Crews spent 30 minutes dumping fuel over Puget Sound to make the plane lighter before landing safely back at the airport.
I know most of the dumped fuel evaporates, but at 3,000 feet would any of the fuel have made it to water?
I wouldn’t think so. I would guess the FAA and ATC has minimum altitudes for dumping that take that into account.
Sometimes I can’t believe I live in this state…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009177135_webairlinefine05m.html
The Washington Ecology Department may fine Asiana Airlines after one of its planes dumped fuel over Puget Sound so it could make an emergency landing at Sea-Tac Airport after one of the plane’s engines shut down.
…
Hart said today the state action will depend on the investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board. He says the state does not want to discourage necessary emergency actions. Fuel usually evaporates in the air.
And people wonder why I keep saying, in the -words of President Regan, “government is **not **the solution; government is the problem”.
It is really sad when you have a bunch of bureaucrats who can’t tell the difference between their nose and their ass do plainly stupid things like this!
David, we agree on this one!!!
TC
“Dewey, Screwem and Howe for the defendant your honor, we’d like to examine the evidence on behalf of our client.”
Wouldn’t the FAA have already studied the environmental impact of fuel dumping? And wouldn’t the same study have recommended a minimum altitude AGL (desirable, if possible under the circumstances)? Having that report on file should be sufficient to prevent nonsense like this.
If you dump fuel into a waterway or most bodies of water and it leaves a visible sheen or trace you MAY be fined, that’s the law. It doesn’t matter how you dumped it; whether spilled while fueling your ski-boat, the result of a collision between your supertanker and a tugboat, a sinking, or you had to lighten your aircraft before landing by venting fuel overboard.
If your actions result in a degradation of water quality you may be responsible for cleanup actions and be subject to a fine.
I always expect an unenlightened response from one person here who shall remain nameless, and he didn’t fail me, but the rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves. 
And most of you need to learn the legal difference between shall or will and can or may.
As one who doesn’t give a rat’s ass what you think, I’m pretty sure I’m that pesron.
The problem with the law and the unelected bureaucrats that enforce them is that they do not use any common sense.
It’s one thing for them to require the airline to clean up any mess. It’s an entirely different thing to fine them for it. That’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard.
Edited to add additional article from Seattle Times with a quote from a bureaucrat.
Wash. state won’t fine airline for dumping fuel
SEATTLE (AP) – The state of Washington says it won’t fine Asiana Airlines for a fuel dump over Puget Sound from a plane that made an emergency landing at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
Dale Jensen of the state ecology department said Wednesday the plane dumped the fuel April 29 to help safely land the plane and save lives. He says the pilot had to act quickly during the emergency, including making the plane lighter for landing.
Fuel usually evaporates in the air. The department said some of the 5,000 gallons released from the plane reached water.
The plane heading to Seoul reported engine problems shortly after takeoff. Airport spokeswoman Terri-Ann Betancourt has said a compressor stall likely caused the problems.
Source: Tampa Bay Online
Here’s the article from the Seattle Times with quote from a bureaucrat.
State won’t fine airline for fuel dumped in emergency landing
By Seattle Times staff
The Washington Department of Ecology says Asiana Airlines is off the hook for spilling fuel from one of its jets over Puget Sound after the plane experienced engine problems and had to make an emergency landing at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport last week.
Ecology Spills Program Manager Dale Jensen in a news release that no fines or penalties will be levied because the fuel release was part of an emergency situation.
“Our top concern is ensuring human health and safety in Washington state,” Jensen said. “The pilot on Flight 271 had to take quick action to protect the lives of 179 people on board. That included dumping fuel to lighten the plane for an emergency landing. We’re thankful the pilot could make a safe return to the ground.”
The jet dumped some 5,000 gallons of fuel and some of it landed on Puget Sound, Jensen said. The Department of Ecology said the amount of fuel on the water was too thin for a cleanup. Jet fuel partly evaporates and partly dissolves in the water.
“Thankfully, incidents like these are rare. But it does give us an opportunity to identify lessons learned. We will continue to work with the Federal Aviation Administration and the airline to help identify ways to prevent spills,” he said.
I wouldn’t doubt it if the reason for not fining the airline was because of the bad publicity the department received.
At -5:28 into the video:
A crewmember said that THIS plane is actually designed to fly with BOTH engines out
The 777 must have a bad-ass APU! 
Or one helluva glide ratio!
Does anyone have any updates as to what caused the flame out? Mechanical…??
They were trying to tick off the Washington Department of Ecology, Ecology Spills Program manager.
now now dami