Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
jetmatt777 wrote:ATLANTA, GA - PR NEWSWIRE
"We thank the residents of Los Angeles for participating in our profit sharing event today where we gave away thousands of gallons of fuel.", said a Delta spokesperson. "We are thrilled to be a part of the Los Angeles community."
NiMar wrote:If I were a parent of one of those kids I'd be suing the beep out of DL. Raining carcinogens on them...
CriticalPoint wrote:NiMar wrote:If I were a parent of one of those kids I'd be suing the beep out of DL. Raining carcinogens on them...
We have to know the reason first. If it was a fire I would have done the same thing or just landed overweight. Depending on the fire.
N212R wrote:Delta PR will find a way to spin it though won't be easy with a bunch of burned kiddies. Helps to have friends in the Media. Delta legal will get the settlement signatures asap...back to business as usual.
n92r03 wrote:Would Kansas City make it ok? C'mon people, let's be rational. Pretty sure the pilots did not think "cool, let's dump fuel when we don't need to and let's aim for a school". Some of you are such sensational alarmists, similar to the media these days.
The other day I spilled fuel on my hands, I was not happy as it smelled for a while. I did not call for a press conference or go to hospital. Good grief.
alan3 wrote:n92r03 wrote:Would Kansas City make it ok? C'mon people, let's be rational. Pretty sure the pilots did not think "cool, let's dump fuel when we don't need to and let's aim for a school". Some of you are such sensational alarmists, similar to the media these days.
The other day I spilled fuel on my hands, I was not happy as it smelled for a while. I did not call for a press conference or go to hospital. Good grief.
I don't get the impression that people are panicking or enraged, I think some people are genuinely curious about why fuel was dumped over buildings and schools when the ocean was about 15 miles away. Of course we're sure the captain has a rational explanation, but nothing wrong with wondering out loud.
ual763 wrote:Actually, it was more a case of what's not there cannot evaporate there.Sidenote: Must’ve been really darn low for the gasoline to not evaporate before hitting ground.
Atlwarrior wrote:Man those kids about to get paid.
Kitesandtrains wrote:ual763 wrote:Actually, it was more a case of what's not there cannot evaporate there.Sidenote: Must’ve been really darn low for the gasoline to not evaporate before hitting ground.
Jet fuel isn't gasoline, it's more closely related to kerosene.
D L X wrote:CriticalPoint wrote:NiMar wrote:If I were a parent of one of those kids I'd be suing the beep out of DL. Raining carcinogens on them...
We have to know the reason first. If it was a fire I would have done the same thing or just landed overweight. Depending on the fire.
I dunno.
Generally, if you break something, even if by accident, you are liable to the owners for what you broke. The reason why you broke it may have an effect on punitive damages to convince people not to do it again.
I’d say it’s too early to talk lawsuits, but this IS Los Angeles.
dstblj52 wrote:D L X wrote:CriticalPoint wrote:
We have to know the reason first. If it was a fire I would have done the same thing or just landed overweight. Depending on the fire.
I dunno.
Generally, if you break something, even if by accident, you are liable to the owners for what you broke. The reason why you broke it may have an effect on punitive damages to convince people not to do it again.
I’d say it’s too early to talk lawsuits, but this IS Los Angeles.
I mean unless you're going to sue for phycological damage you're going to have a hard time showing damages, and so long as it was dropped 2000 feet above the tallest building on the path it was legal, so no regulatory fines.
NiMar wrote:If I were a parent of one of those kids I'd be suing the beep out of DL. Raining carcinogens on them...
dstblj52 wrote:D L X wrote:CriticalPoint wrote:
We have to know the reason first. If it was a fire I would have done the same thing or just landed overweight. Depending on the fire.
I dunno.
Generally, if you break something, even if by accident, you are liable to the owners for what you broke. The reason why you broke it may have an effect on punitive damages to convince people not to do it again.
I’d say it’s too early to talk lawsuits, but this IS Los Angeles.
I mean unless you're going to sue for phycological damage you're going to have a hard time showing damages, and so long as it was dropped 2000 feet above the tallest building on the path it was legal, so no regulatory fines.
CriticalPoint wrote:dstblj52 wrote:D L X wrote:I dunno.
Generally, if you break something, even if by accident, you are liable to the owners for what you broke. The reason why you broke it may have an effect on punitive damages to convince people not to do it again.
I’d say it’s too early to talk lawsuits, but this IS Los Angeles.
I mean unless you're going to sue for phycological damage you're going to have a hard time showing damages, and so long as it was dropped 2000 feet above the tallest building on the path it was legal, so no regulatory fines.
Well if AV Herald is correct and they did not request a fuel dump......
D L X wrote:Atlwarrior wrote:Man those kids about to get paid.
I bet they get a free trip to Atlanta.
D L X wrote:Atlwarrior wrote:Man those kids about to get paid.
I bet they get a free trip to Atlanta.
dstblj52 wrote:...
I mean unless you're going to sue for phycological damage you're going to have a hard time showing damages, and so long as it was dropped 2000 feet above the tallest building on the path it was legal, so no regulatory fines.
dstblj52 wrote:D L X wrote:CriticalPoint wrote:
We have to know the reason first. If it was a fire I would have done the same thing or just landed overweight. Depending on the fire.
I dunno.
Generally, if you break something, even if by accident, you are liable to the owners for what you broke. The reason why you broke it may have an effect on punitive damages to convince people not to do it again.
I’d say it’s too early to talk lawsuits, but this IS Los Angeles.
I mean unless you're going to sue for phycological damage you're going to have a hard time showing damages, and so long as it was dropped 2000 feet above the tallest building on the path it was legal, so no regulatory fines.
LittleFokker wrote:If the flight never got above 8,000 and some emergency caused them to immediately return to field, how the heck did the crew have time to ask for, get permission to, and execute a fuel dump?
N649DL wrote:Meh, the kids will walk it off
Out of LAX with an engine emergency issue you're kind of screwed either way as it's a city with an approach surrounded by densely populated suburbs, ocean, mountains and DTLA. I'm sure there was a reason for it.
Could it be that LAX Tower or ATC asked for it or something like that?
boeing773er wrote:Just saw this on ABC evening news. It sounded like it was this terrible thing, 60+ emergency personnel showed up to treat the children, with soap and water. Poor children, they received a bath by a complete stranger.
flybucky wrote:LittleFokker wrote:If the flight never got above 8,000 and some emergency caused them to immediately return to field, how the heck did the crew have time to ask for, get permission to, and execute a fuel dump?
According to AVHerald, "The crew did not request fuel dump."
CriticalPoint wrote:N649DL wrote:Meh, the kids will walk it off
Out of LAX with an engine emergency issue you're kind of screwed either way as it's a city with an approach surrounded by densely populated suburbs, ocean, mountains and DTLA. I'm sure there was a reason for it.
Could it be that LAX Tower or ATC asked for it or something like that?
How are you screwed over the ocean?
N649DL wrote:CriticalPoint wrote:N649DL wrote:Meh, the kids will walk it off
Out of LAX with an engine emergency issue you're kind of screwed either way as it's a city with an approach surrounded by densely populated suburbs, ocean, mountains and DTLA. I'm sure there was a reason for it.
Could it be that LAX Tower or ATC asked for it or something like that?
How are you screwed over the ocean?
The aircraft can easily be ripped apart if it tries to ditch in the ocean. See US 1549 or that Ethiopian flight hijacked by terrorists. It depends on how dire the engine situation actually was.
dstblj52 wrote:I mean unless you're going to sue for phycological damage you're going to have a hard time showing damages, and so long as it was dropped 2000 feet above the tallest building on the path it was legal, so no regulatory fines.
CriticalPoint wrote:N649DL wrote:CriticalPoint wrote:
How are you screwed over the ocean?
The aircraft can easily be ripped apart if it tries to ditch in the ocean. See US 1549 or that Ethiopian flight hijacked by terrorists. It depends on how dire the engine situation actually was.
Why would you ditch for an engine failure?
GE90man wrote:CriticalPoint wrote:N649DL wrote:
The aircraft can easily be ripped apart if it tries to ditch in the ocean. See US 1549 or that Ethiopian flight hijacked by terrorists. It depends on how dire the engine situation actually was.
Why would you ditch for an engine failure?
US 1549 did. Well, rather a dual engine failure, but you get the point.
Oilman wrote:dstblj52 wrote:I mean unless you're going to sue for phycological damage you're going to have a hard time showing damages, and so long as it was dropped 2000 feet above the tallest building on the path it was legal, so no regulatory fines.
I’ve worked many large oil spills in my career and exposure to gasoline and kerosene (like jet fuel) has been well litigated. There are several large speciality law firms in the US that are able to provide financial guidance to Delta’s legal group and attorneys representing the exposed. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think anyone is due a windfall here (from what I’ve seen in the past). My biggest concern is what people inhaled. Jet fuel has benzene in it. I would be pretty upset if my family had jet fuel rain down on it.
dstblj52 wrote:Oilman wrote:dstblj52 wrote:I mean unless you're going to sue for phycological damage you're going to have a hard time showing damages, and so long as it was dropped 2000 feet above the tallest building on the path it was legal, so no regulatory fines.
I’ve worked many large oil spills in my career and exposure to gasoline and kerosene (like jet fuel) has been well litigated. There are several large speciality law firms in the US that are able to provide financial guidance to Delta’s legal group and attorneys representing the exposed. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think anyone is due a windfall here (from what I’ve seen in the past). My biggest concern is what people inhaled. Jet fuel has benzene in it. I would be pretty upset if my family had jet fuel rain down on it.
Good to know but if I had to guess delta wants this buried yesterday and if that can happen for say 50 million dollars its probably going to happen, because delta is very protective of their brand image and having it dragged through the mud by a crusading attorney not something they're going to want to have happen.
dtw2hyd wrote:I doubt the vapors touched unprotected skin are of any measurable quantity, assuming kids were playing outside in a short and t-shirt. The fumes might have scared them.
DoctorVenkman wrote:dtw2hyd wrote:I doubt the vapors touched unprotected skin are of any measurable quantity, assuming kids were playing outside in a short and t-shirt. The fumes might have scared them.
The kids were soaked per news reports. People on the ground said "it was raining fuel". This is not just people smelling some fumes and freaking out.
jetmatt777 wrote:Can Delta also receive an EPA fine for this since it appears as if it was not approved and/or justified?
dragon6172 wrote:DoctorVenkman wrote:dtw2hyd wrote:I doubt the vapors touched unprotected skin are of any measurable quantity, assuming kids were playing outside in a short and t-shirt. The fumes might have scared them.
The kids were soaked per news reports. People on the ground said "it was raining fuel". This is not just people smelling some fumes and freaking out.
News reports say a lot of things for clicks and ratings.
DoctorVenkman wrote:dtw2hyd wrote:I doubt the vapors touched unprotected skin are of any measurable quantity, assuming kids were playing outside in a short and t-shirt. The fumes might have scared them.
The kids were soaked per news reports. People on the ground said "it was raining fuel". This is not just people smelling some fumes and freaking out.
DoctorVenkman wrote:dragon6172 wrote:DoctorVenkman wrote:
The kids were soaked per news reports. People on the ground said "it was raining fuel". This is not just people smelling some fumes and freaking out.
News reports say a lot of things for clicks and ratings.
Do you have any evidence that this was not the case? Or are you just baselessly defending Delta? The science posted upthread indicates that a large amount of fuel would not atomize given the low altitude it was dumped at. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary I am going to believe the news reports which are in line with our scientific understanding of how jet fuel behaves.
