posted 01-24-2002 01:30 AM            

JP-8+100 is a kerosene-based aviation fuel which is used by the U.S. Air Force. Occasionally it is necessary to dump this fuel. I believe these pictures from WiseQuakker's site illustrate a plane (he identifies it as an EA-6B) doing that. Please note that it is doing something that produces two trails in Pictures #1,2 and 4, and only one trail in Picture #3.

posted 01-24-2002 01:40 AM            

quote:

---

Well, here's my best crack at this.....remember that my plane is incapable of dumping fuel (except by jettisoning the external tanks,) so I am really not up to speed on rules ands regulations on how to do it. Also, the number of planes that can actually dump fuel is probably not as many as you'd think.

"What is the military protocol for making a large fuel dump?"

I believe that the protocol is to only perform fuel dumps if it is absolutely necessary. One such situation is in an emergency when it is required to lower an aircraft's gross weight to land quickly. Let me say that lowering gross weight for landing is probably the only reason to dump fuel in the first place.

If an aircraft is above a certain weight, it may not be able to land and come to a stop before the end of the runway. In addition, stopping the aircraft may require a herculean effort that can blow tires and cause hot brakes that start fires. In addition, if you're a Navy aircraft and you're landing (or crashing, depending on how you look at it) on an aircraft carrier, you stand the chance of doing landing gear, hook, and cable damage when you slam your overweight jet into the deck.

I'll assume from here on out that you are talking about tanker aircraft, since they are most often associated with larger fuel dumps and the "chemtrail" conspiracy.

Tankers sometimes dump fuel when their "receivers" (planes that are going to get gas from them) don't show up. With all of the extra gas on board, they can either burn it through their own jet engines by holding for hours on end or dump it. In most situations, I think that they'd rather dump it.

Another way that you may see fuel being dumped is when there is a boom or fuel transfer problem on the tanker. I was on the wing of a KC-10 once when it was having some problems with its boom. They spent a few minutes cycling their pumps on and off, and fuel was coming out of the boom in a dash-dash-dash pattern for quite a distance.

"Do they have to dump the fuel in a straight line over a long distance? Or is there some dumping pattern they use?"

There is no set pattern for performing a fuel dump. I would say that if the aircraft is in a refueling track or in a holding pattern, it would look like an oval. If the plane is proceeding directly to their destination or emergency field, it is probably flying a straight line.

"Must they do the dumping away from populated areas?"

If it is not an emergency, I know that there are minimum altitudes to dump gas. Over the water, such as in the picture of the two Navy F-18s that was posted at Thermit's recently, I believe that there is no minimum altitude. There have been studies done and it has been determined that the fuel atomizes and never really reaches the ground above certain altitudes. Again, I can't quote regulations in this instance bacause we don't have the capability to dump gas.

If you see a plane at low altitude dumping gas over land, it is more than likely an emergency and the people on board are in jeopardy if they don't land immediately. Also, it could be something like a fuel leak. I remember when I was in F-16 training at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona one day when I was driving to work. As I was watching planes take off, I saw one F-16 with flames shooting out a hundred feet or so behind it as it took off. After he extinguished his afterburner, the flame turned into a steady stream of white trailing behind it. The pilot was notified of his situation and he held over the field while he let his gas bleed out to an appropriate landing weight. What was it? A massive fuel leak. This happens every once in a while, too.

"If more than one aircraft has to dump fuel, do they do it in formation?"

Yes, the F-18 picture on Thermit's clearly shows that.

I flew last night out to an air refueling track in central New Mexico. There were two "Copperheads", the Guard KC-135 unit out of Phoenix waiting for me there (they're great guys, by the way.) They had a large enough number of planes to give gas to to necessitate getting a second tanker airborne. Flying in Operation Northern Watch, sometimes you would see four tankers in a long chain. Now, if the members of my flight didn't show up to get gas from them, they may have had to dump gas. And, one could deduce that it would happen in the formation they are flying in.

"If they make a fuel dump, is there some way citizens can verify exactly where and when this has been done?"

I'm not sure if there is or not, unless it is a low-altitude emergency dump. No other type of fuel dump is considered to be a health hazard to people on the ground because it has been determined that the fuel never reaches the earth to become a hazard. If a low-altitude dump happens, I think that there is some type of follow-on investigation that would occur.

As a fighter pilot, we have to log every time we go supersonic in case someone calls in and says that a sonic boom blew out their windows. I'll bet that tanker squadrons have the same type of accountability when it comes to dumping gas in case of a similar occurence.

By the way, we don't go supersonic that often, and in the years I've been in my squadron there hasn't been a complaint of windows being broken.

Well, I hope this helps. I'm by no means an authority on this, but I ask a lot of the same questions you do when I get the rare opportunity to talk to tanker pilots. One source that you may consider is to write Nilkin67, who used to be a crew chief on KC-135s. You can get his e-mail address by clicking on his name on one of his posts on my board. ...he'll probably be nice. Hey, look at me.......I'm not jumping down your throat!

Mav

---

posted 01-24-2002 01:46 AM            

01/29/02: I have tried to contact nilkin67 in two different ways and have not received a response.

Also, JP-8+100 is not particularly volatile, so I will be contacting toxdoc to see if he knows of any specific studies which show that it evaporates before reaching the ground.

01/29/02: Toxdoc gave me several good references. Unfortunately I still haven't been able to determine if dumped JP-8+100 simply forms an aerosol of small droplets rather than evaporating before it reaches the ground. The Material Safety Data Sheet for JP-8 indicates that JP-8 evaporates less than 0.05 times as fast as n-butyl acetate at 1 atmosphere of pressure and 25 degrees Centigrade. ( http://www.exxon.com/exxon_productdata/msds/in127020.html )

Water evaporates 0.3 times as fast as n-butyl acetate at 1 atmosphere of pressure and 25 degrees Centigrade. ( http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/evaporationrate.html )

The Material Safety Data Sheet for JP-4 indicates that JP-4 evaporates from 1-5 times as fast as n-butyl acetate at 1 atmosphere of pressure and 25 degrees Centigrade. ( http://www.exxon.com/exxon_productdata/msds/in124000.html )

The safety of dumping fuel at altitude was researched on JP-4. (Clewell, HJ. Evaporation and Groundfall of JP-4 Jettisoned by USAF Aircraft. AFESC TR ) The fuel now being dumped at altitude by the U.S. Air Force is JP-8, which evaporates 100 times more slowly than JP-4.

More pictures of fuel dumps:

F8 Crusader dumping fuel before a carrier landing Tonkin Gulf April 1969 http://www.efaubion.com/ussfletcher/places.htm

posted 01-31-2002 02:52 PM            

BAHRAIN: November 13, 2001

A U.S. Marine Corp F/A-18C Hornet fighter-bomber dumps its extra fuel before making a carrier landing on the USS Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea following a strike mission in Afghanistan, November 11, 2001. The fighters routinely dump excess fuel before making carrier landings.

http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/13282

===========================================================================

01/31/02: Still no response from nilkin67. If others are aware of more current information on the dumping of jet fuel at altitude, please post it here or contact me using the Message feature.

At Peterson AFB in Colorado, it is permissible to dump fuel at 5000 feet above ground level. See 4.3 in this document. http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/sw_21/i11_2010.htm

A public health assessment performed in 1998 or later for Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio stated that, "more than 98% of JP-4 fuel, jettisoned at more that 1,500 meters [5000 feet] elevation and above freezing temperatures (32º F), will evaporate before reaching the ground..."
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/kelly/kel_p2b.html

[As noted above, JP-8, the fuel currently in use by the Air Force, evaporates 100 times more slowly than JP-4. Presumably, if it is dumped at 5000 feet above ground level, much more than 2% of it will reach the ground.]

In February, 2001, near the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, dumped fuel fell like rain:

quote:

---

It's raining jet fuel near Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport and some residents have decided the precipitation is unwelcome.

The latest dumping came when the crew of American Airlines Flight 157 saw a warning light and began to release fuel. The plane later made an emergency landing.

"Fuel had to be dumped to ensure a safe landing, said American spokesman Gus Whitcomb.

But he said jet fuel dumping is not dangerous because most of the chemicals dissipate in the atmosphere.

The mother of 4-year-old Jacob Harrison isn't so sure. Jacob was playing by himself in his backyard Saturday when the fuel began falling.

``He was literally damp. He had a coat and a hat on. He was damp from the falling of it,'' said Flower Mound resident Missi Harrison.

As she watched in front of the house with a friend, ``the jet fuel was literally sprinkling like rain.''

So Harrison immediately removed Jacob's coat and hat, then gave her son a bath. Her friend Michelle Phipps, a former military helicopter crew member from Lewisville, knew the smell.

---

posted 02-01-2002 09:11 AM            

quote:

---

Fuel dumps
Dumping of fuel in-flight due to emergency situations. A procedure used on long-haul aircraft (Boeing 747, Boeing 767, A340, DC-10-30, MD-11) before unscheduled landings (e. g. in the event of technical problems or passenger illness) to decrease the aircraft's weight to the maximum permissible landing weight. In the event of a fuel dump, special airspace is assigned to the aircraft, if possible above unpopulated or thinly populated areas (e. g. Odenwald, Eifel, Sauerland, North Sea).
Fuel is usually dumped at altitudes of 4 -8 kilometers. A minimum altitude of 1,500 meters [5000 feet] and a minimum speed of 500 km/h [300 mph] are required. The aircraft may not fly a fully closed circle.

---

posted 02-02-2002 10:12 AM            

Nevertheless, here is an FJSIM web page, Microcomputer Model for the Assessment of Fuel Jettisoning Impact: http://www.continuum-dynamics.com/research/topics/fjsim_slides/index.html

"Both of these classes of computations have confirmed earlier conclusions that the likely groundfall of JP-8 fuel is substantially higher than the more volatile JP-4, reiterating the need for a careful assessment of the environmental impact of fuel jettisoning events involving JP-8."

Slide 6 at the FJSIM web site gives these literature references, but I am unable to find the text for them on the web.

-Runge, T.H. 1996. Vaporization of Droplets Formed After Fuel Jettisoning from Aircraft. Masters Thesis. Rutgers University. Piscataway, NJ.
-Runge, T.H., M.E. Teske and C.E. Polymeropoulos. 1998. Low-Temperature Vaporization of JP-4 and JP-8 Fuel Droplets. Atomization and Sprays 8(1):25-44.

The following quote from another FJSIM web page reiterates the possibility that the lower evaporation rate of JP-8 may be a problem:

posted 02-04-2002 02:45 PM            

I also spoke with Lt. Colonel Madden in Fort Worth at 817-222-5910. She said that pilots would report fuel dumps to base ops as far as time and lat/long, but that the reports never went to a higher level as far as she knew. Her impression was that if pilots had too much fuel on board, they would do touch and goes and pattern work until the fuel was burned off.

posted 02-04-2002 08:15 PM            

quote:

---

The average chemical formula of JP-4 and JP-8 is C₉H₂₀ and C₁₂H₂₄, respectively. Paraffins and cycloparaffins are the predominant components in jet kerosine, acounting for as much as 90% of the fuel. Aromatics are the third largest class of compounds existing in jet fuels. The limit on aromatics in JP-8 is currently 25%v because of their high sooting tendencies. Usually the percentage of parrafins in JP-4 is higher than that of JP-8. For instance, the average content of aromatics in JP-8 is round 18~19%, whereas it is only 10% in JP-4.

---

posted 02-05-2002 05:42 AM            

From Cogita Tute:

Interesting clip here:
From the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Office
For the Week of March 19, 2001
Title: International, Agency and Industry Cooperation on Fuel Additive Research
www.ueet.nasa.gov/toi/Fue...earch.html
Edited for - The link doesn't seem to be working. http://www.ueet.nasa.gov/toi/FuelAdditiveResearch.html

Topic of Interest
From the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Office
For the Week of March 19, 2001
Title: International, Agency and Industry Cooperation on Fuel Additive Research

Point of Contact:
2300/Chowen Wey (216) 433-8357

NASA's Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) Program signed a contract with the University of Missouri-Rolla (UMR) on March 15, 2001, to participate in a chronological study of the efficacy of the fuel additive +100 to assess the additive's impact on particulate emissions reduction. Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) and Shell Aviation are working with UMR and NASA to provide the test venue. The aircraft, a B747-400 with GE CF6-80 engines, and local logistic support will be provided by KLM, and the fuel and additive will be provided by Shell Aviation. The Boeing Company will support gaseous emissions measurements. University of Missouri-Rolla (UMR) Center for Aging Aircraft will partially underwrite the UMR particulate emissions measurements cost. NASA Glenn and USAF Wright-Patterson will support part of the UMR measurements cost. The baseline measurement will be taken in May 2001.

posted 02-12-2002 02:27 PM            

gosh
organic chemistry must have gotten "politically correct" eh?

posted 02-14-2002 02:25 PM            

quote:

---

...I will admit that what some people may be seeing are KC-135's, but if they are dumping anything it would be JP-8 coming out of the air refueling boom and not some type of chemical or biotoxin.

I realize that it may be alarming enough just to hear that they are dumping JP-8 all over the place. This is actually not an uncommon practice for any aircraft civilian or military because all aircraft are supposed to be equipped with some kind of fuel dump capability. Why would they be dumping this in the air you may ask? Well, the fact of the matter is that the KC-135 can carry about 200,000 pounds of fuel when full. It can take off with that much but it can't land with that much. If they go to their designated refuel track and one of their recievers cancels out or doesn't take as much fuel as was originally thought that means they either have to dump the extra or fly around for a very long time just burning it off. There are regulations about how long flight crews can fly and and crew rest periods that I won't get into, but it is usually easier to dump it than to fly it off. I don't necessarily agree with this particular point, but that's how it works.

When it is necessary to dump fuel they are given a certain "track" to fly in to dump it. In most cases it isn't over large cities but I have seen it happen. Usually this "track" isn't a very large area so the KC-135 must fly in a very tight circle or actually dump it in spurts over the "track". When they dump, it does come out of the refueling boom in a large white stream which does look like a very large, bright contrail. This would explain why some people would report large circlular or criss-crossing contrails.

In any case, the JP-8 will spread out and slowly dissipate, usually slower than an average contrail. It will dissipate to the point that it will be atomized long before it ever reaches the ground. If it didn't, then anyone outside having a smoke underneath it would incinerate several miles worth of real estate.

---

posted 02-15-2002 08:20 AM            

quote:

---

Why would they be dumping this in the air you may ask? Well, the fact of the matter is that the KC-135 can carry about 200,000 pounds of fuel when full. It can take off with that much but it can't land with that much. If they go to their designated refuel track and one of their recievers cancels out or doesn't take as much fuel as was originally thought that means they either have to dump the extra or fly around for a very long time just burning it off. There are regulations about how long flight crews can fly and and crew rest periods that I won't get into, but it is usually easier to dump it than to fly it off. I don't necessarily agree with this particular point, but that's how it works.

---

posted 02-15-2002 02:45 PM            

quote:

---

...Like I mentioned, NO AIRCRAFT TAKE OFF WITH THE INTENTION OF DUMPING FUEL. When there is an emergency, they dump fuel because they are no longer going to their desitination..... ... They have to land as soon as possible, and they must get rid of the fuel ASAP. They also will get rid of fuel when their receivers don't show up on the refueling track. If they have nobody to give the gas to through air refueling, they have to get rid of it somehow. One option is to dump fuel, and that in general is the preferred option. Let me say that it is a rare occurence when the receivers don't show up, at least from my perspective. Rarely does my squadron not get aircraft up to the tanker to get gas when there is one available.

In most circumstances, it is preferable for the crew to dump the gas instead of burn it down. It takes more than a few hours to burn down a full load of gas to an acceptable landing weight. When I was flying out of Turkey for Operation Northern Watch, I got airborne on a mission that was subsequently cancelled. The tankers had already been airborne for an hour, and they now had a lot of gas to get rid of. Because of local regulations in Turkey, the planes could not dump gas and had to fly the gas off. I remember hearing the pleas of the aircrew for any planes to take gas from them so they could land. Since everyone else was landing, too, there were no takers. I remember walking home from the gym several hours later and the KC-135's were still flying practice approaches to the airfield as they waited for their fuel weight to burn down. Poor guys...

---

posted 02-15-2002 05:43 PM            

quote:

---

...Like I mentioned, NO AIRCRAFT TAKE OFF WITH THE INTENTION OF DUMPING FUEL. When there is an emergency, they dump fuel because they are no longer going to their destination..... ...

---

posted 02-15-2002 11:45 PM            

quote:

---

I'll answer these questions one at a time, in a more poilite fashion as to be unedited when they are re-posted.

How many of these could their possibly be to qualify them as an emergency something other than SOP (standard operating procedure).

There aren't that many. It is a very rare event that an airliner, transport, or tanker is required to get on the ground ASAP due to an emergency. My guess is that there is more fuel dumped (relatively speaking) via tankers with extra gas on board.

Enough to cause massive changes in our atmosphere?

Definitely not. Maybe massive changes to a neighborhood near DFW for a few days, but not on a permanent level on any scale.

Enough to cause doused children with fuel?

Yes, as I said above. First off, I don't care if the kid's little doggie was swimming in jet fuel, the pilots did the right thing by dumping gas. Let's see, upset little Timmy or save over a hundred lives........I choose saving lives! If you were on this flight, which option would you choose while you are slouched over in your seat, hugging your legs, heartbeat racing, praying to set foot on terra firma on more time?
You are completely unaware of what it takes to bring a half-million-pound piece of flying fuel tank in for a safe landing, never mind the fact that it is not running that well and can crash at any second. Save the second-guessing for people who know what they are talking about.

Sounds like some one needs to rewrite the book on that one.

No, they sure don't. Emergencies happen, and getting rid of gas is a fact of life sometimes in order to save lives. The ONLY thing that I think may need to happen is a study to determine the evaporation rate of JP-8 to satisfy the curiosity of a (for the moment) realtively small group of people. And that will never change the protocol for fuel dumps in emergency situations at all, only non-emergencies like tanker aircraft with no receivers.
Maverick

---

posted 02-16-2002 12:50 AM            

That's all I'm asking for, Mav. When there is a true emergency, putting the respiratory health of people on the ground ahead of the lives of people in the air is not a reasonable tradeoff. Take care of the emergency first, and then deal with the resultant health problems as required.

It's the routine jettisoning of fuel that concerns me. Even if there were one fuel dump happening every day over the U.S., that wouldn't be enough to cause massive changes in our atmosphere. It might not even cause measurable long-term effects in the soil where the groundfall occurred. But it could cause significant damage to the lung tissue of people who inadvertently breathed the jettisoned fuel.

The scientists who wrote the software programs which model fuel dumps have statements on their websites which strongly suggest that jettisoned JP-8 does not evaporate completely. If the models are incorrect, we need to do field studies to fix them. If the models are correct, why haven't routine fuel jettison protocols been modified?

posted 02-16-2002 09:44 AM            

quote:

---

Enough to cause doused children with fuel?

Yes, as I said above. First off, I don't care if the kid's little doggie was swimming in jet fuel, the pilots did the right thing by dumping gas. Let's see, upset little Timmy or save over a hundred lives........I choose saving lives! If you were on this flight, which option would you choose while you are slouched over in your seat, hugging your legs, heartbeat racing, praying to set foot on terra firma on more time?
You are completely unaware of what it takes to bring a half-million-pound piece of flying fuel tank in for a safe landing, never mind the fact that it is not running that well and can crash at any second. Save the second-guessing for people who know what they are talking about.

---

I guess I'm the dense one, this made it sound like there were untrained civilians onboard. I was unaware that 100 lives were on fuel tankers, and that they assume crash position while they are preparing to dump fuel.