MAYDAY. Engine issue after takeoff. United Boeing 777 dumps fuel near San Francisco. Real ATC

[@norcalemt02]

I’m sure the residents of Santa Cruz must love having their area sprayed with Jet A.

[@programmer555]

That's more in the region of Las Trancas, well north of Santa Cruz. Not really much there except, well... nothing. Kinda close to Half Moon Bay but not really over it.

[@mjparker900]

After giving souls and fuel, then dumping most of the fuel, would it be normal to restate the remaining fuel (updating after dump)?

[@charlescanton4740]

They dump enough fuel to reduce the landing weight of the aircraft to a acceptable number in order to avoid landing at above the maximum certified landing weight. You don't dump down to minimum fuel and you can land overweight if necessary.

[@cruisinguy6024]

The fuel amount on board is really irrelevant for ATC and emergency purposes in a case like this. It makes no difference to them unless the aircraft is low on fuel and needs special min fuel / mayday fuel handling which is certainly not the situation here.

[@GigsTaggart]

​@@cruisinguy6024 It's irrelevant to atc but not to the fire service. ATC cares about time (in case it's low) and fire cares about pounds, in case they have to deal with it on fire and spilled everywhere. So it's plausible fire might ask for fuel in pound after dumping.

[@cruisinguy6024]

@@GigsTaggart it's irrelevant to ARFF as well - the knowledge of how much fuel is on board doesn't change anything about how they respond or operate. If there's a fuel leak they'll attempt to plug it regardless of how much fuel is remaining. That said, this event doesn't even involve leaking fuel. In event of engine issues the engine is shut down and fuel pump is cut so unless the wing was somehow damaged there's no fuel leak. On the topic of damaged wing, even IF it was damaged and leaking fuel the knowledge of how much was inside the wing still wouldn't change the situation for the fire crews.

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

@@cruisinguy6024of course it’s relevant. They need to know the potential risk. A heavy aircraft might end up with brake failures. They might end up not staying on the pavement. They can anticipate better with that kind of info.

[@cruisinguy6024]

That’s an EXPENSIVE dump!

[@christopherscragg7018]

Very rough math: 777 Fuel Usage ~2000 gal/hr 15 hours of fuel = ~30,000 gal Jet fuel cost = $2.00/gal Estimated fuel dump cost: $60,000 likely less because they obviously didn't dump all their fuel.

[@rogerrogerorger]

@@christopherscragg7018except jet fuel cost is $6/gallon. So probably more like $180,000

[@davestevens4193]

Like the pilots have lots of time to fill in ATC. Aviate, navigate, communicate.

[@cruisinguy6024]

Doing it right the first saves time overall. So if they were overloaded it’s their own fault for making things unnecessarily complicated and drug out.

[@Ndub1036]

💯

[@Ndub1036]

@@cruisinguy6024 doesn’t matter. There’s no right way. Declare the emergency. Anything else is icing on the cake. Communication comes last

[@cruisinguy6024]

@@Ndub1036 there quite literally is a right way though…..both the FAA and ICAO spell this out.

[@barryo5158]

Worthless 2 cents.

[@Ny_babs]

Hope that wasn't Blanco!

[@seanpellegrino2989]

Who is Blanco?

[@seanpellegrino2989]

@jasonrichards5854 right, except Juan doesn't fly for United. So I'm guessing this person is just confused.

[@JBN137]

@@seanpellegrino2989 He flies for AA, and seems most frequently out of LAX.

[@seanpellegrino2989]

@@JBN137 yep. I'm aware of that, which was why I commented that he doesn't fly for United. I was just wondering if this commenter knows someone named Blanco (which is a last name).

[@t288msd]

Omg. Such a low information initial mayday call. Gives ATC nothing to work with.

[@7andre]

Pilot calling seems annoyed they even have to declare. “We’re doing… procedure here… so…. (rolls eyes) MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY”

[@Ndub1036]

What do they need to work with? It’s a mayday aircraft. Handle like that

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

Mayday is all they need to know. What else do they need to know to “work with”?

[@andydaniel2]

The assumption here is that the pilots are busy and there's really nothing that ATC can do for them anyway except be aware that they should expect a return or diversion.

[@t288msd]

This is how its done kzbin.info/www/bejne/e4ikpIRpptGXpZosi=5zU_unb0r4LzGFKy&t=111

[@Da__goat]

Once again, United's bad SFO maintenance practices on display. Whoever is signing off on these B777s has absolutely ABYSMAL quality control as it seems like it's every other weekend that a United 777 has an engine problem. Somebody needs to get fired for this, it's absolutely pathetic at this point. It's ONLY at SFO.

[@coolguy4260]

I know someone who works at the United facility in SFO. All of these failed repairs are coming out of remote facilities.

[@qwerty112311]

What are you even talking about? Planes are maintained across the world. A departure from SFO doesn’t mean the plane was maintained at SFO. SFO is a massive wide body airport, so of course incidents will be over indexed there.

[@RegM86]

Thank you for stating this. SFO is a United hub with repair and maintenance facilities. Seems like most of the recent United incidents have occurred with SFO and DEN (also Hub) departures. Makes me think of deliberate sabotage by disgruntled techs.

[@joshilini2]

US pilots are so lazy with ATC. They care more about sounding cool than anything else over frequency. SEEE YA!

[@honolulu.spotter]

And what’s wrong with that? They can be cool and fly a plane at the same time.

[@Ndub1036]

Aviate, navigate, communicate. Anything beyond declaring an emergency is icing

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

Nobody cares about sounding cool.

[@LaraSierra28]

So they just dumped tons of jet fuel into Half Moon Bay? How is that legal?

[@honolulu.spotter]

The fuel burns up in the atmosphere before reaching the ground, it’s why UAL805 requested 6000 for the dump.

[@JBN137]

@@honolulu.spotter Um, not burned. Dissipates as an aerosol is a more accurate description.

[@cruisinguy6024]

@@honolulu.spotter Burns? No, most definitely not. It's supposed to dissipate but depending on conditions and, especially at lower altitudes, it can reach the ground.

[@cornbread83]

Happens very frequently all around the world.

[@in4merATP]

On what planet is it OK to dump fuel over inhabited landmass? Or within 20 miles of a coastline? They should've been sent off shore and given a holding fix

[@MCMXI1]

It eveporates long before it reaches the ground

[@YEETMAN-dt9mb]

As long as you are at 6000 feet, fuel dumping is allowed, as the fuel dissipates before reaching the ground.

[@qwerty112311]

Better to keep quiet and let people think you are an idiot than to talk and confirm it.

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

@@MCMXI1fuel disperses, it doesn’t evaporate.

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

The fuel will disperse at that altitude. Not a drop will hit the ground (or water) in that area.