SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the plain-dumps-no-longer-what-they-used-to-be dept.
At least 60 people, many of them children, were treated for skin irritation and breathing problems.
Fuel may be dumped in emergency landings, but only over designated areas and at a high altitude, aviation rules stipulate.
The Delta Airlines flight returned to the airport due to an engine issue.
Delta confirmed in a statement that the passenger plane had released fuel to reduce its landing weight.
The children and adults treated following the dumping incident were connected with at least six local schools. All the injuries are said to be minor.
...
Allen Kenitzer, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration, told Reuters news agency: "The FAA is thoroughly investigating the circumstances behind this incident. There are special fuel-dumping procedures for aircraft operating into and out of any major US airport."These procedures call for fuel to be dumped over designated unpopulated areas, typically at higher altitudes so the fuel atomises and disperses before it reaches the ground."
Business Traveler has other details
A Delta Air Lines Boeing 777-200 bound for Shanghai Pudong that was making an emergency landing dumped fuel on six schools in Los Angeles, mildly injuring 60 adults and children, according to media reports.
...
The students and staff members complained of minor skin irritation and breathing problems, but all declined transportation to hospitals, the newspaper added.
...
The Los Angeles Times reports that the plane flew north over Malibu within four minutes after takeoff at 11:32am (local time). After encountering an engine problem, the journey back to the airport, in which the airline said it dumped fuel over urban southeastern Los Angeles County, took a looping route over the San Fernando Valley. The flight, which never flew higher than 8,000 feet, then moved over Griffith Park not long after, heading into southeastern LA County. Minutes later, the flight began making its return to LAX, looping back west.Flight tracking website FlightRadar24 posted an image on Twitter of the plane's flight path:
Flight path of flight #DL89 that returned to Los Angeles International Airport 24 minutes after departurehttps://t.co/JPER0N19p6 pic.twitter.com/XwJalaZfZq
— Flightradar24 (@flightradar24) January 14, 2020...
Several videos of the plane dumping fuel have emerged on social media, such as the one below: [linky]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 18 2020, @03:45AM (6 children)
Makes me think of a Southwest flight I took, landed in Houston Hobby and was splashing the tarmac with jet fuel every time the wing flexed, cracks in the leading edge - right above the engine intake.
As for the pilot-in-command's calls - I'd go with life-safety first, worry about the rest later. If the airline was skimping maintenance and it led to this situation (don't tell me about mandatory schedules, they have latitude in how rigorously they maintain over and above the legal requirements), then the airline should be the one to suck up whatever it cost to land the plane without killing people.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday January 18 2020, @09:16AM (5 children)
I would have preferred, either declare the need to dump fuel and do it properly, or if the pilot didn't believe there was time for that, land heavy and the accountants can just get over it. If the pilot improperly dumped fuel out of fear for employer reprisal over the costs, I sincerely hope the courts slap them around until they rethink their (possibly unwritten) policies.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 18 2020, @04:53PM
Agreed, although I think any policies whether written or unwritten are irrelevant, what matters is that a commercial operation has - for very good reasons at the time - done significant damage to the environment, including the people that had to breathe that stuff - and that should be paid back by the commercial operation at a generous multiple of actual damages, both to compensate for the damages done, incidental costs of collection, and to make it unprofitable for commercial operations to have these accidents in the first place.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 19 2020, @11:35PM (3 children)
Here we go: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51162248 [bbc.com] I'm very conflicted, often disappointed, that it's up to individuals to attempt to claw punitive settlements out of corporations for this kind of abuse. I'd much rather see the city or state suing them for environmental damage and possibly cleanup costs (if there's anything that can be done to clean up...)
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday January 21 2020, @09:40AM (2 children)
It strikes me as very inefficient. The teachers sue, the parents file a different suit, the schools themselves yet another, etc. All for a single incident.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:31AM (1 child)
Something something, class action lawsuit, something something, contingent lawyer fees.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday January 25 2020, @08:01PM