Re: Fuel Dump Question

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
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

On 23 Dec 98 03:53:00 , Driftwood Media Services <eric@driftwoodservicesgroup.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??