Refueling with the engine running?

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

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.

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

[rwieder 0]

Quote

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.

Thats pretty much how it goes down when it happens.

Quote

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)

That's an allright stop to maybe the element of static electricity causing static electricity. If you have a choice, and the gas pumps are conjoined with a diesel dispensery as well, theres always a big diesel spill/stain on the cement, drive to another pump site on the premises. If any of you can make a guess, which is the bigger creator of static electricity, Metal or plastic? For those of you who don't know, you'll be completely surprised.

Good Post!

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[obelixtim 100]

Quote

Quote

Safety first when refueling
Fuel servicing personnel is according regulations trained in the safe operation of fueling equipment. As a pilot refueling your own aircraft you should observe at least the following guidelines:

1) Check the color and type of fuel before the actual delivery. 100 octane aviation gasoline (avgas) is green and 100 octane low lead avgas is blue. Jet fuel is usually clear, but sometimes it is a very light yellow color as is normal road diesel and biodiesel. Red diesel is, well, colored red.
2) No smoking within at least 50 feet of an aircraft.
Refuel outside only. Remember: when refueling an aircraft within a closed hanger a situation could develop where the combination of air and fuel vapors are very explosive! One spark due to static electricity and your flight will end prematurely.
3) The aircraft and fueling vehicles or equipment should be bonded together to dissipate static electricity collected during refueling.
4) Always keep fire extinguishers nearby.
5) Portable electronic devices should be switched off (cellphones, radio's, pagers).
6) If a spill occurs, refueling should be stopped and the airport fire department notified, if necessary.
Ground power units should not be connected or disconnected during refueling.
7) Persons refueling aircraft should not carry lighters or matches when refueling.
8) At the first sight of lightning in the area, refueling operations should be suspended.
9) Refueling may not be conducted with passengers on board the aircraft.
10) Avoid contact with fuel. The health risks are high if fuel gets into your body, this is possible via the eyes, skin contact, ingestion of via inhalation. Get medical help if this happens.
11) AVgas refueling must not be done with the engines running (hot refueling) and be careful if hot refueling with JET A.
12) Make sure the fuel nozzle is clean and keep dirt and water away from the fuel caps, also support the nozzle preventing damage to the wing tank.
13) Replace the fuel caps securely, loosing a cap in flight will guarantee a loss of fuel and possible wing damage.
14) Wait some 30 minutes before sampling fuel, gently rock the wings so that any water and debris can settle near the sample port.

http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/homebuilt-aircraft/aircraft-refueling.php

These facts pulled from this other web site, not MY web site!

Ryan Air fuel aircraft with all passengers on board, frequently. While not having the engines going, asll the electrical systems are powered up, which effectively are ignition points.

I don´t know how they are allowed to do that.

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[totter 2]

I'll agree with you on one point and that is that safety is priority one.

Beyond that if you were to tone down your extremitizm people may be more reluctant to listen. Myself included.

Many post ago you asked Ron how Hot Fueling was done. I answered for him. Sarcasm was added because anyone who has Hot Fueled a King Air knows that that is what happens. It hot, dirty, smelly and YES dangerous. But I've done it so many times its second nature.

I'll agree with you also about not having people in the aircraft while Hot fueling. Or with the pilot being the one to Hot Fuel. But that is where I'll stop.

The procedure I and the other people at the DZ used was approved by the Fire Marshall as meeting the necessary safety requirements.
Between myself and ace Hot Fueler Dennis, a.k.a. Toast, we would pump 3000 gallons of Jet A on a busy weekend, 98% of it by Hot Fueling. More when we had big ways going on.
So you'll have to excuse me if I don't except your hardline stance as something that is imparative and needs to implimented immediately.
Just flat out stating that ALL Hot Fueling is dangerous is just going a step to far for me.
Hot Fueling a piston aircraft - Not necessary and just plain stupid and dangerous.
Having the pilot Hot Fuel with no one at the controls - Not necessary and just plain stupid.
Having a fuel farm with no fire extinguisher or ground wire. Stupid. Not using the ground. Stupid
Laying the fuel nozzle on the ground when done - Stupid
Those things above are being complacent. If you witness such things than of course spreak up.
As many posters have agreed Hot Fueling has been going on for years at DZs with no accident or incidents and it safe if done properly. Does this mean that it could never happen, No. But that is the case with EVERYTHING in life.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Sorry about all those people saying you're an asshole for thinking hot refueling is dangerous.

I dont recall people calling him an asshole. We did ask him to bring data. He however did insult people.

Opinion without data is just an opinion. You want action? Bring data.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[dninness 4]

Quote

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.

Thanks TK, I did the same, but the @#$% NTSB database kept timing out on me. My database-fu was weak.

I, too, called bullshit on page one or two, and he conveniently ignored my request for more data on the S-76 accident he claims he witnessed. Aircraft do not blow up "just because."

WIWITA (When I Was In The Army), I was involved in a fuel spill during hot refueling a CH-47 that was caused by inattention. The (lazy) civilian fuelers who ran our fuel point had little wooden blocks they'd jam under the handles of the fuel nozzle to allow the nozzle to run without having to squeeze it the entire time (to be fair, you're dispensing 400+ gal per side sometimes, several times a night, you can expect your hands to get tired).

The right aft tank topped out just as the refueler peered down to see where he was in the process. The fuel shot out of the filler neck, he fell backwards off the little two-step platform he was standing on, and about 15 gallons of JP4 shot out of the nozzle. At least 2-3 gallons of that went straight into the #2 engine inlet about 4 ft above and 3 ft aft of the tank opening.

The other 12-13 gallons went up into the rotor system and right down on me.

Nothing exploded. Nothing burst into flames. Just as I saw the thing happening I keyed the intercom, said "1 and 2 to STOP" and unplugged my comm cord. *splat*. As the engines spooled down, I calmly walked over to the emergency shower on the side of the building and stood there rinsing myself off in about 40 degrees of a cold March evening.

Ruined all of my flight gear, my wallet, flight suit, survival vest, nametags, boots, etc. Only thing I still have are my dogtags from that day. My pride was a little hurt, too, to be honest.

We filled out some paperwork, the civilians had to stop using the little wood blocks, and I elected to supervise refueling in the future from a position further outside the rotor path.

But apart from some ruined flight gear and a very small fuel spill, it was a total no factor. And yes, my Hollywood-educated science brain expected that I would be testing the fire-retardant capabilities of fuel-soaked Nomex that night. *whew*

NIN
D-19617, AFF-I '19

[tkhayes 125]

Quote

I know for the longest time Z-Hills wasn't able to Hot Fuel because the Fire MArshall wouldn't allow it. Don't know if that is still the case.

It's not up to the fire marshall. In Florida, all NFPA fire code has been adopted as state law, therefore hot fueling, except for helicopters is illegal, period. local and county govt's cannot override this.

this changes from state to state. Most places, the fire marshall is not even aware of the rules, or they look they other way. I doubt very much that ANY fire marshall anywhere, anytime, is willing to go against NFPA rules, since they are all so tightly wound. So in other words, asking permission is probably not smart.

[tkhayes 125]

Quote

Without single point re-fueling the FAA would most likely say NO.

The FAA does not really give a shit about hot fueling. It is an NFPA issue. Despite the fact that the FAA would most definitely investigate a 'fire' or injury as a result of a fueling problem, I have been able to find NO documentation or obtain ANY information from the FAA one way or another regarding hot fueling. procedures, rules recommendations or otherwise.

Yet if the FAA would take a stance on it and (help) develop procedures for it, that would effectively allow operators to tell the fire marshals to shove off. But since NO ONE but the NFPA seems to take ownership of the issue, then NFPA effectively owns it.

Plus NFPA has 'Life Code' which is the catch-all for ANYTHING else that might cause injury or death to a human being, giving the NFPA and the Fire Depts universal all-encompassing power over the entire universe. A very dangerous thing of which I am more familiar than I care to talk about.

[quade 3]

Quote

I have been able to find NO documentation or obtain ANY information from the FAA one way or another regarding hot fueling. procedures, rules recommendations or otherwise.

Your Google-fu is weak!

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1b6eb811481730f5862569d90074492e/$FILE/ac91-32b.pdf

Skip on down to section 13.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[tkhayes 125]

yes rapid refueling for HELICOPTERS which is legal by NFPA code. Maybe I am missing something but the point of this thread is only marginally, if at all, related to helicopters....

[quade 3]

Pffft.

Gimme a break. As far as hot fueling goes, the dangers, for all practical purposes, are not really all that different.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[totter 2]

Quote

In Florida, all NFPA fire code has been adopted as state law, therefore hot fueling

Hey TK,
I guess I should have been more area specific and stated; "In New Jersey".
I seem to remember when we operated in Sebastian not being able to Hot Fuel due to fire regs, so I just associated it with Fire Marshall.
In New Jersey, however, it is (was) up to the Fire Marshall to grant us permission to Hot Fuel.
He would make a Yearly Inspection and Spot checks of the fuel farm, safety equipement and observe.
Not that they don't due this on a regular basis at other places, but his good graces were all part of us being able to hot fuel. And if it was approved by the Fire Marshall it was OK with the local and state authorities. If he said NO, then we would not have been able to.
Also, just so we are speaking apples to apples, I am not implying to the Fire Chief. The Fire Chief, I agree, would probably not be fully versed on all the fire regs and laws. The Fire Marshall, though, is responsable for enforcement of the local and state codes, regs and laws. (At least in New Jersey).

[totter 2]

Quote

The FAA does not really give a shit about hot fueling

Hi again TK;
When it comes to General Aviation I agree. I posted that in an earlier comment.
The quote of mine that you posted

Quote

Without single point re-fueling the FAA would most likely say NO.

was in response to a question of "What If" the FAA required fueling procedures and approval like 135 and 121 operators.
As part of the operator's OPs Spec and GOM they need to show procedures for fueling, which then have to be approved by the FAA.
And, I feel that, even if the local and state goverments allowed Hot Fueling the FAA would not approve someones procedure if the aircraft was not Single-Point equipped just do to the liabilty issue. Single point is inherently safer.
And we all know that the FAA does not like to go out on a limb.

[Anvilbrother 0]

NFPA is not a law it's just an association. States or the local AHJ (authority having jurisdiction) usually the local fire department have to adopt the codes to make them legally binding. So saying doing anything against NFPA is illegal is subject to the area. Here in Louisiana at my department the only thing NFPA related are the life safety and building codes. We try to follow other codes such as hearing protection, safety vests, truck and station design, and gear and air pack programs, but it's on our own proactive means not by law.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[totter 2]

Quote

1- there are parts in the turbine engine that have to be replaced every so many 'cycles' regardless of their conditions. Keeping the turbine running extends the number of engine hours before these have to be replaced. If a turbine shutdown after every load all the time the impact would be significant.

This is the primary reason for Hot Fueling. You know that with a Garrett engine (Skyvan, Casa) you can start it in the morning fly 35 loads in it, shut it down at the end of the day it it only counts as 1 (one) engine cycle. Makes a big difference when you don't have to shut down for fueling. That would be 6 cycles otherwise.

Quote

2- Turbines of the PT-6 variety (up to the -34 series, I believe) have a twenty minute cooldown period before they can be started again. Sometimes you will see a pilot with a hot engine spinning the turbine just to cycle air through the blades and get the temperature down a bit before restarting if it's not cool enough.

The earlier model PT6s, like the -6 and -20s, have an inner hot section that is made up of numerous smaller peices that are assembled together before install in the engine. It is due to this why a -20 Otter, Porter or King Air needs at least 20 minutes to cool down, so that all sections of the hot section can cool down evenly. The combustion area of the GG case may be just warm to the touch, but inside the core is still 100-200C. Uneven heating and cooling lead to warpage which then leads to premature failure. -21, 27, 28, 34, 135 and 114s don't have this issue, but it is still a good idea to have the engine temp as cool as possible before light off since 85% of hot section wear is from starts.
The pilot can also "Motor' the engine to draw cool air thru the engine.
If you see a pilot pulling the blades thru (by hand) after shut down then that engine is a Garrett and it requires a cool down period for another reason (shaft bow).

[Andy9o8 0]

This thread was interesting until it got polluted by a dick-swinging contest.

[taylor.freefall 0]

wtf?

[skydiver604 0]

I seen that at the theatres,,on the big screen it was fucking hilarious

"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo

[taylor.freefall 0]

Quote

I seen that at the theatres,,on the big screen it was fucking hilarious

Dude... I'm serious... That's not even funny ; )

[sacex250 0]

Quote

I seen that at the theatres,,on the big screen it was fucking hilarious

I saw it when it came out as well. One of the best laughs in a packed theatre of all time.

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[bryanburke 10]

TK has a pretty good grip on the legal aspects.

Earlier someone asked if any "experts" could inform the discussion. I don't know if I'm an expert, but I'll bet I've pumped at least a million gallons of Jet fuel into Otters, Skyvans, King Airs, Porters, and Westwind Beeches. At Skydive Arizona we've done about 2.5 million jumps out of our turbines, at an average of about 1.4 or 1.5 gallons per jump, not counting ferry fuel and boogies away. The majority of that fuel was put on with engines running. We have never had an incident worse than a minor spill from nozzle/intake problems.

When turbine aircraft started to show up in skydiving fleets, they were often operated by people who didn't really know what they were doing, but did know about the expese of starting/stopping engines to fuel. I was one of those ignorant guys, many times I fueled while skydivers boarded, or while nobody was at the controls, or the plane wasn't grounded. We never had any problems, but if people are still doing this it signifies the drop zone has a culture of ignoring known safety practices.

As more operators got turbines, more questions arose as to safety and procedures and we started to learn better practices. The NFPA does in fact limit hot fueling, last time I checked it was helicopters only at a very slow rate. I actually talked to the guy there who was in charge of code revisions and explained our situation. (This was back in the early 90s.) He basically said that a procedure had to be pretty much foolproof for them to consider a revision. In other words, unless a King Air could be safely hot fueled at night, in an ice storm, with 70 mph winds, by a moron, it wasn't going to happen.

So, USPA and PIA drafted their own guidelines. IF the fire authorities accept the alternative guidelines, it's legal. If they don't, it isn't. That's why some drop zones can do it, and some can't.

So much for the regulations. Now for the safety. Although static electricity hasn't proved to be a big hazard in the field, it's a potential one, so you should ground the plane and fuel system. If the pilot gets out for a break, the cockpit should have someone else in it throughout the fueling who knows how to operate the brakes and knows the fire drill.

The fueler should follow the same procedure every time and be trained to watch for trip hazards, kinks in the hose, people approaching, etc. They also need to know about flow rate and nozzle compatibility to avoid spills. We often travel with our own nozzle on the boogie circuit to make sure there is one that works for our planes if we're using someone else's fuel system.

I disagree that props should be feathered. It's much more comfortable and safe (in terms of breathing) for the fueler if they are not, and if there is an eruption of fuel (say, stuck nozzle or something) the prop wash will hopefully keep it away from the engine intakes and exhausts.

Skydivers should stay well back until the fueling is complete. The plane should be positioned to minimize or eliminate any possible traffic around the props.

Fuel contamination has killed a lot more skydivers than fueling fires/explosions, so if I were you I'd worry a lot more about how the drop zone tests, stores, and handles their fuel than I would about the actual fueling process.

I could go on with details, contact me at SDAZ if you want. For those of you with the strident posts... you're the reason a lot of people in the sport who actually do know both the theory and practice don't bother spending time on dropzone.com. It just happened to be overcast in Eloy today, the only reason I was cruising the forum. I hope this will slow the ranting a bit.

Bryan Burke
S&TA at Skydive AZ

[aarco 0]

sounds like the pilot was angery- Ground crew?>

Having something never beats doing (>|<)
Iam building things - Iam working on my mind- I am going to change this world - its what I came here 4- - -

[kd5xb 1]

I spent 20 years on a military flight line. We did hot refueling (hot pits) on fighters at various times, and always the SAME procedure --

Safety observer out front
Ground the airplane and ground the refueling nozzle to the aircraft
One man to connect the nozzle to the aircraft, and one man to assist, if necessary
All personnel using headsets to talk to each other

etc -- I'm sure I've forgotten a lot, since I retired in 1999.

I DO remember that the Air Force does NOT allow refuelling with passengers on the plane (for cargo planes, C-141, C-5, etc), while the Marine Corps did in the late '70's, not sure about now.

As for whether jet fuel is easier to ignite than avgas -- well, it depends. All jet fuel is NOT kerosene. (Yeah, I'm a little late for this, I was on the road.)

JET-A and JET-A1 have a higher ignition point than avgas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

JP-4 is a 50-50 kerosene/gasoline blend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-4

JP-5 is kerosene based with a very high flashpoint. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-5

JP-8 is similar to JP-5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-8

I'm a jumper. Even though I don't always have money for jumps, and may not ever own a rig again, I'll always be a jumper.

[riggerrob 558]

NFPA publish "best business practices."
Any time a municipality allows operations looser than NFPA recommendations, they leave themselves open to massive lawsuits, after accidents.

[stayhigh 2]

I do that with my car every time.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016