当ウェブサイトはクッキーを使用します。当ウェブサイトを使用し、サイト内を移動することで、あなたはこれに同意したこととみなされます。
閉じる
FlightAwareのフライト追跡は広告によりサポートされていることをご存知ですか?
広告表示を許可してくださることでFlightAware.comを無料で提供することができます。表示される広告は関連性の高い控えめなものを選んでいます。FlightAwareをホワイトリストに追加する方法はかんたんに設定していただくことができます。または、プレミアムアカウントのご利用をご検討ください.
閉じる
Back to Squawk list
  • 12

Students Sue Delta Air Lines After Flight Dumps Jet Fuel Over LA Schools

送信時刻:
 
LOS ANGELES (CBSLA) — Three local high school students are suing Delta Air Lines after a pilot dumped thousands of gallons of fuel over land last month before an emergency landing at Los Angeles International Airport. The lawsuit alleges that the incident could have been avoided and that the pilot broke protocol. It claims the pilot should have told air traffic control that the fuel needed to be dumped, so the flight could have been directed to a safer location. The suit also accuses Delta of… (losangeles.cbslocal.com) さらに...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


VivPike
Viv Pike 7
USA
Undoubtedly Sue Always
williambaker08
william baker 1
Thats Undoubtedly Sue Airlines
jbsimms
James Simms 3
Knew that was coming. Personal Injury lawyers circling like vultures not having a meal in days were probably calling no later than the end of the day
patpylot
patrick baker 3
delta does not have an absolute right to spray anybody on the ground whilst in the midst of an emergency, oblivious to the harm caused . If the plane needed to get on the ground immediately, then an overweight landing ought to have been performed. The damage to the aircraft would have been costly to Delta, probably more costly than the lawsuits comming at them.
bigkahuna400
bigkahuna400 -3
Agreed, It is designed to fly on 1 engine for many hours.....Hope Delta pays! Pilots ignored and gave false information . These 2 pilots need retraining immediately.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 1
The other shoe just dropped...
KicksOnRoute66
Roger Anderson 0
What are they suing for? The cost of eye drops?
yr2012
matt jensen -9
inhalation therapy
dmanuel
dmanuel 1
Damage to the aircraft when landing, in an overweight condition, is not the primary concern. I believe others will validate that structural failure (of the gear etc) with resultant probability of fire and actual loss of life, weighed in to the decision of dumping fuel.
watkinssusan
mary susan watkins 1
there are established rules for pilots when its necessary to dump fuel and return to an airport..the flight crew on this delta flight did not follow them..the children and their parents in the path of the "dumping", have a right to sue under the circumstances..you don't just ignore the incident as nothing for those children or teachers who were outside..i think you too would worry about a substance literally coming down out of the blue onto your body!!
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 -1
No question the crew could have handled it differently, but I don’t see anyone up in arms about all the acid rain that covers everything, everyday somewhere in the USA? I also don’t see these school kids suing the state of California for forcing them to inhale all the smog pollution (dirt particulate) and carbon monoxide (gas) from the nearby 405 everyday?
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 2
Feeble attempt at deflection here. Your argument has nothing to do with the fact that the pilots told ATC that they didn't need to dump fuel, and then did it anyway, especially below any safe altitude for dumping fuel, and despite the fact that they again told ATC that they did not need nor intend to dump fuel.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 -4
Just what you want to do, circle over the water in a heavy, on one engine? I wonder how the students would have felt if the flight spent additional time dumping fuel over the water and the crashed short of the runway and into the school if the other engine quit? I guess Delta didn’t like my Disneyland idea for the kids?
bigkahuna400
bigkahuna400 2
Yes that is what they re supposed to do even if the loose 1 engine....it is designed to fly on one for many many hrs......should have gone over ocean and dumped.
linbb
linbb -4
Wow what a statement big guy been trolling long? There is more to it than that but since you know all see all and don't know all the facts oh well. By the way any damage to the children or others long term is in doubt as many people who worked on diesel equipment can tell you all about being drenched in it one time or another and no ill effects from it.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 -4
Just like it’s supposed to fly on “two” engines for many hours? I’ll bet if you were a pax on that flight and the Captain said they were returning due to an engine failure but listen we are going to fly in circles over the ocean for :30 minutes to dump fuel or land immediately dumping fuel all the way in........how would you vote?
bigkahuna400
bigkahuna400 6
Dump the fuel in ocean as expected and designed.
tom239
tom239 1
I was on a flight in 2006 that had an engine failure at around 10,000' while descending to land. The pilot diverted to another airport (for good reason) which entailed a bit of extra flying to get there. Sure everyone was aware that we were only one more engine failure away from being a glider but it wasn't all that scary.
Jackx9
Don Quixote -2
Yeah well they should sue them back.

The pilots, in the end...safety of passengers first...got the plane on the ground.
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 4
When they told ATC that no fuel dumping is required? when their actions for that were caught on tape, and on camera after notifying ATC that it was not required? pissweak argument and a feeble attempt at deflection. Yes, they got the passengers safely on the ground; as PIC, they are supposed to. But that does not mean that the passengers are more important than those on the ground.

Should they file a countersuit with this argument, it would get laughed out of court.

ログイン

アカウントをお持ちではありませんか? 今すぐ登録(無料)!機能やフライトアラート、その他様々な設定をカスタマイズできます!