Lets just dump some fuel

[AuxBatOn]

Or just do it and don't tell ATC...

No...don't.

Also don't pour raw fuel out into the atmosphere unless it is essential for the safe recovery of the aircraft.

If they're teaching this kind of stuff in Cold Lake these days it is wrong headed and irresponsible for a number of reasons. Realizing the military is not constrained by the CAR's, this provision is in there for a reason and I would be surprised if CFP 100 or more specific group orders don't contain the equivalent.

BTW, "appropriate measures" includes advising ATC.

Fuel Dumping Vidange de carburant

602.30 No person shall jettison fuel from an aircraft in flight unless

(a) it is necessary to do so in order to ensure aviation safety; and

(b) all appropriate measures are taken to minimize danger to human life and damage to the environment, insofar as the circumstances permit.

I don't advocate dumping fuel for no reason as it makes 0 sense on so many levels. But, if you find yourself in a situation where you need to dump fuel, don't let procedures drive your decision making or your timeline. I have dumped fuel before before telling ATC simply because it was time critical.

As far as appropriate measure including talking to ATC, could you please reference your statement or is it a personnal interpretation?

[TG]

They're Australian, probably practising for a F-111 dump and burn.

The Spartan seems like a cool airplane, but it ain't no Aardvark...

I think you missed Siddley's good sarcasm...

[Braun]

Or just do it and don't tell ATC...

No...don't.

Also don't pour raw fuel out into the atmosphere unless it is essential for the safe recovery of the aircraft.

If they're teaching this kind of stuff in Cold Lake these days it is wrong headed and irresponsible for a number of reasons. Realizing the military is not constrained by the CAR's, this provision is in there for a reason and I would be surprised if CFP 100 or more specific group orders don't contain the equivalent.

BTW, "appropriate measures" includes advising ATC.

Fuel Dumping Vidange de carburant

602.30 No person shall jettison fuel from an aircraft in flight unless

(a) it is necessary to do so in order to ensure aviation safety; and

(b) all appropriate measures are taken to minimize danger to human life and damage to the environment, insofar as the circumstances permit.

I don't advocate dumping fuel for no reason as it makes 0 sense on so many levels. But, if you find yourself in a situation where you need to dump fuel, don't let procedures drive your decision making or your timeline. I have dumped fuel before before telling ATC simply because it was time critical.

As far as appropriate measure including talking to ATC, could you please reference your statement or is it a personnal interpretation?

602.30 is pretty clear what actions a pilot/crew should take should the need to dump fuel arise...

[AuxBatOn]

Except the RAAF like the RCAF are not bound by CARs... And it doesn't talk about ATC.

[Meatservo]

Obviously the comment I'm about to make is not constructive but still:

This thread has gone from "I don't give a flying @#$!" to "why don't all of you petty chest-beating imbeciles shut the @#$! up"

[linecrew]

The C-27J is such a tiny little airplane...about the size of a Dash-8 100/200. How much fuel did it actually dump?

[Rockie]

As far as appropriate measure including talking to ATC, could you please reference your statement or is it a personnal interpretation?

From the ATC MANOPS:

701 FUEL DUMPING

701.1
If information is received that an aircraft plans to dump fuel, obtain the following information:

A. The proposed track to be flown.
B. Altitude of the fuel dumping procedure.
C. The period of time involved.
D. The weather conditions in which the operation will be carried out.
E. Communication limitations during the fuel dumping procedure.
F. Transponder restrictions, if any, during the fuel dumping procedure.

701.2
Restrict the aircraft dumping fuel to an altitude 2,000 feet or more above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 5 miles of the track to be flown. If necessary, consult with the aircraft to determine an appropriate altitude.

701.3
You may request an aircraft to fly a different track.

701.4
You should encourage an aircraft intending to dump fuel, to do so:
A. on a constant heading;
B. over an unpopulated area; and
C. clear of heavy traffic areas.

701.5
Separate an IFR or a CVFR aircraft until 15 minutes after a fuel dump has ended by:
A. 10 miles laterally and longitudinally from the track of the aircraft dumping fuel;
B. 15 minutes longitudinally from the aircraft dumping fuel; or
C. 6,000 feet below and 3,000 feet above the altitude of the aircraft dumping fuel.

701.6
Arrange for a warning to be broadcast on appropriate frequencies for uncontrolled traffic, at a reasonable time before fuel dumping begins.

701.7
Arrange for a notice of completion to be broadcast at the end of the warning period.


From the AIM:

6.3.4 Fuel Dumping

Whenever it is necessary to jettison fuel, the pilot should immediately notify ATC and provide information such as the course to be flown, the period of time and weather conditions. To allow for adequate vaporization, fuel dumping should be carried out at least 2 000 feet above the highest obstacle within 5 NM of the track to be flown. ATC may suggest an alternate area where fuel should be dumped; aircraft will be encouraged to dump fuel on a constant heading over unpopulated areas and clear of heavy traffic. When necessary information has been obtained, ATC will broadcast on appropriate frequencies a “fuel dumping” advisory. Pilots should advise ATC immediately when fuel dumping has been completed.


Note that neither the regulation, or the ATC and pilot procedures ensuing from that regulation have anything to do with fuel conservation. It is also impossible to imagine how ATC could fulfill their responsibility WRT fuel dumping unless the pilot told them he was going to do it. As the military is a joint user of civilian controlled airspace your regulations and procedures are consistent - if not identical - to ours except where operational necessity dictates otherwise. This is not one of those cases.

[AuxBatOn]

Operational necessity can be large and I have never seen anybody in trouble for dumping fuel before landing (to reduce landing weight and minimize time airborne). We are not bound by the ATC MANOPS and the legislation doesn't explixitly tell us we need to advisw ATC. Just need to make sure you minimize risk to others and the environment. I can think of 1000 ways to do this...

[Rockie]

Operational necessity can be large and I have never seen anybody in trouble for dumping fuel before landing (to reduce landing weight and minimize time airborne).

You wouldn't in the civilian world either, it is a PIC responsibility and decision as he/she is solely responsible for the safety of the flight.

We are not bound by the ATC MANOPS.

Civilian ATC is, which brings me back to my question about how they are supposed to fulfill that responsibility if you don't tell them. Also before you make statements like that you should ask your local military ATC unit what their regulations say.

the legislation doesn't explixitly tell us we need to advisw ATC.

No it doesn't, it says "should" for a reason. Do you have to be explicitly told to do something before you'll do it no matter how much sense it makes?

Just need to make sure you minimize risk to others and the environment. I can think of 1000 ways to do this...

Why make up 999 other ways when there is a published one that works and everybody else is doing it?

I mean really...why are you arguing with this? Why not just admit you learned something here you didn't previously know?

[Braun]

I'm with Rockie. Even though you aren't "bound" by CAR's or manops every single mil pilot I have dealt
with has flown, to my knowledge, within CAR's except when operating MARSA or within active military designated airspace. Every pilot, F18 included, has told me if they needed anything special even though they aren't "bound" to do so.

[Confliction]

[AuxBatOn]

I'm with Rockie. Even though you aren't "bound" by CAR's or manops every single mil pilot I have dealt
with has flown, to my knowledge, within CAR's except when operating MARSA or within active military designated airspace. Every pilot, F18 included, has told me if they needed anything special even though they aren't "bound" to do so.

I can guarantee you not too many pilots know where to find the CARs, nevermind adhering to them. They follow 1 CAD orders and BG-A-100. In many respects, they are similar to the CARs but there are caveats, somtimes very subtle.

Yup, most will tell you what they are doing. But because they do so doesn't mean they have to. I see this as professionnal courtesy. And often they will not tell you. But you don't know about those. I know for a fact guys dump fuel on some short transits because of runway conditions at destination and most won't tell ATC.

Rockie: The MANOPs procedure starts when a pilot tells them they need to dump fuel. Not when a pilot dumps fuel (see the subtle difference). If a pilot doesn't tell them, they don't have to follow it but it is still very much legal for the pilot to sump fuel, provided it is for safety of flight or operarional necessity and you don't hurt anybody or the environment.

[Rockie]

Auxbaton

You're missing the point. It is legal for civilians to dump fuel if they have to without telling ATC, remember my earlier reference to the word "should". In that regard you as a military pilot are no different. However there are recommended procedures that you are now aware of that have been put in place for a reason.

Sure, you could ignore them if you wanted, but why would you? It's just a radio call informing ATC which shouldn't be beyond your capability. Armed with that information ATC can now carry out their procedures to ensure the safety of other airplanes sharing the sky with you. In a similar vein you are not subject to the airspeed order either, and could legally ignore a request to maintain 250 knots below 10,000 if you were landing at a civilian airport. But if you were capable of it and it would make ATC's job easier why would you refuse?

I'm also not convinced military ATC doesn't have similar procedures and if you check with your brethren hauling trash they probably do to. In any event, now you are aware that civilians regard dumping raw fuel into the atmosphere rather seriously and have procedures in place to minimize potentially adverse consequences and ensure the safety of other airplanes. Tell your friends. And next time you need to dump gas make the extra effort to tell ATC about it whether you are talking to a civilian or a military controller. They'll appreciate it.

Or don't - your choice.

[AuxBatOn]

Rockie,

Within reason, I advise ATC if I have to dump fuel. However, what that C-27 did is NOT wrong. I think it was the point of the discussion...

[Rockie]

Rockie,

Within reason, I advise ATC if I have to dump fuel. However, what that C-27 did is NOT wrong. I think it was the point of the discussion...

The C-27 CADORS was raised because dumping fuel warrants it in our world. The discussion ensued because you wondered in the next post what the issue was, and then doubled down later by suggesting people just dump gas and not tell ATC. Again, that's not how it's done in our world for reasons you can boast to your buds on squadron that you are now aware of.

Nobody has suggested dumping fuel is wrong provided it's done for a reason, which seems to be difficult to justify given the information in the CADORS. No emergency and an airplane that appears capable of safely landing with the fuel he had on board. But, there may be more information not revealed in the report. It's a good topic for discussion on a forum like this even with the side track it took as a result of your comments. Everybody gets to learn something.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask you about this:

"I had fuel (at 500 lbs a minute) directly sprayed directly into one of my intakes. It is not dangerous, unless th roman candles are lit, in which case you just deselect afterburner to out the fire out."

Does GE say it's no big deal to ingest raw fuel into the engine at 500 lbs/min? It's not like it's rain water and I can't imagine that was incorporated into the design specs. I can only imagine what early ignition as the high pressure fuel/air mixture transitions from the cold to the hot section would do.

[leftoftrack]

what happened?

[NotDirty!]

what happened?

A Royal Australian Air Force Spartan C27J, flight ASY636, was participating in a multi aircraft
mission en route from KTCM (Mc Chord AFB, Tacoma, WA) to PACD (Cold Bay, AK). While in
Canadian airspace, the flight reported to ATC that they were returning to KTCM after dumping fuel
southeast of Tofino, BC. There was no emergency; the mission had just been aborted. ATC did not
know where, when, or how much fuel was dumped.

It often helps to read the original post to determine what the hell a thread is talking about; although, given the degree of thread drift that occurs in these forums, it may be beneficial to read the subsequent posts as well.

[AuxBatOn]

Does GE say it's no big deal to ingest raw fuel into the engine at 500 lbs/min? It's not like it's rain water and I can't imagine that was incorporated into the design specs. I can only imagine what early ignition as the high pressure fuel/air mixture transitions from the cold to the hot section would do.

GE says nothing about this (good or bad). No restriction. From personnal experience however (I had a KC-135 hose burst right in front of me pre-contact and a wingman of mine ripped a basket off) it did nothing to the engines. I suspect most of it went through the (small but there) fan section. It was momentary (5-10 seconds) but it is not different than any aircraft that would cross path with an aircraft dumping fuel. Not to mention everytime there is a mist coming out of the hose while tanking... Enough to soak luggage in the luggage pod.

Safery wise, my personnal experience leads me to believe there is nothing dangerous. Environment wise, if you are above 5000 feet, it will be evaporated before it reaches the ground.

[Rockie]

No restriction. Does GE specifically restrict ingesting ball peen hammers?

Most people (including me) would regard a highly compressed fuel/air mixture in a part of the engine it's not supposed to be as bad. I don't think the fact yours didn't instantly blow up is sufficient impirical evidence to declare it as not dangerous. There is an incident with a super hornet that lost his right engine after a similar occurrence to yours. And the ATC procedures in place for fuel dumping seem to indicate Transport Canada considers it a risk as well.

[AuxBatOn]

Throwing a rigid object object would be unusual. Ingesting raw JP-5/8 in an engine is a fairly common thing to happen when to refuel. I would expect GE to at least issue a caution if it was an issue (it does for hard objects).

We are talking about having the hose pretty much directly in the intake giving you 50PSI in a 4 inch tube. This is to illustrate that the fear of dumped gas not directly into your engine is a false one.

Not being a couple miles from a much gentlier dump and a thousand feet below. In this case, the mixture is so diluted with air that you wouldn't even feel it's there.

Again, ATC will only clear airspace if they know and nothing wrong with not telling them. Hell, what would you do if you were unable to call ATC. (Happens all the time in Northern Ontario).. I guess I'll just make a bad situation worse by not dumping and setting up for a heavy approach.

[Rockie]

Your last post suggests you see no difference between being unable to inform ATC and choosing not to. Is that correct?

[AuxBatOn]

According to the law, it is the exact same...

[Rockie]

According to the law, it is the exact same...

Not even remotely the same, but that isn't what I asked.

[Shady McSly]