Low flying plane leaving trails that don't come from the engines [Fuel dump, Continental flight 009]

[Dylmar]

I just randomly came across this video on Facebook and was wondering what you guys made of it? The plane looks quite low and the trails being left behind it are not coming from the engines.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Looks like a fuel dump.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping

 

[Dylmar]

Thanks Trigger Hippie, I just came to the same conclusion.

 

[Dylmar]

I've just found a news article that explains the fuel dump. The flight was making an emergency landing in New Jersey.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/05/faa_probes_whether_damaged_tir.html

 

[WeedWhacker]

Thanks Trigger Hippie, I just came to the same conclusion.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with this instance. It has been mis-used repeatedly on YT and FB as so-called "proof" of "chem"trails.

That was Continental flight 009, KEWR - RJAA (Newark-Tokyo) May 9, 2010.

The original YT video:


The audio link of the ATC communications (edited for brevity, to remove normal gaps between transmissions):
https://app.box.com/shared/3ccex1l5ki

 

[Hama Neggs]

I've just found a news article that explains the fuel dump. The flight was making an emergency landing in New Jersey.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/05/faa_probes_whether_damaged_tir.html

Please be aware that the "chemtrail" movement is replete with constantly repeated misrepresentations like this one.

 

[Mick West]

See also:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...s-over-london-fuel-dump-new-jersey-2010.3385/

and

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...re-they-spraying-wingtip-fuel-dump-photo.645/

 

[WeedWhacker]

The thread referenced just above is debunking a specific image that was put out by a particularly prolific "chem"trail hoax and myth
promoter called "TankerEnemy".

This is a bloke from Italy (it appears) who is attempting to flood the "chem"trail market in order to profit from the credulous and gullible.

 

[Mick West]

Another video here with different footage.
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7431712

 

[WeedWhacker]

I suppose it might be worth pointing out, here, that when it comes to fuel "dumping" (or jettison) capability, not every commercial airliner
has that ability.

You will find it usually only on the larger airplanes, generally if it's a wide-body (more than one aisle in the passenger cabin is a guide), then it is an airplane designed with a wider range of maximum takeoff weights compared to maximum landing weights (since these airplanes are designed for more long-haul flight segments, hence more fuel capacity).

Example, although the B757 and B767 share a common type rating for pilots, due to certain systems commonality, the B757 (single aisle, "narrow body") does not usually have a fuel jettison system installed. Although, it was an option for those purchasing it, when it was in active production.

 

[Mick West]

I suppose it might be worth pointing out, here, that when it comes to fuel "dumping" (or jettison) capability, not every commercial airliner
has that ability.

Yes, I remember a Jet Blue A320 that had the front gear stuck sideways here at LAX, they have to circle for hours burning fuel before they could land. The passengers watched the whole thing live on Direct-TV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JetBlue_Airways_Flight_292

The pilots flew the aircraft, which can carry up to 46,860 pounds (21,255 kg) of aviation fuel, in a figure eight pattern between Bob Hope Airport in Burbank and LAX for more than two hours in order to burn fuel and lower the risk of fire upon landing. This also served to lighten the plane, reducing potential stress on the landing gear and dramatically lowering landing speed as well.[2][3] The Airbus A320 does not have the mechanical facility to dump fuel,[4] despite various news agencies reporting that the aircraft was doing so over the ocean.

Video of passengers watching themselves (skip about 2 minutes in)

 

[WeedWhacker]

Yes, I remember a Jet Blue A320 that had the front gear stuck sideways here at LAX, they have to circle for hours burning fuel before they could land.

Yes. The A319/320/321 series cannot jettison fuel. They are all "narrow bodies". Same with the B737. My personal experience in a B757 once was an "OverHeat" caution in the bleed air system associated with the left engine. (This was not a "Fire Warning", which has a different procedure).

This required reducing the engine's thrust to idle, to see if the light went out. If the light did not extinguish (indicating that the temperature had been reduced to acceptable level), then the engine had to be shut-down. This occurred to us climbing through about 18,000 after departing KEWR, en-route to Bogata, Colombia. Since the weather at KEWR was low ceilings, and snow, I elected to divert to Washington Dulles (KIAD), which was clear.

Since we had a lot of fuel, and could not jettison, we made an "over-weight" landing, which was appropriate for the situation (with one of two engines shut-down). Didn't have the 'luxury' of holding in the air to burn off the weight.