J. Nyhus

4 minutes ago, PhrogPhlyer said:

Jet fuel is fundamentally the same be it JP-5 or 7, Jet A or any other variant. The differences have mostly to do with additives for  freezing temperature and a variety of mission/aircraft specific requirements. As for health hazards, they are all basically the same. And yes, individual response to exposure can be different based un exertion, temperature and other variables.

Fair points.

1 hour ago, PhrogPhlyer said:

Jet A is an irritant in normal usage and simple skin washing would prevent any skin issues. However, in high concentrations any irritant could cause extensive skin damage. People stating the could "feel" the fuel in the air were most likely experiencing varying levels of irritation on any exposed skin, eyes and the respiratory tract. I've attached the Safety Data Sheet for Jet-A, and you will note it is listed as an irritant, but not a corrosive.

 

 

SDS Jet A.pdf 284.61 kB · 0 downloads

I agree with you. At the same time, I've been around fuel vapers in quantities where you can "feel" it around you, (as in, a change in air density) and it can be very unpleasant, especially when your pores are open (sweating) and are under stress. Beggs the question... could that have been what they were recounting?

Given this happened in the 70s, I'm curious what the difference may be, compared to the 2021 SDS you linked... And out of left field, is there one for JP-7?

9 minutes ago, jgf said:

Yes, the fuel was floating on the water, but there was no fire (flight attendants were warning people not to light matches or lighters).    The water wasn't deep (it was a swamp) and photos showed rescuers wading around, knee deep to waist deep.  The implication was the fuel itself burned the skin.

 

This is the crash - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_401

 

note, "... received burns to his face, arms, and legs—a result of spilled jet fuel..."

and, "Fourteen survivors had various degrees of burns"

 

Neither this article nor the documentary mention any fire, in fact rescuers had trouble finding the crash site because of the dark night. 

I seem to remember a show interviewing the guys who were on the airboat, who saw her go in, and they stated they saw an explosion in the air, then a second explosion, (assumed to be the impact), at which point they rushed to the area... Seeing flames around the area as they got closer, along with much more graphic experiences of what they saw. I could assume, maybe, they were dealing with highly heated floating fule that hadn't ignited. At the same time, people have different tolerances for what are considered irritants.