totter 2 #76 December 14, 2011 Good post Dave!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
totter 2 #77 December 14, 2011 Just to add, Fire Marshalls are not ignorant when it comes to aircraft. Ours, at the time, would not allow us to Hot Fuel the first Caravan we had due to the fact that the engine exhaust is lower than the RH Inboard Fueling point. This was an early model Caravan that had two fuel fillers per wing. We were able to demonstrate that by Hot Fueling from the Outboard Fueling points only that there was sufficant distance between the OB Fuel Filler and the Exhaust to negate any hazards. We also Hot Fueled our Helicopter, the Alloette we had, since the Fuel Filler was lower than the engine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #78 December 14, 2011 QuotePlease address the idea that if you cannot produce evidence of an incident (actually enough incidents to rule out an anomoly), how can you classify the practice as being unsafe? It's not a new practice, nobody is trying to rewrite the rules, it's something that's been done without incident (as far as we know) for decades. How can that be wrong? Above was my honest, fairly stated question to rwieder, Below is my answer, via PM - QuoteHello Dave: Why don't you XXXX ME, then XXXX A WET FART OUT OF MY XXX? I've decided you're a fukkin' XXXX. I'm trying to divert disaster to ignorant SOBS, unlike yourself, you remind me of when I was playing Football, after the tackle, then came the "DOG PILE!" Go fuck yourself, you sarcastic XXXXXX. Edited so as not force the guy into a public personal attack (it's OK via PM). That's the entire message. My post is my only communication to him, I did not send a PM containing other comments or language. The above is his entire response to my post, and I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions based on that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 279 #79 December 14, 2011 Quote But a Part 135 or 121 operation must have FAA approval as part of their OPs Specs and the procedure must be in their GOM. Which leads to the question, how would skydiving hot fuelling be any different if it were under those more restrictive systems -- would there be anything different when it comes to what is done for safety? (I'm not talking about paperwork and training differences.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snwbdr94 0 #80 December 14, 2011 This could have been quite an interesting thread. Instead rwieder ended the thread before it even began. Post #11 I'll quote rwieder Quote I strongly urge you people do some research on this, I'm more than sure you'll be amazed how much destruction this has caused to air craft & people. Now, I know he has posted a few links. When linking to an article, you should be quoting from it to make a point. No where did rwieder do this. He kept claiming for us to read the links. As many others I don't have time reading articles where 98% of the literature has nothing to do with topic at hand. Which brings me to believe that Ron has hit the nail on the head when he stated in post #61 Quote So far you have just brought claims based on theoretical issues based only on fear. My conclusion is that rwielder is trolling for his own excitement. His PM to you was quite entertaining as well which just further proves the point of him trolling. I want to see facts of hot fueling being dangerous! We are all doomed for death! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #81 December 14, 2011 Both of you cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpjr 18 #82 December 14, 2011 Besides the obvious fire hazard of hot fueling the pilot is not sampling his fuel for water or other contaminations. I know of one hot refueling accident because of it. A lot of hazards in life. I have hot fueled and will again. Many steps can be taken by the pilot and fueling crew to reduce the risks. If you see unsafe hot refueling stand back, come up with a safer SOP for refueling and submit it to the DZO / Pilot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
totter 2 #83 December 14, 2011 Quotenot sampling his fuel for water or other contaminations That is why the fuel should be sampled at the source (fuel truck or tank) before flight ops each day. If you purchase fuel from an airport concession then it is their responsibilty to sample the supply each day. An airport vendor would not want the liabilty that comes with Hot Fueling and must likely wouldn't allow it. Anyway, it would be very difficult to detect water in Jet A right after fueling being that the water would be entrained in the fuel. Contaminants most likely would not have time to reach the sumps unless the aircraft sat for an extended period of time and we all know that wouldn't happen. Now that is for a turbine aircraft. Hot fueling a piston aircraft is just plain stupid and is dangerous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
totter 2 #84 December 14, 2011 Quotehow would skydiving hot fuelling be any different if it were under those more restrictive systems Most likely it would not be allowed. Without single point re-fueling the FAA would most likely say NO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #85 December 14, 2011 QuoteQuote But a Part 135 or 121 operation must have FAA approval as part of their OPs Specs and the procedure must be in their GOM. Which leads to the question, how would skydiving hot fuelling be any different if it were under those more restrictive systems -- would there be anything different when it comes to what is done for safety? (I'm not talking about paperwork and training differences.) ....................................................................... Bascily, the operator (aircraft owner) writes an operations manual specifying grounding wires, no pax onboard, how many staff involved, initial training, refresher training, etc. The FAA - or Transport Canada - decides whether or not to approve that operations manual. The FAA - or Transport Canada - conducts periodic reviews to confirm that the operator is following its own written procedures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #86 December 14, 2011 QuoteYour right, it's worse than gas. Throw a match into a 5 gallon of gas, what happens?? Now lets consider the tempeature add that into the equazion all of the sudden things look really different. Even NasCar takes extreme caution when refueling during races, there have been very deadly incidents during refueling in NasCar, but you take a look now. In fact they only allow 1 man over the wall to refuel the car. You obviously didn't visit the web site and do any research. I have personally witnessed Sikorsky 76's virtually explode on heli-decks during refueling, even when things are done by the book, it's still dangerous. I encourage you to visit the web site. I don't care how many of you turn a blind eye, ignore or just aren't aware of what can happen, this procedure can literally costs you your life. Personally, I will not board any aircraft while the engines are running, you have to add in the heat of the exaust to the ambient temperture, you'll be surprised how hot it really actually is. Add in the static environment of jumpers, flight suits, etc...then get back with me. I'm calling bullshit on that. I personally did the research on ALL hot-fueling accidents in the USA and between the NTSB and the FAA, they could only find 4 fueling related accidents in the history of recording accidents. All 4 were helicopters. one was gasoline and the guy fueling was smoking. Another was a guy fueling unattended in 30+MPH winds and the helicopter flipped over and burned. The other 2 were minor accidents related to spills and then a fire that started as a result. Rapid refueling has been done probably hundreds of thousands of times in the USA at operations all over the country without a single incident. It is however against NFPA fire code, but as for it being unsafe, it is ridiculous to even state that. There are far too many factors to make such a blanket statement. The type of plane, fueling and engine locations, fueling equipment available, personnel available etc all have an effect on the safety of it. It can and it is being done every day - safely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #87 December 14, 2011 QuoteI know of one hot refueling accident because of it. Can you provide some more information?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #88 December 14, 2011 Thanks TK... figured you have done some homework on this since the PHX/SDC issue years ago. QuoteI personally did the research on ALL hot-fueling accidents in the USA and between the NTSB and the FAA, they could only find 4 fueling related accidents in the history of recording accidents. QuoteThe other 2 were minor accidents related to spills and then a fire that started as a result. QuoteRapid refueling has been done probably hundreds of thousands of times in the USA at operations all over the country without a single incident. Can you share where you found this information?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #89 December 14, 2011 Right, wrong or indifferent, I commend you on your approach to skydiving safety. You have an opinion and it's geared toward safety. Keep it that way. "Safe" is often times a relative term and your definition may differ from that of others. It doesn't matter what others do. You continue to do what's right for yourself. Sorry about all those people saying you're an asshole for thinking hot refueling is dangerous. Sometimes people fall into the "it hasn't happened yet so it must be OK" trap. It's good that some people DO recognize what could happen. Sorry you let it get under your skin and lashed out at Dave.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jonstark 8 #90 December 15, 2011 Please allow me to offer my experiences over 35+ years of Corporate Aviation Maintenance and Flight Operations... In a maintenance facility where the techs are dealing with a customers multi-million dollar a/c I have rarely if ever seen refueling go on with even the APU running and never with engines running. For safety sake and to mitigate ANY risk of accident it is just not done. Once flight crews take over they may refuel with the APU running as needed. During normal corporate and government flight operations where an a/c is in transit it is not at all uncommon to refuel from a truck or fuel farm with the APU running and pax on board. I have done it countless times. Fuel samples are taken before fueling commences and verified to be clear of water or foreign material. A flight crewmember is often in direct supervision of the procedure or at the very least remains in the cockpit monitoring fuel quantity. Regarding rapid fueling in a dropzone environment I do not see a problem with the practice as long as properly trained personnel using the proper equipment with a best practice SOP do the job. To eliminate risk to pax I believe it should not be accomplished with pax on board or during boarding. Boarding pax on an a/c with engines running is best supervised by DZ staff. It is rare that some unwitting person strays from the safe area with disastrous results but it has happened. The danger is not however the heat, fumes, static, etc. It's the invisible props. jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hackish 8 #91 December 15, 2011 I apologise if this has been already answered because I skipped most of the bickering... Is anyone aware of hot fuelling being done in Canada (legally of course). I did speak to someone at TC only because I know the guy and he said there wouldn't be a snowball's chance in hell that it would be allowed in Canada. Obviously most of this discussion is related to FAA regs and such. Anything for us Canucks? -Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #92 December 15, 2011 As Rob said earlier it depends on the operations manual. This is another of the myriad of reasons most turbine operators opt to use US registered aircraft in Canada under NAFTA certificates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #93 December 15, 2011 I'm not saying it's not a big deal to hot fuel, if you have the choice I would opt not to while the plane is occupied. One thing some people don't realize is jet a is safer from a catching on fire point of view than gas. It is true once lit it puts off more btus then gas, but harder to reach the fire point. The autoignition temp of jet a is 410F. The temp it will burst into flames if mixed with air at the proper ratio between LEL.5% to a UEL of 5%. The flashnpoint is around 125F but will not stay burning usually only flash. I could not find a fire point for jet a. It's the temperature in which it will flash and continue to give off enough vapors to burn. Gasoline will burn at -46F, clearly ready to go most of the time with no heating involved. My question to you is do you remove everyone from your car when at the gas station? Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #94 December 15, 2011 QuoteMy question to you is do you remove everyone from your car when at the gas station? Fishing? Nope. Are you going to tell me I'm an asshole now? ?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #95 December 15, 2011 My questions wasn't to you. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #96 December 15, 2011 Where did you find that it was against NFPA? NFPA standard for aircraft fueling services 407 section 5.11.1 says it's allowed as long as one person trained in evacuation for that plane, and a clear egress out is present then it's allowed. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #97 December 15, 2011 QuoteMy question to you is do you remove everyone from your car when at the gas station? Oh, SNAP! I see this was for me...Duh. To answer your question, when I stop to get gas, I'm always by myself. When I drive stock cars on NasCar sanctioned tracks, I remain in the car only because of all of the safety devices in place in the trunk, the bird cage, the hood etc...There are temperature sensors in these locations that set off fire extenguishers if fire is present. I got to drive Dale Jarrett's driving program at Talledega Speedway in the advanced program. My car didn't catch fire, but someone else's did and the safety equipment worked as it should have. I'd like to propose something similar to SkyDiving, but if no one cares, not much point in it. After all, it never happens, never has, & never will.....Right? Additional Thoughts: When my children were small (The youngest is 32 now) When I refueled the Tahoe before we went somewhere, I did in fact fuel the vehichle by myself. If we were on a trip, that's when my wife would make sure all the little kiddies went to the bathroom, and they weren't allowed back inside the vehichle until fueling had been finished. I won't even leave my Vehichle running while I get fuel. All though I do carry a Fire Extenguisher with me in all of my vehichles. It more often than not created conversations with other parents as to why I was doing, and why. I've had some good conversations in the past.-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #98 December 15, 2011 Thanks for the reply. Ive only been inside during a hot fuel once, and I'm not sure how we even got in that situation, usually we wait outside. This gives you plenty of time to sort out the loading order and when fueling is done, everyone is ready to hop on board fast enough. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #99 December 15, 2011 NFPA rules ban fueling while the engines are running except for helicopters. that is what I was referring to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 8 #100 December 15, 2011 QuoteWhen my children were small (The youngest is 32 now) When I refueled the Tahoe before we went somewhere, I did in fact fuel the vehichle by myself. If we were on a trip, that's when my wife would make sure all the little kiddies went to the bathroom, and they weren't allowed back inside the vehichle until fueling had been finished. I won't even leave my Vehichle running while I get fuel. All though I do carry a Fire Extenguisher with me in all of my vehichles. It more often than not created conversations with other parents as to why I was doing, and why. I've had some good conversations in the past. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't almost all of the fires started at a gas pump because of a static discharge between the person (who's usually wearing a jacket and/or causing static by sliding off their cloth seats) not grounding themselves prior to starting to fuel? They start to fuel, touch the car = spark and instant fire. That's avoided simply by touching the metal on the vehicle and grounding before fueling. What other things cause fires at the gas pump? (not talking about the car driving thru the damn thing and it starting a fire)"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
