than LA?

I don't know about the details of this particular incident, but...

Tire debris fouled up in landing gear can prevent normal
retraction/extension.

Sometimes the gear can't be retracted. Other times you don't
know the extent of damage well enough to be sure that you can
retract and then extend the gear reliably, so the prudent thing
is to leave the gear down. Better to mess up a wheel than a
nacelle.

With the gear down, there are pretty serious limits to the speed,
altitude, and range achievable. Going halfway around the world
is out of the question. They've got to land at a place fairly
close to the departure airport, and they want to land
where there are facilities to deal with both the plane and
the passengers. That doesn't always mean returning to
the departure airport, but often the departure airport is the
best choice.

--Rich

[Morgans]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> >>>It leaves at the speed of the plane, mixes it
> rapidly with the air, and evaporates very quickly. Think *giant* fuel
> injectors. <<<
>
> I get the picture, but never imagined any kerosene based fuel would
> evaporate so readily.

Evaporating from a puddle of liquid, you are right; it would not.

If you atomize it by letting it into a 250 MPH airstream, it will be a mist;
that will evaporate very quickly.
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
> If you atomize it by letting it into a 250 MPH airstream, it will be a
> mist; that will evaporate very quickly.


About 10 years ago a NWA jet dumped fuel on a Twin Cities neighborhood. NWA
paid to clean cars, repaint cars, clean houses, clean roofs, clean "yards",
clean swing sets, clean playgrounds, clean dogs, etc. It was a mess.

Radio/TV 'Special Report' said anyone with jet fuel on their cars should go
to these neighborhood car washes for a free wash and inspection. Thousands
took them up on it. They had teams of 'cleaners' washing houses off for many
weeks after the incident.

Much fuel was dumped on the neighborhood, jet was not at altitude, jet was
probably flying at slower speeds than 250 MPH, also.


Montblack