PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Forgotten your Username/Password?


Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 15th Jul 2012, 21:03   #1 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: beirut!
Age: 18
Posts: 11
Fuel removal after landing?

Hi!
I was just wondering if you always remove fuel after landing?

Say for an example that your landing fuel would be 3.5T, will it be removed before the next flight or will it remain in the tanks?

So if you need, say 17T for this specific flight, do you only refuel 13.5T or do you take 17T from the beginning?

Thanks!
Beirut pilot is offline   Reply
Old 15th Jul 2012, 21:06   #2 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: overthehillsandmountains
Posts: 142
Fuel is not removed.
kwateow is offline   Reply
Old 15th Jul 2012, 21:19   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Enroute to sand.
Posts: 206
what would be the point in removing it? Do you remove fuel from you car when you get home from the shop?
irishpilot1990 is offline   Reply
Old 15th Jul 2012, 21:40   #4 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 4,958
The only routine requirement for defuelling is maintenance. For example, scheduled fuel tank maintenance or an aircraft reweigh are the two most likely situations I can bring to mind.

Where such maintenance is programmed, flight crews would be requested to RTB with minimum fuel. For some aircraft, offloading fuel is a considerable nuisance.
john_tullamarine is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jul 2012, 18:23   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,363
concur, not only is it a nuisance offloading,
in most places, the fuel cannot be re-loaded onto another ac....so a special truck must offload it and it must go back to the fuel farm and set through the filtration system....
FlightPathOBN is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jul 2012, 19:11   #6 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 177
FlightPathOBN,

I have never heard of a fuel farm accepting "used" / contaminated fuel into its system...?!
After all, the fuel has to be considered "out of specification". Or do I miss something?

In my experience, fuel removed from an aircraft goes either back into the same airplane (after weighing or tank entry accomplished), into an airplane of the same operator - or to a power plant...

Cheers, J. V.
jettison valve is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jul 2012, 21:53   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 551
Sometimes, even during maintenance work the fuel isn't removed, merely pumped to another tank whilst on the ground.

Horgy
MrHorgy is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jul 2012, 22:16   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,363
Well, I did say if.....
once if off the aircraft, it is not going into another aircraft untreated.

There are many facilities that have above ground storage tanks, that are even filled by trucks, so there is a filtration system to handle green fuel.

Even so, there is little spec difference between jet fuel and kerosene heating oil for a home....except the cost, and filtration and water content on delivery...

If you dont think that is true, there are lengthy discussion about this on this website...
here we go...

According to Conoco Philips....

Product Name: Aviation Kerosene
Synonyms: Aviation Jet Fuel A-1 (civilian)
...............Avtur
...............NATO F34, F35 (military)
...............Regular Burning Oil (RBO)
...............28 Second Heating Oil
Safety Data Sheet Number: 814650
Intended Use: Aviation Turbine Fuel
Manufacturer: ConocoPhillips Ltd, Humber Refinery
South Killingholme, North Lincolnshire DN40 3DW

http://apollofuels.co.uk/p7spepper/img/kero_msds.pdf

Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 16th Jul 2012 at 22:20.
FlightPathOBN is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jul 2012, 22:16   #9 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England
Posts: 468
Where I work, fuel that is removed from an aircraft can only be re-used within the same airline. If airline procedures do not permit 'recycled' fuel, it's trucked off to wherever and discarded.
750XL is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jul 2012, 22:22   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,363
It still must go through a filtration system either on offload or pre-load, never straight...

I hope that with the price of fuel, you dont really think it gets "'disposed of"

one man's disposal is another man's fuel.

dont kid yourselves....

Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 17th Jul 2012 at 02:28.
FlightPathOBN is offline   Reply
Old 17th Jul 2012, 06:47   #11 (permalink)

Bottums Up
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: dunnunda
Age: 55
Posts: 3,043
My question is, why would one even consider offloading fuel at the end of a day's flying?
Capt Claret is offline   Reply
Old 17th Jul 2012, 07:09   #12 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 596
He's only 17, be nice.

Fuel is not removed. No need to top off overnight like in a 172 either.
Check Airman is offline   Reply
Old 17th Jul 2012, 20:33   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 177
FlightPathOBN,

In my point of view (mechanical) filtration is not enough, as per legal aspects.

Thank you for the link to A1, not much new things there....

What you pump out of an aircraft tank (especially long range airplanes) is a wild mixture of Jet A, Jet A1, TS-1; there is an unknown part of microbial contaminants like yeast, fungus etc., sand, water, hydraulic fluid, left-overs of previous tank entries - well, just about anything...

The bottom line:
In MY aviation world, we can only bring material to an aircraft with proper documentation about what the stuff is (Form 1s, Conformity Statements etc.).
Any fuel that has gone through an aircraft tank is per default not in line with any of the AFM approved fuel specifications and therefore out of the game (with the exceptions given in my previous post).

Good night everyone,
J.V.
jettison valve is offline   Reply
Old 17th Jul 2012, 20:52   #14 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North West UK
Posts: 236
On the recent BBC programme about the full maintenance job on a B747 it showed the presenter and a technician inside a fuel tank without breathing apparatus. I was surprised at this, as even if the tank was emptied it would have a lot of residue left in. (I have a little knowledge of this from driving road tankers around delivering kerosene many years ago).

The tank being filmed looked very clean and dry.

Was this 'set up' do you think, or genuine?
Espada III is offline   Reply
Old 17th Jul 2012, 21:06   #15 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 1,524
I can't comment on current H&S legislation, but I've crawled into plenty of tanks in my time with nothing more than a socket spanner and a wander light.
DaveReidUK is online now   Reply
Old 17th Jul 2012, 21:48   #16 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,363
The tanks would have been inerted with carbon dioxide before entry...

There should not be any residue, as the fuel and slosh would keep the interior very clean...

There will be a problem with biofuel, if you ever use it, it is very clean, and will flush out all the intake lines, expect to be changing filters quite often when you first start using that stuff, if ever..

Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 17th Jul 2012 at 21:50.
FlightPathOBN is offline   Reply
Old 17th Jul 2012, 22:45   #17 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: <60 minutes
Posts: 54
Carbon dioxide? You may have been more believable guessing it was laughing gas.

In the UK, wet tanks can be entered with Breathing Apparatus otherwise the tank is drained, forced air vented and entered without BA after the tank atmosphere is checked (electronically-not with canary's, even in Wales) continuously for remaining vapours.
darkbarly is offline   Reply
Old 17th Jul 2012, 23:17   #18 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Age: 45
Posts: 53
Quote:
The tanks would have been inerted with carbon dioxide before entry...
This doesn't make any sense at all to me.


Here's the basics of how tank entry is done where I work.
Before entry the tank is defueled/sumped then purged using blowers and venturis to obtain the correct Lower Explosive Limit and oxygen content. This is considered a fire-safe condition and allows for entry using a supplied air respirator. Repairs can then be performed or the people entering the tank will remove any remaining fuel and the tank will continue to be purged until the health-safe limit has been reached which allows entry without respirator, although its still recommended. If the tank contained JP-4 or Jet B a health-safe condition is not possible (not an issue for me). During the whole process the tank is continuously monitored and ventilated.
Yeelep is offline   Reply
Old 17th Jul 2012, 23:17   #19 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,035
Unless it is an A380!?
grounded27 is offline   Reply
Old 17th Jul 2012, 23:30   #20 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,363
Forced air?

In the US, you inert tank with carbon dioxide first, this removes any oxygen and the LEL level is zero. Then you go in supplied air...

Using carbon dioxide it takes about 2 mins to get the LEL level to zero...how long does forced air venting take, 2 days?
FlightPathOBN is offline   Reply
 
 
This ad will disappear if you login
Reply
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 23:39.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.

*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".