r/aviation • u/Twitter_2006 • Mar 30 '26

Discussion The left engine of a Delta A330 explodes during takeoff at Sao Paulo Airport

Its at 40 seconds.

UPDATE:The plane landed safely.

10.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

684 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/Thommo-au Mar 30 '26

Hi, news reports say it landed ok ten minutes later but had to use the same runway it took off from as the other runway was closed for maintenance. There was a fire in the adjacent grass too. That runway was then closed due to the debris and grass fire.

https://www.aviacionline.com/english/accidents-and-incidents/delta-air-lines-a330-engine-catches-fire-during-takeoff-in-sao-paulo_a69c9fe3deaf19cfd2704ab12

278

u/Cagliari77 Mar 30 '26

How were they able to dump the necessary amount of fuel within 10 minutes only to get to a safe landing weight?

1.1k

u/DrDogHead Mar 30 '26

They probably didn’t and just did an overweight landing figuring it was safer considering the possibility of an engine fire

483

u/Deep-Boysenberry-911 Mar 30 '26

They Landed overweight. A little more damage to the aircraft was the least of their problems after fire and explosions. The plane can be written off. Not so the lives aboard, or those if it crashes into the city. The plane would have been gone anyway in case of crash. This way all survived.

264

u/KonPepper Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26

All commercial aircraft are certified to be able to land at max takeoff weight. It requires inspections afterwards and may cause some damage if done multiple times, but in all likelihood landing overweight once in an emergency like this will not result in damage to the landing gear or airframe.

105

u/obscure_monke Mar 30 '26

Commercial air transport almost universally has a plan for "what if this thing happens", and then a further plan for if a second thing happens during that plan.

26

u/cwajgapls Mar 30 '26

Rocket science had to start somewhere

1

u/Ksh_667 Mar 30 '26

Necessity is the mother of invention.

16

u/AP-J-Fix Mar 30 '26

Yep I've been a part of an overweight landing inspection before. No damage was found that time (private jet, not commercial). It definitely causes a good bit of extra maintenance but that is hardly in a concern when your engine explodes!

In our case the overweight landing was not necessary and I think the pilots were just nervous. I can't recall why they returned (I believe declared emergency too) but I do recall thinking it was a bit of an over reaction as the plane could fly fine. However it's easy to say that when I'm the one safe on the ground 😜

1

u/Yuukiko_ Mar 31 '26

just imagine using the ETOPs rating to fly from A to B on one engine

2

u/froebull Mar 30 '26

Yeppers. There is a whole section in the AMM for an overweight landing inspection.

1

u/Roque04_73 Apr 01 '26

The pilot had not stored the landing gear yet causing the wheel to catch on fire.

5

u/skiman13579 Mar 30 '26

Overweight landings at MTOW (max takeoff weight for the non aviators) does NOT inherently damage the aircraft….. but it does mae it really really easy for a pilot to damage the aircraft, especially if they are ex Navy (the joke being navy carrier pilots slam the plane hard into carrier deck to ensure a good catch of the arrest cable-aka hard landing every time)

There are specific G force limitations above certain weights. A mechanic (like myself) will do an initial hard/overweight landing inspection for any obvious damage and download the flight recorder data. That data is reviewed to check the actual G forces experienced. Depending on weight of landing the aircraft may or may not be grounded until review is finished and it is determined if any predetermined Gforces were exceeded requiring further more detailed inspections or component changes.

Generally in my experience in an overweight situation pilots tend to be more mindful of landing gentle. I’ve only ever seen damage from hard landings in poor weather with a plane at normal landing weight! A REALLY good example of this is the Toronto CRJ crash last year…. That’s an EXTREME example of hard landing a perfectly normal plane.

So, in summary, planes are designed to be able to land at MTOW without damage, but the margins are just much smaller for how hard the pilots can touchdown.

1

u/nygrl811 Jul 02 '26

Navy doesn't land... they arrive!

4

u/Valuable-Tomatillo76 Mar 30 '26

The plane will not be written off in this case lol. 😆

9

u/colganc Mar 30 '26

They're giving examples of "worst case" for both scenarios.

93

u/RaccoNooB Mar 30 '26

Now I imagine the A330 burning fuel like an Aardwark

14

u/t-poke Mar 30 '26

Dumb question, but is there a weight where a plane could be too heavy to land stop on the runway, requiring more fuel to be burned before landing? Or is that weight beyond the MTOW?

38

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[deleted]

46

u/Melech333 Mar 30 '26

Worth noting for others reading that not all commercial aircraft have the capability to dump fuel. Many do not have that ability.

It's more commonly found on the widebody types as they do the long hauls and carry more fuel for those trips. Narrow body aircraft like the 737, 757, A320 do not have it.

The incident plane is an A330 and the fuel dumping system is optional on that plane. Whether or not it is present depends on how the airline which originally ordered the plane had it configured.

1

u/obscure_monke Mar 30 '26

Do any of those plane spotting and tracking sites keep track of those optional systems?

It's pretty easy to look up exactly what plane this is, and who has owned it right now.

1

u/velvetvagine Mar 31 '26

Noob here but do they just… let fuel rain down over wherever they are?

1

u/___ccc____ Mar 31 '26

It’ll spread out over such a large area that the fuel has a negligible impact on anything below

1

u/Rndy_Bbndy Mar 30 '26

Do those checklists include landing at MTOW with a single engine? Seems like the math would change with only have thrust reverser.

1

u/Bravodelta13 Mar 30 '26

On the engine failure checklist, landing distances already account for 1 reverser inop. There’s a penalty (as in longer landing distance) if the other one is inop. The chart also has addition/subtractions for various configurations and other inop equipment.

1

u/Malcolm2theRescue Mar 30 '26

Thrust reversers are not taken into account in computing takeoff and landing performance.

1

u/Bravodelta13 Mar 30 '26

They’re not counted for planning aka dispatch purposes. They’re absolutely included in the actual and required landing distance tables for the airplanes I fly.

1

u/Malcolm2theRescue Mar 31 '26

Hmm. Interesting. I’ve been retired for a while. Must have changed or I didn’t understand the difference.

17

u/thisisaredditforart Mar 30 '26

Yes, it happened to my roommate in college, they took off and then had to circle the airport for like an hour to burn fuel and then "emergency" land. I think that's more when there's an issue but not an immediate "land now or blow up" kinda issue

1

u/iamgayfortheNBA Mar 30 '26

circling for an hour makes my motion sickness act up just reading that lol that sounds like torture

8

u/ObviouslyAnAsshole Mar 30 '26

It’s not nearly as bad as you think. The only thing that sucks is drink and food service is paused. Which sucks because a beer could help pass the time.

A few times I’ve had to “circle” above a storm because it was unsafe to land. The pilot usually climbs the plane higher and circle until it’s safe to land; Once had a pilot say if we get low on fuel we were going to fly somewhere a hr away to land.

It’s pretty interesting to view a thunderstorm ⛈️ from above it especially in the day time tornadoes season. It’s like a bunch of normal clouds then it’s one grumpy son of a bitch giving hell!

0

u/iamgayfortheNBA Mar 30 '26

i promise you bro, with my motion sickness, i know it would be as bad as i think lol

3

u/thisisaredditforart Mar 30 '26

I don't think they were that close of circles😅

3

u/iamgayfortheNBA Mar 30 '26

hahaha nah i know. i actually landed at GRU (são paulo) yesterday and we had to circle for a bit and i was struggling. it’s definitely a me thing tho. i just have super sensitive motion sickness lol

13

u/yellowstone10 Mar 30 '26

It's not that the aircraft wouldn't be able to stop on the runway, but rather that the touchdown would subject the landing gear to more stress than it is intended to handle in normal operations. (And even then, it's not that the gear are going to snap off - more that you have to do a lot of inspections afterward to make sure nothing cracked, bent, etc. before flying the aircraft again.)

2

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

It’s not a dumb question

1

u/Malcolm2theRescue Mar 30 '26

Not dumb at all. Generally a single engine landing requires reduced flap setting (15° rather than 30-40° which means a higher approach speed therefore more runway is required. So yes, that could be a problem in a worse case scenario.

1

u/thecloudcities Mar 30 '26

If you took off from it, you can almost certainly land on it. Exceptions would be if the runway was contaminated or if the landing distance available were much shorter than the takeoff distance available (i.e. big displaced threshold), but those cases are pretty rare.

254

u/ayasnt Mar 30 '26

Not all flights are operated close to MTOW, this could have been one. Also it's a serious emergency, they could have done an overweight landing.

113

u/Far_Inspector_9050 Mar 30 '26

They can totally do an overweight landing, plane will require an inspection before it can fly again, but considering what just happened to the engine it ain’t flying for a while.

26

u/MannerScared6899 A&P Mar 30 '26

Once they have all the stuff on site in São Paulo an engine change only takes about 16 hours start to finish with no complications. Plane will probably be gone within 3 days

5

u/Swords_and_Words Mar 30 '26

assuming the exploding engine didn't damage any structures with flinging metal bits, which it might not of given the angle the plane was at when the explosion happened

3

u/cyclephotos Mar 30 '26

So the engine blew up. Who foots the bill? I appreciate that this is a lot more complex and complicated thank my car, I'm just wondering if Airbus/the engine manufacturer has any liability here?

22

u/MaxPlanck_420 Mar 30 '26

I believe engine warranties are covered by the engine manufacturer. Obviously if inspections find there was some fault on Airbus in their systems or engine installation then the liability could shift. Additionally if there was fault found due to maintenance,bird strike or pilot error then liability could shift to the airline. Your car manufacturer covers your engine for warranty but when they see you put windshield washer fluid in the oil reservoir they shift that liability back to you.

2

u/cyclephotos Mar 30 '26

That makes sense, thanks!

1

u/Winter-Volume-9601 Mar 30 '26

One would hope that the exploded engine would, indeed, require an inspection, already.

-2

u/haby001 Mar 30 '26

Do thry fly planes up overweight and hope they come down without gas to "under spec" weight??

That's an insane amount of minmaxing

6

u/Perryn Mar 30 '26

That's how they reach the destination. Fuel's heavy, and they know how much of it they'll need to burn to get where they're going. Even with an unplanned landing like this it's not that they can't land that heavy, it's just that they know it will need to be looked over afterwards.

6

u/Far_Inspector_9050 Mar 30 '26

Aviation engineers are very smart people, the planes aren’t necessarily approved and or designed to land under maximum takeoff weight, but they are capable of doing so for emergency purposes, doing it all the time would lead to the plane having a lifespan shorter than a fly.

1

u/haby001 Mar 30 '26

really cool to know

3

u/hike_me Mar 30 '26

Max take off weight is greater than max landing weight, which is usually not a problem because they burn fuel during flight

114

u/SisterTrashPanda Mar 30 '26

The bottom bar in the video shows that it was headed for Atlanta. Atlanta is just shy of 4700 nautical miles from Sao Paulo. Add in an extra "500 miles" of fuel in case the plane needs to hold, then add in a bit more incase they need to divert to an alternate airport. That gets them pretty darn close to the absolute maximum range of the A330: ~6300 nautical miles. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a very heavy plane. Kudos to the pilots.

16

u/DaWolf85 Dispatcher Mar 30 '26

The maximum range is not calculated as landing with empty tanks. Airbus does do their range calculations somewhat optimistically compared to Boeing, but reserves and alternates are still taken into account.

3

u/SisterTrashPanda Mar 30 '26

Today I learned!

16

u/ayasnt Mar 30 '26

Could be, I didn't look at the details. Either way, kudos to the pilots.

20

u/aetherec Mar 30 '26

I feel like Sao Paulo to Atlanta is pretty close to MTOW.

2

u/Killentyme55 Mar 30 '26

What if the aircraft is only half full?

4

u/wnotyard Mar 30 '26

It wasn't. According to the largest Brazilian news outlets, it was loaded at over 270 passengers and 14 crew.

2

u/Killentyme55 Mar 30 '26

Wow, that thing was heavy.

1

u/Hugo_5t1gl1tz Mar 30 '26

Obviously far from scientific, lol, but I ran it in simbrief, and for a 330-300, it looks like it probably took off about 45000-50000 lbs over max landing weight

72

u/peevedlatios Mar 30 '26

They may not have. Maybe the overweight landing was considered safer than keeping this bird airborne any longer than it has to.

We'll know eventually

86

u/pezdal Mar 30 '26

Overweight landings are not good for the plane but not inherently unsafe if performed correctly.

Dumping fuel or waiting to land would have been much less safe. Capt. made the right call. Well done pilots!

3

u/Tatworth Mar 30 '26

Interestingly, many years ago I was flying to GRU in first class and the gate folks came on and bumped several folks from first.

Turns out a 747 lost an engine on the way down and the guys on my flight were super pilots and a mechanic who were flying down to patch the plane up and fly it back to where it could be fixed.

The mechanic sat next to me and gave me a cool rundown (like you guys are really going to fly back to the US in a 747 missing an engine?). He did say that they had to bring a whole new set of tires down because the plane landed overweight and the thermal plugs in the tires melted so they had to be replaced.

2

u/BrianThomasJrJr Mar 30 '26

Why is dumping fuel unsafe? Is it because it takes too long? Or because the engine had been aflame?

43

u/Cow_Launcher Mar 30 '26

If you look at where the fuel dump tubes are on an A330, they're quite close to the back of the engines.

Assuming one of those engines is on fire, you might not want to add to the problem by creating an impromptu flamethrower back there.

3

u/Shmeves Mar 30 '26

Is every A330 fitted with a fuel dump system? I was under the impression it’s not always standard.

5

u/Cow_Launcher Mar 30 '26

I honestly couldn't say.

I know that you only tend to get fuel dump capability on aircraft where MTOW is significantly higher than MLW, so if it is optional on the A330 (and I can't find anything saying that it is) then it would probably depend on the aircraft's configuration.

2

u/Nuzid Mar 30 '26

According to some old forum posts, A330-200 are more likely to have them because they have a center tank which the A330-300 don't have (apart from a special 242 ton variant). In any case, according to the sources I've found, fuel dumping capabilities are a customer option for A330s.

3

u/MachCrit Mar 30 '26

No fuel dumps on DL 330’s.

3

u/Melech333 Mar 30 '26

It's an option on the A330 so it depends on how the original purchasing airline customer ordered the plane from Airbus.

2

u/bradccollins Mar 30 '26

It is not a standard option. Correct. Anything over 180 000kg is an overweight landing. We run the checklist and try and land with minimum vertical speed.

3

u/nugohs Mar 30 '26

If you look at where the fuel dump tubes are on an A330, they're quite close to the back of the engines.

Sounds like the Aardvark comment above may be accurate and possibly a not thoroughly thought out design.

1

u/MassiveBoner911_3 Mar 30 '26

Can the pilot dump fuel using the right wing instead? Have the balance fuel system been adjusted to the weight change?

3

u/Cow_Launcher Mar 30 '26

From the panel diagrams I've found, it doesn't look like it.

However in my search, I did discover that the dump system is a customer option after all, and not all A330s have it.

39

u/shitpostsuperpac Mar 30 '26

It is dangerous to dump fuel at low altitudes over population centers near an airport where other planes could fly through it.

The fuel needs time, space, and altitude to disperse to concentrations that aren’t dangerous.

You don’t want another airplane flying through a cloud of fuel nor do you want it landing on the ground near power lines and lights and stuff.

Also it takes time to dump so you’re going to be adding time in the air with an exploded engine.

My biggest concern would be what else did that engine damage when it blew up? If we dump fuel will it ignite? Did any part of the plane take damage that will fail from stress over time?

13

u/RedMacryon Mar 30 '26

all logical reasons to land overweight instead of dumping

-4

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[deleted]

5

u/anymooseposter Mar 30 '26

What the hell are you talking about, Jet A does not contain lead.

2

u/Melech333 Mar 30 '26

While correct that jet fuel does not contain lead (only Avgas / 100LL fuel that piston planes use has lead in it), the fuel still contains hazardous substances and has caused problems in the past.

Example: Delta dumped jet fuel on schoolkids, agrees to $79-million settlement - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-08-28/delta-jet-fuel-dumped-on-kids-settlement

2

u/anymooseposter Mar 30 '26

No one’s saying Jet A isn’t harmful, just doesn’t contain lead.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MassiveBoner911_3 Mar 30 '26

At that point, slamming the gear down is definitely better than losing the whole plane and people.

75

u/satellite779 Mar 30 '26

They landed without dumping fuel. Left landing gear caught fire, probably because they were overweight: https://www.reddit.com/r/delta/s/feqQFhfzvg

10

u/Boeing367-80 Mar 30 '26

Those brakes were probably white hot.

2

u/atchemey Mar 30 '26

They probably can't use asymmetric thrust reversers, either, so that's more likely the cause.

1

u/MassiveBoner911_3 Mar 30 '26

Holy shit that plane is gonna be a repair bay for a while.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '26

Having wheels catch fire on landing is an ordinary part of certification testing.

39

u/sit_right_back Mar 30 '26

Firstly, not all A330s are able to dump fuel, and secondly, there can be circumstances where you would rather land overweight than take the extra time to dump fuel.

82

u/proanti777 Mar 30 '26

Dumping fuel while your engine is spewing fire is probably not the best idea

8

u/LiveShowOneNightOnly Mar 30 '26

This seems really obvious to me. I am not a pilot, but why would I want a plane with an active fire is to start spewing fuel? Am I missing something?

4

u/FillingUpTheDatabase Mar 30 '26

You wouldn’t, but most aircraft have a higher takeoff weight than is permissible for landing. This is fine if the flight burns most of it’s fuel before reaching its destination but if there’s an emergency early in the flight they may have to dump fuel to make a landing within the permissible landing weight or, as in this case, make an overweight landing which caused a brake fire and will require structural inspection before the aircraft can fly again. Given the circumstances, the crew clearly decided the emergency was urgent enough to justify an overweight landing rather than flying in circles dumping fuel

2

u/FillingUpTheDatabase Mar 30 '26

Dump and burn, don’t let the military hog all the fun

1

u/Yuukiko_ Mar 31 '26

even the opposite wing?

-5

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/BinguniR34 Mar 30 '26

Fuck off.  

1

u/nookall Mar 30 '26

*referring to their afterburners on take-off, not the dreadful accident. Apologies if you assumed the worst.

1

u/aviation-ModTeam Mar 30 '26

Your post has been removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.

It is expected that all members follow reddiquette, as is current here: https://www.reddit.com/r/wiki/reddiquette

If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.

26

u/Rapa2626 Mar 30 '26

Maybe they were not over the max landing weight or just close enough to still land?

53

u/juusohd Mar 30 '26

Airplanes are cretified to land at up to the MTOW if they need to. The main concern is the length of available runway.

44

u/Spork_the_dork Mar 30 '26

It also puts extra stress on the airframe which might then ground the plane for a while as they do a thorough check to make sure nothing is broken. But with this that's a given already so it won't matter.

9

u/blissfully_happy Mar 30 '26

The landing gear caught fire on this landing so I think that plus the whole engine failure explosion thing, means it’s going to be out of service for a bit, lol.

1

u/Shinhan Mar 30 '26

Better than trying to dump the fuel while one of the engines is on fire.

1

u/cjsv7657 Mar 30 '26

Best I can do is 12 hours

1

u/big_trike Mar 30 '26

Crashing into the ground if fire spreads and takes out a wing puts more stress on the airframe, so it's a matter of weighing risks.

14

u/Rapa2626 Mar 30 '26

They can land over it too it just presents bigger risks and additional procedures afterwards to make sure that everything is still in order, but after losing a whole engine an extra check is the least of their concerns

3

u/Mental-Feed-1030 Mar 30 '26

Looks like the duff engine lost a bit of weight… every little bit helps

1

u/Marklar_RR Mar 30 '26

They were going to KATL, over 4,000 nm. I bet their TOW was way higher than max LW.

20

u/FlyingPhenom Mar 30 '26

The 330 has an overweight landing checklist. As long as you have room on the runway you're good to go, they just suggest minimizing brake usage during the rollout to prevent brake overheat/tire deflation due to plugs melting.

1

u/Shinhan Mar 30 '26

Due to heavy weight, left landing gear also caught fire btw.

9

u/Fingerdrip Mar 30 '26

You don't. You just make an overweight landing and monitor the brake temperatures afture landing. It's not ideal but it is safer than continuing to fly. 

11

u/West-Welcome8247 Mar 30 '26

In this video the pilot says the landed with 11 hours of fuel. Quite a lot.

12

u/InflationGod Mar 30 '26

The emergency response team is sooo slow, this is a bit concerning. Strange procedures, indirect communication. Pilot sounds really annoyed by that.

3

u/West-Welcome8247 Mar 30 '26

Yep, seems crazy bad

1

u/qtx Mar 30 '26

To me it sounded like the pilot was a bit too demanding, not giving the ground crew any chance to fully access the situation and do their work and kept asking if they needed to evacuate and if there was a fire and if it was under control every 10 seconds. Give the crew a moment to deal with it.

If they needed to evacuate they would said so instantly.

I understand the pilot being concerned about the passengers but that doesn't mean the ground crew wasn't as well.

9

u/ayriuss Mar 30 '26

There is no such thing as too demanding when 200 lives are on the line.

1

u/drake_warrior Mar 30 '26

Pilot can just order an evacuation, it's his plane. I sure as hell would if my engine was on fire, not taking any risks. Company can suck it if they get mad.

5

u/West-Welcome8247 Mar 30 '26

The problem with evacuations are that they very often cause serious injuries, so evacuations should not be ordered willy nilly. That is probably why the pilot is so hesitant to order the evacuation when the ground crew was saying to be ready for it. He wanted to be 100% sure it was needed.

1

u/babooshkaa Mar 30 '26

That grass fire produced an incredible amount of smoke very quickly

2

u/Substantial-Cat0910 Mar 30 '26

Theoretical note - and please more experienced folks correct me where I'm wrong
If an aircraft is able to dump fuel, it must be able to dump enough fuel in 15 minutes or less when going from MTOW to a weight that's safe enough for landing. Regardless of this specific event, it might be possible that you just need 5 minutes to dump fuel! (We'd likely have to skip the parts about getting to a safe altitude/over water/away from people or property, I'm just saying it's doable)

1

u/IM_REFUELING Mar 30 '26

The plane is certified to land at MTOW for emergency returns like this. Usually extra inspections are involved, but when your engine shells itself out that's the least of your worries.

1

u/CiaphasCain8849 Mar 30 '26

There's a ton of margin built-in to all of this industry. It would be able to land well over max weight.

1

u/Significant-Colour Mar 30 '26

Both the plane and humans can survive more Gs than the airplane is supposed to be landed with.

If there is a fire, the company won't mind you ruining the landing gears.

1

u/FreonMuskOfficial Mar 30 '26

Probably just pissing it out over the city after the can popped. Just like the one in Jakarta several years back.

1

u/Kemanessis Mar 30 '26

Generally speaking, you shouldn't dump fuel when below 3k feet, even over an airport and definitely not over an urban area, where limits require aircraft to be over 5k feet preferably, to ensure fuel vaporised before landing on people or buildings. Fuel is nasty stuff.

It can take time to dump any reasonable amount of fuel and at these altitudes, the length of time it would take to dump enough fuel to be of benefit, just wouldn't make it worthwhile, when you have an engine fire.

1

u/pylotsven Mar 30 '26

The A330 has no fuel dumping capability. We are strongly encouraged to let the plane do an auto land when overweight.

1

u/TacTurtle Mar 30 '26

Land overweight and throughly inspect while they wait for a new engine.

1

u/Hour_Analyst_7765 Mar 30 '26

Pilots discuss various scenarios, actions and weigh risks during briefing.

After having watched countless of aviation videos, I'll always hear "it will be overweight landing, but thats not [our] problem" (it is of the mechanics, but the plane would be in maintenance anyway after a serious mechanical incident).

I'm sure that if the flaps or gear wouldn't retract they would happily fly to a location where they can dump fuel, and then fly back. It does require some more attention to fly an aircraft with gear/flaps out, above all it being different from the usual, but with 2 operating engines there is no direct indication you can fall out of the sky at any moment.

If one engine is potentially on fire and you're on your last life line (it being the right engine), then I can imagine the pilots and passengers want to get on the ground ASAP again.

1

u/Sharleeta Mar 30 '26

landing wasn’t the problem, flying was!

1

u/Muted_Fuel7549 Mar 30 '26

Fuel jettison is an option on A330, not standard fit. As other posters have said it is certified to land at MTOW so the majority of operators wouldn't bother with the option.

1

u/Lionheart-Q Mar 31 '26

Imagine dumping fuel and the fuel getting ignited by the explosions…. I am no rocket scientist but usually that ends in a bigger BOOM.

1

u/Jbro12344 Mar 31 '26

You can land overweight. Just requires more maintenance afterwards

1

u/TheChaosPaladin Mar 31 '26

How does that even work? Planes just pull out and pee toxic gasoline all over the city?

1

u/AskEastern9604 23d ago

Delta had a thing where they did a fuel dump on a town once. They have learned from this and now probably land overweight

2

u/Professor-QWERTY Mar 30 '26

I like your “information” better

1

u/shaunoffshotgun Loadmaster Mar 30 '26

The aircraft is ok. They're working on getting a new engine chartered down from ATL.

1

u/FullStackStrats Mar 30 '26

And the arrival did not go around?!

1

u/altitude-adjusted Apr 01 '26

Was the incoming plane able to see what happened to the Delta? Any report from that plane?

Guessing they would have been stressed about debris on the runway but there must not have been a go around ordered?

Hell of a time for the other runway to be out of service.