Date: 23 Dec 98 03:53:03 From: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Which Online Net Usenet Service References: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
Just a personal view - if i was in an an aircraft that had to make an emergency landing - lets say for hydraulic failure - I would prefer to get it over with ASAP and that the aircraft land with as little of the flammable stuff as possible. The fact that the aircraft is capble of landing with of landing with a more or less full fuel load is fine - but for an emergency surely you want as little of the stuff as possible. This smacks to me of BA's decision (I think) back in the 80's to take out some of the over wing exits - I think it was on 747's - as the remaining exits would still meet the legal requirements. Surely we want aircraft that offer the highest level of safety possible - not those that meet the minimum standards. I know this is the old debate over safety vs economics - but surely a tried and tested fuel dump system cannot be that expensive per passenger mile?