readywhenyouare

Inhaling kerosene and getting it in your eyes has been shown to be quite harmful.

cmd320

Not really much different than inhaling gasoline which we all do regularly when fueling our cars.

Not saying the fuel dump should have happened, but this really wasn’t some big disaster.

kale73

IBTL.

WillBarrett_68

I don't think they're suggesting the pilot purposefully picked that community. There are systemic reasons why these people end up in that location, right in the approach path, where this is more likely to happen to them.

Though you might note that the plane did fly directly over much wealthier parts of LA (and at higher, safer altitudes) and didn't dump fuel there.

readywhenyouare

In another thread a chemist explained the difference quite well. Atomized kerosene has a different density and properties than gasoline.

WillBarrett_68

You shouldn't base your evaluation of a decision like this on the outcome. You should base it on the information that was available at the time to the people who made the decision.

Otherwise, you'd be saying that someone who bet his whole net worth on 00 on the roulette wheel was a genius IF it happened to hit.

findark

Has there actually been any comment about why the crew dumped fuel, and whether it was deliberate? Definitely doesn't make a lot of sense given the statements to ATC it was not needed.

No commercial aircraft takes off at a weight where it is unable to land safely. There was never a risk to life if the frame had landed overweight, so many of these comments just don't add up. Dumping or burning off fuel is to avoid non-catastrophic damage from landing overweight - e.g. in most non life-threatening situations, it is preferable to burn off or dump fuel to avoid an overweight landing, because otherwise the frame needs to be taken out of service to check it for damage from the landing. This was never a "dump fuel or people could die" kind of situation. If the desire was to dump and avoid an overweight landing, they would have been given directions to circle over the ocean to dump before returning to LAX, and this is literally what ATC asked if they wanted to do.

From Boeing, not Airbus, but a long technical article on landing weight: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...icle_03_1.html

MikeNYC1

Do you know what all the failures were that the crew was faced with, and what checklists they were running? We can't speculate that there was no pressing reason to land immediately at this point, because no report has been released other than that the engine was suffering a compressor stall.

It was also reported that the crew brought the engine "under control" later, not that it was operating normally. They likely had the engine running at idle thrust, so they were effectively OEI at that point.

There are no published "requirements" for fuel dumps, where the word "MUST" or "SHALL" are used. You'll find the words "SHOULD" or "ARE ADVISED".

readywhenyouare

Why wouldn't we have heard if there any other issues? Delta would surely have let us know if there was any way they could have avoided criticism. And why don't you trust the FAA's statement about the crew's decision? The days of the 'Sky God' are long gone and pilots must be held accountable for their actions.

defrosted

Firstly I wasn't saying the fuel dump was justified.
Secondly grammar isn't silly, if grammar causes confusion and confusion leads to a mistake then that should be taken very seriously.

Exactly, but I am curious if that is what people are doing. Taking advantage of a situation because nothing bad happened to the plane. Point is if the plane had crashed would they still be raising such a stink about the effects of the dumped fuel. Maybe not, just asking.