Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:32 From: jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.cyberramp.com (Jeff Meeker) Organization: posted via: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333/(817) 461-8484 for info References: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
On 23 Dec 98 03:53:00 , Driftwood Media Services <email@example.com> wrote: >Peter Mchugh wrote: >> I think we have overstated the propensity of kerosene to evaporate... and >> believe that dumping can't be as environmentally clean as suggested. I >> far better like the over weight landing option (when feasible) in terms >> of the longevity of the greater numbers of living things. > >As much as I am concerned about air travel's impact on the global >environment and the need to protect natural resources in the course of >day-to-day operations, I, in my admittedly less-than-politically-correct >mind, cannot think of a single instance where any number of living >creatures come ahead of the safety of the potentially hundreds of very real >people on a jet transport. > >Air crews have enough to worry about, trusted with the safety of people's >parents, children, loved ones, partners - the fear that EPA should wave >their Magic Fine-Levying Wand shouldn't even enter their minds - their >focus when they need to get back on the ground safely and quickly should be >just that. Keeping people alive counts most. Mr. McHugh would rather land a plane full of people over the max landing weight just becasue JET-A *may* not evaporate an *may* cause some environmental harm?? Landing above max landing weight is dangerous. There is a reason planes have this operating limitation. Landing above the max landing weight is not SAFE. The pilot has the resposibility with the saftey of the flight. I hope he far better likes the idea of a plane landing, the gear collapsing, and ALL that jet fuel buning, and killing a bunch of people. What about the environmental impact of that??