So I was watching "Undercover Boss" this week where a guy from
Frontier airlines went out and had to do some ground crew jobs,
including working the giant "RV dump system" that is an airliner
latrine service.
It got me to thinking, with the water dump system for takeoff that the
F-105 used, as well as early B-52 and KC-135 aircraft, if this could
be incorporated into the aircraft to make the ground crews’ life
easier? It would work beast on trans-oceanic flights. Just rig a
couple main tanks and one small one. The main tanks will be used on
the flights until one gets far out over the ocean and is coming close
to the other continent. At this point the pilot eases on the throttles
and flips a switch, pumping the sewer water from the two main tanks to
the rear parts of the engine nozzles, generating steam to increase
thrust for a short time while it dumps like a nasty RV driver going
down the road, and firing flaming steaming turds out of the back of
the airplane at about 500 miles per hour. .
Now it would have to still be while they were over the ocean but after
most of the people who were going to use the facilities have done
their business, so the approach phase works best. Environmental
factors and all.
Obviously it wouldn’t go over to have the "stuff" pumped into the
engines for added thrust on take off blasting stuff all over the
runway and making "picture perfect" takeoffs for the people watching
from the glassed in (we hope) terminals.
Especially if the airline wants to make the classic "Airliner taking
off over our spokesmodel on the runway" type TV ad.
Though it would save having to pump the waste stuff out between
flights, with just a tank of blue water needed to replenish after
every takeoff, and tap into after the "bad" tanks got dumped.
"Dumping" over land on landing approach isn’t recommended either (you
think the people near the airports complain about the noise…)
No it is best to keep it for that final part of the flight over water,
one can even tell the environmental lobby that it will save fuel. A
third small tank can be kept for that final part of the flight, easier
to empty for the ground crew than the two big mains.
"David E. Powell" <David_Powell3…@msn.com> wrote in message
news:74b07ea2-0e6b-4ef8-9265-58541d900fd3@x5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> So I was watching "Undercover Boss" this week where a guy from
> Frontier airlines went out and had to do some ground crew jobs,
> including working the giant "RV dump system" that is an airliner
> latrine service.
> It got me to thinking, with the water dump system for takeoff that the
> F-105 used, as well as early B-52 and KC-135 aircraft, if this could
> be incorporated into the aircraft to make the ground crews’ life
> easier? It would work beast on trans-oceanic flights. Just rig a
> couple main tanks and one small one. The main tanks will be used on
> the flights until one gets far out over the ocean and is coming close
> to the other continent. At this point the pilot eases on the throttles
> and flips a switch, pumping the sewer water from the two main tanks to
> the rear parts of the engine nozzles, generating steam to increase
> thrust for a short time while it dumps like a nasty RV driver going
> down the road, and firing flaming steaming turds out of the back of
> the airplane at about 500 miles per hour. .
Somehow I doubt the maintenance crews would thank you and
the solid parts would block the spray nozzles.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Now it would have to still be while they were over the ocean but after
> most of the people who were going to use the facilities have done
> their business, so the approach phase works best. Environmental
> factors and all.
> Obviously it wouldn’t go over to have the "stuff" pumped into the
> engines for added thrust on take off blasting stuff all over the
> runway and making "picture perfect" takeoffs for the people watching
> from the glassed in (we hope) terminals.
> Especially if the airline wants to make the classic "Airliner taking
> off over our spokesmodel on the runway" type TV ad.
> Though it would save having to pump the waste stuff out between
> flights, with just a tank of blue water needed to replenish after
> every takeoff, and tap into after the "bad" tanks got dumped.
> "Dumping" over land on landing approach isn’t recommended either (you
> think the people near the airports complain about the noise…)
> No it is best to keep it for that final part of the flight over water,
> one can even tell the environmental lobby that it will save fuel. A
> third small tank can be kept for that final part of the flight, easier
> to empty for the ground crew than the two big mains.
The extra plumbing would almost certainly weigh more than any
savings in tankage and dumping untreated sewage at sea now
contravenes international and national regulations
Keith
On 10/18/2010 2:51 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3…@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:74b07ea2-0e6b-4ef8-9265-58541d900fd3@x5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com…
>> So I was watching "Undercover Boss" this week where a guy from
>> Frontier airlines went out and had to do some ground crew jobs,
>> including working the giant "RV dump system" that is an airliner
>> latrine service.
>> It got me to thinking, with the water dump system for takeoff
>> that the
>> F-105 used, as well as early B-52 and KC-135 aircraft, if this
>> could
>> be incorporated into the aircraft to make the ground crews’ life
>> easier? It would work beast on trans-oceanic flights. Just rig a
>> couple main tanks and one small one. The main tanks will be
>> used on
>> the flights until one gets far out over the ocean and is coming
>> close
>> to the other continent. At this point the pilot eases on the
>> throttles
>> and flips a switch, pumping the sewer water from the two main
>> tanks to
>> the rear parts of the engine nozzles, generating steam to increase
>> thrust for a short time while it dumps like a nasty RV driver
>> going
>> down the road, and firing flaming steaming turds out of the
>> back of
>> the airplane at about 500 miles per hour. .
> Somehow I doubt the maintenance crews would thank you and
> the solid parts would block the spray nozzles.
>> Now it would have to still be while they were over the ocean
>> but after
>> most of the people who were going to use the facilities have done
>> their business, so the approach phase works best. Environmental
>> factors and all.
>> Obviously it wouldn’t go over to have the "stuff" pumped into the
>> engines for added thrust on take off blasting stuff all over the
>> runway and making "picture perfect" takeoffs for the people
>> watching
>> from the glassed in (we hope) terminals.
>> Especially if the airline wants to make the classic "Airliner
>> taking
>> off over our spokesmodel on the runway" type TV ad.
>> Though it would save having to pump the waste stuff out between
>> flights, with just a tank of blue water needed to replenish after
>> every takeoff, and tap into after the "bad" tanks got dumped.
>> "Dumping" over land on landing approach isn’t recommended
>> either (you
>> think the people near the airports complain about the noise…)
>> No it is best to keep it for that final part of the flight over
>> water,
>> one can even tell the environmental lobby that it will save
>> fuel. A
>> third small tank can be kept for that final part of the flight,
>> easier
>> to empty for the ground crew than the two big mains.
> The extra plumbing would almost certainly weigh more than any
> savings in tankage and dumping untreated sewage at sea now
> contravenes international and national regulations
> Keith
Remember the movie, "SOB" where he pushed a wheel barrow around
with his Space Rock in it that was found to be a frozen refuse
from an Air Liner?
"Eunometic" <eunome…@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:16dd934a-1704-4c38-b96f-32a870730acc@b14g2000pro.googlegroups.com…
> On Oct 19, 7:51 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> <keithnos…@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3…@msn.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:74b07ea2-0e6b-4ef8-9265-58541d900fd3@x5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com…
>> and dumping untreated sewage at sea now
>> contravenes international and national regulations
> While agreeing with everything else you’ve said, sewage that has been
> ‘pasteurised’ in jet exhaust is technically treated.
But not to the standards laid down in the regulations
Keiyj
On 10/18/2010 3:33 PM, dumpst…@hotmail.com wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Oct 18, 2:10 pm, Daryl Hunt<dh…@i70westnospam.com> wrote:
>> On 10/18/2010 2:51 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>> "David E. Powell"<David_Powell3…@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:74b07ea2-0e6b-4ef8-9265-58541d900fd3@x5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com…
>>>> So I was watching "Undercover Boss" this week where a guy from
>>>> Frontier airlines went out and had to do some ground crew jobs,
>>>> including working the giant "RV dump system" that is an airliner
>>>> latrine service.
>>>> It got me to thinking, with the water dump system for takeoff
>>>> that the
>>>> F-105 used, as well as early B-52 and KC-135 aircraft, if this
>>>> could
>>>> be incorporated into the aircraft to make the ground crews’ life
>>>> easier? It would work beast on trans-oceanic flights. Just rig a
>>>> couple main tanks and one small one. The main tanks will be
>>>> used on
>>>> the flights until one gets far out over the ocean and is coming
>>>> close
>>>> to the other continent. At this point the pilot eases on the
>>>> throttles
>>>> and flips a switch, pumping the sewer water from the two main
>>>> tanks to
>>>> the rear parts of the engine nozzles, generating steam to increase
>>>> thrust for a short time while it dumps like a nasty RV driver
>>>> going
>>>> down the road, and firing flaming steaming turds out of the
>>>> back of
>>>> the airplane at about 500 miles per hour. .
>>> Somehow I doubt the maintenance crews would thank you and
>>> the solid parts would block the spray nozzles.
>>>> Now it would have to still be while they were over the ocean
>>>> but after
>>>> most of the people who were going to use the facilities have done
>>>> their business, so the approach phase works best. Environmental
>>>> factors and all.
>>>> Obviously it wouldn’t go over to have the "stuff" pumped into the
>>>> engines for added thrust on take off blasting stuff all over the
>>>> runway and making "picture perfect" takeoffs for the people
>>>> watching
>>>> from the glassed in (we hope) terminals.
>>>> Especially if the airline wants to make the classic "Airliner
>>>> taking
>>>> off over our spokesmodel on the runway" type TV ad.
>>>> Though it would save having to pump the waste stuff out between
>>>> flights, with just a tank of blue water needed to replenish after
>>>> every takeoff, and tap into after the "bad" tanks got dumped.
>>>> "Dumping" over land on landing approach isn’t recommended
>>>> either (you
>>>> think the people near the airports complain about the noise…)
>>>> No it is best to keep it for that final part of the flight over
>>>> water,
>>>> one can even tell the environmental lobby that it will save
>>>> fuel. A
>>>> third small tank can be kept for that final part of the flight,
>>>> easier
>>>> to empty for the ground crew than the two big mains.
>>> The extra plumbing would almost certainly weigh more than any
>>> savings in tankage and dumping untreated sewage at sea now
>>> contravenes international and national regulations
>>> Keith
>> Remember the movie, "SOB" where he pushed a wheel barrow around
>> with his Space Rock in it that was found to be a frozen refuse
>> from an Air Liner?- Hide quoted text –
>> – Show quoted text –
> "SOB"? I thought that happened in the "Joe Dirt" movie:
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0245686/
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0245686/quotes
> "
> Meteor Bert: Well, it ain’t a meteor.
> Joe Dirt: Yeah, it is. It came out of the sky.
> Meteor Bert: Well I’m sure it did but it ain’t no meteor. It’s a big
> ol’ frozen chunk o’ shit.
> Joe Dirt: What?
> Meteor Bert: Oh yeah, see them airplanes they dump their toilets
> 36,000 feet. The stuff freezes and falls to earth. We call ‘em Boeing
> bombs.
> [chomps teeth]
> Joe Dirt: No, that can’t be. That’s not what it is.
> Meteor Bert: Oh, afraid so. See that peanut? Dead giveaway.
> Joe Dirt: Uhhh, no, that’s a space peanut.
> Meteor Bert: No, afraid not. That just a big ol’ frozen chunk of
> poopy.
> "
Yer right of course.
"Keith Willshaw" <keithnos…@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wv3vo.11845$OJ2.2542@newsfe04.ams2…
> But not to the standards laid down in the regulations
> Keiyj
I’m sure the standards don’t have a section on corn, which seems to survive
anything.
–
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Technically the dump would work since the effluent is ground up in the
recirculating system. FWIW back in 82 or so the Air Florida bean
counters tried to save money by using cheap TP instead of the
disintegrating type (also used in RVs) The result was clogged
recirculators on the Miami to London route. Neither the pax nor the
crew were amused by the resulting flooded restrooms. Just one of the
many reasons AF went down the drain.
BTW the Ford Trimotor had a unisex john which flushed like an old
train – bombs away!
Walt BJ
On 10/18/2010 9:48 PM, WaltBJ wrote:
> Technically the dump would work since the effluent is ground up in the
> recirculating system. FWIW back in 82 or so the Air Florida bean
> counters tried to save money by using cheap TP instead of the
> disintegrating type (also used in RVs) The result was clogged
> recirculators on the Miami to London route. Neither the pax nor the
> crew were amused by the resulting flooded restrooms. Just one of the
> many reasons AF went down the drain.
> BTW the Ford Trimotor had a unisex john which flushed like an old
> train – bombs away!
> Walt BJ
Hey, Look, it’s a ford trimotor going overhead…..Aw Sh***TTT…….