 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Fuel dumping" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(October 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Fuel dumping (or afuel jettison) is a procedure used by aircraft in certain emergency situations before a return to the airport shortly after takeoff, or before landing short of the intended destination (emergency landing) to reduce the aircraft's weight.
Aircraft have two main types of weight limits: themaximum takeoff weight is composed of DOW (Dry Operating Weight) plus Payload (passengers and cargo), collectively the ZFW (Zero Fuel Weight), plus the trip fuel, contingency, alternate, final reserve and the block fuel (taxi fuel), and themaximum structural landing weight, with the maximum structural landing weight almost always being the lower of the two. This allows an aircraft on a normal, routine flight to take off at a higher weight, consume fuel en route, and arrive at a lower weight.
It is an abnormal, non-routine flight where landing weight can be a problem. If a flight takes off at the maximum takeoff weight and then must land well before its destination, even returning immediately after takeoff to the departure airport (for example, because of mechanical problems or a passenger medical problem), it will contain more fuel than was intended for landing. If an aircraft lands at more than its maximum allowable weight, it might suffer structural damage or even break apart on landing.
As jets began flying in the US in the late 1950s and early 1960s, theFAA rule in effect at the time mandated that if the ratio between an aircraft's maximum structural takeoff weight and its maximum structural landing weight was greater than 1.05, the aircraft had to have a fuel-dump system installed. Aircraft such as theBoeing 707 and727 and theDouglas DC-8 had fuel dump systems. Any of those aircraft needing to return to a takeoff airport above the maximum landing weight would jettison an amount of fuel sufficient to reduce the aircraft's weight below that maximum landing weight limit, and then land.
During the 1960s,Boeing introduced the737, andDouglas introduced theDC-9, the original models of each being for shorter routes; the 105% figure was not an issue, thus they had no fuel-dump systems installed. During the 1960s and 1970s, both Boeing and Douglas "grew" their respective aircraft as far as operational capabilities were concerned viaPratt & Whitney's development of increasingly powerful variants of theJT8D engines that powered both aircraft series. Both aircraft were now capable of longer duration flights, with increased weight limits, and complying with the existing 105% rule became problematic due to the costs associated with adding a fuel-dump system to aircraft in production. Considering the more powerful engines that had been developed, the FAA changed the rules to delete the 105% requirement, andFederal Aviation Regulations 25.1001 was enacted stating a jettison system was not required if the climb requirements of FAR 25.119 (Landing Climb) and FAR 25.121 (Approach Climb) could be met, assuming a 15-minute flight. In other words, for a go-around with full landingflaps and all engines operating, and at approach flap setting and one engine inoperative, respectively.
Since most twin jet airliners can meet these requirements, most aircraft of this type such as theBoeing 737 (all models), theDC-9/MD80/Boeing 717, theA320 family and various regional jet ("RJ") aircraft do not have fuel dump systems installed. In the event of an emergency requiring a return to the departure airport, the aircraft circles nearby in order to consume fuel to get down to within the maximum structural landing weight limit, or, if the situation demands, simply land overweight without delay.[4] Modern aircraft are designed with possible overweight landings in mind, but this is not done except in cases of emergency, and various maintenance inspections are required afterwards.
Long-range twin jets such as theBoeing 767 and theAirbus A300,A310, andA330 may or may not have fuel dump systems, depending upon how the aircraft was ordered, since on some aircraft they are a customer option. Three- and four-engine jets like theLockheed L-1011,McDonnell Douglas DC-10 /MD-11,Boeing 747 andAirbus A340 usually have difficulty meeting the requirements of FAR 25.119 near maximum structural takeoff weight, thus most of those have jettison systems. ABoeing 757 has no fuel-dump capability as its maximum landing weight is similar to the maximum take-off weight.
Fuel-dumping operations are coordinated withair traffic control, and precautions are taken to keep other aircraft clear of such areas. Fuel dumping is usually accomplished at a high enough altitude (minimum 6,000 feet,AGL), where the fuel will dissipate before reaching the ground. Fuel leaves the aircraft through a specific point on each wing, usually closer to the wingtips and farther away from engines, and initially appears as more liquid than vapor. Specific areas have been designated where fuel dumping is allowed to avoid damage or harm where the fuel may drop; generally speaking, this is above seas or unpopulated areas above land.Delta Air Lines Flight 89 is an example of fuel dumping that violated established regulations: on 14 January 2020, it likely dumped 15,000–20,000 US gallons (12,000–17,000 imp gal; 57,000–76,000 L) of fuel at a low altitude over a populated area inLos Angeles, causing injuries to 56 people including school children below.[5]
It is difficult to quote specific dump rates even for specific types of aircraft since the dumped fuel is not pumped but delivered by gravity feed so as to be more independent of electrical systems, which might be unavailable in a fuel-dump scenario. This means the actual rate depends on the pressure exerted by the fuel head: the more fuel on board, the higher the rate at which it flows out. This also means that the dump rate is not constant, but decreases while dumping because the fuel head and its pressure decrease.
As a rule of thumb for theBoeing 747, pilots either quote dump rates ranging within 1–2 tons per minute or reference a thumb formula ofdump time = (dump weight / 2) + 5 in minutes.[6] In 2009, anAirbus A340-300 returning to its airport of departure shortly after takeoff[7] dumped 53 tons of fuel in 11 minutes.[8]
The average rate of descent of the dumped fuel is approximately 500 feet per minute (2.5 m/s). Air traffic control, after receiving information from the pilots executing the dumping procedure, usually separates other traffic by 2,000 feet (610 m) vertically and 5 nautical miles (9.3 kilometres) laterally, since the dumped vapours if ingested by a jet engine might cause serious problems to the engine's normal operation.
A dump-and-burn is a fuel dump in which the fuel is ignited, intentionally, using the plane'safterburner. A spectacular flame combined with high speed makes this a popular display forair shows or as a finale tofireworks. Dump-and-burns are also referred to as "torching" or "zippos".
TheGeneral Dynamics F-111 Aardvark's dump and burn is so powerful that it can set a runway on fire, as the flame burns rubber fromskid marks.[9] The aircraft was used for this purpose inAustralia during the closing ceremony of the2000 Summer Olympics[10] and (until 2010) regularly at Brisbane'sRiverfire and theAustralian Grand Prix. The F-111 is well suited to perform the dump-and-burn maneuver, as its fuel dump nozzle is located between the engine exhausts. It was also done at the retirement of the F-111C in 2010 at RAAF Amberly Air Base (A video is shown in the historical museum at the base by staff next to A8-126, aka the F-111 that did the final Dump-And-Burn).
