Refuelling near thunderstorms

[mikeboggan]

Can anyone help me with this?
What is the minimum distance from a thunderstorm, before re-fuelling must stop....Jet A1 fuel.
CASA were no help.
Current practice where I am is 5Km, but from what I have read on the net, all other kinds of events, including sporting use a 30 second, flash to bang timing...Approx 10Km.
I know that lightening can travel up to 30K's before striking ground.
Scary stuff..
Mike

[FO Cokebottle]

What????
GET A LIFE!!!

[John S]

mikeboggan

I seem to remember, a distance of 10Km from known thunderstorms from my days in the RAAF. The link below, (if it works) is to the USAF Flight Safety Magazine from June 98 about the structure of a thunderstorm and the very real risks associated with same.



http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/magazine/htdocs/junmag98/tstorms.htm

[Transition Layer]

Another mature response FO - u know what you can do with the cokebottle!

:D

TL

[megle2]

T Layer - Sounds like an appropiate action.

Don't know the answer however try ringing the major refuellers.
They certainly stop when there's CB's around.

My guess closer than 5 k's.

Don't let the bottle put you off, post the answer when you find it.

[mikeboggan]

Hey Cokebottle
Why dont you go and refuel your ether and castor oil airplanes..
Effing planespotters give me the sh#ts.

Leave safety to guys that care buddy.

John S.

Thanks for the web link, interesting stuff.

I remember getting a strike myself in a HS 748. Lit the plane up something fierce. No ill effects though.
Took us 4 hours to find the hole, right on the top of the Vertical Stab.
I am only ground crew though, not pilot. ground crew went on every flight...Royal Passengers....

When I find the answers, I will post them...
Thanks Guys
Mike

[airsupport]

The Major Airlines will normally stop any refuelling when thunderstorms are close, not sure of the exact distance.

I have seen a few instances over the years where the Airline has been reluctant to :( however the Refuelling Companies will terminate the service anyway when the storms get too close for safety, regardless of what the Airlines want to do. :ok:

[G-LOK]

John S

You mentioned the RAAF having some distance limit, would it be increased if ya also had 2 1000 lbs Paveways hanging of ya wings??

BOOM!!!:oh:

[BCF Breath]

As a guess, yup!

And I wouldn't be using my cell fone to call to clarify either!

MIKEB
Hey, good question, I hope ya get the answer you're looking for.

[mikeboggan]

I E-mailled a nice guy from Shell,
He is getting the answer for me.
Mike

[mikeboggan]

I was working in a tank yesterday, venting the fumes, when some guy showed up showing a woman around the plane, her arms were covered with flimsy gold bracelets, I was 5 feet away from him with the fumes going his way, when his mobile phone rang...Guess what he did..........
Guess what I did.....
I bet you got both questions right....
He left the Hangar faster than normal..with skid marks lol
Mike

[Perpetual_Hold_File]

It is a myth that mobile phones are a potential source of ignition when around fuel bowsers or while refuelling.

There has not been one confirmed instance in the world where fuel vapors have been ignited due to the close proximity of a mobile phone.

The instances of vapor igniting at petrol stations especially and predominately in North America are due to weather conditions being conducive to static electricity discharge.

Rules regarding the use of mobile phones around petrol stations will soon be relaxed.

[mikeboggan]

Perpetual_Hold_File

Yeh I know, but our rules forbid them....In my book mobiles are not permitted within 15 metres of an aircraft...
Must follow them..
Until the rules are changed...
Thats what I am trying to do. with my original question about thunderstorms.

Some of our rules are so stupid, but workplace Health and Safety laws ****** everything up

Mike

[Mr Proachpoint]

Noticed today, the refuellers at NZAA shut up shop when a nasty group of CB's passed through the CTR. Not sure what their criteria are, but for the time there was electricity up there, gas stayed in the tankers.

[airsupport]

You will find that the restriction on refuelling while the lightning is close, is NOT so much because of the danger to the Aircraft, which will still be sitting there through the storm, it is for the safety of the personnel doing the refuelling, and as such is a GOOD idea. :ok:

[Chocks Away]

Its amazing.:hmm:

The dilution of facts through a personal interpretation together with their drop in safety standards, practiced by some self righteous individuals (contrary to regs), serves no purpose but to denigrate the aviation profession and sets a bad example.

It is a myth that mobile phones are a potential source of ignition when around fuel bowsers or while refuelling. Is that right? Maybe that's why you're still on "the hold file".

Syd refuellers' mobiles are "intrinsically" safe (Diff type batt, sealed, insulated) and used under strict guidlines... !

At Sydney, 10km is the notification distance, to vacate the tarmac for storms with lightning.

There has not been one confirmed instance in the world where fuel vapors have been ignited due to the close proximity of a mobile phone. ....
:} strike 2 ! YES THERE HAS, BOYO!

Case 1 : 2002, Auto mechanic in England changing a fuel sender unit answered his mobile which ignited the mogas, resulting in severe burns to the mechanic.

Case 2 : 2002, A further case (from memory) in South America, while an Aviation refueler was dipping his truck.

Further details are being sought for both these cases, to show what a rediculous comment PHF made earlier.

[Dan Kelly]

A recent media release, heard I think on ABC radio in Aust, refuted the theory of mobile phones causing fuel (petrol or kero) to ignite.

I don't remember too many details, other than the release claiming that there have been no recorded instances in the world of such events and claims to the contrary are supposedly false. :confused:

ps (edit)

Chocks a Google search of Australian sites only, with the search criteria of "mobile phone safety" led me to this link (http://www.amta.org.au/default.asp?Page=237) at the AMTA (Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association) web site. Whilst I recognise they possibly have a vested interest, I can't imagine they'd risk prosecution by posting a disclaimer to the urban myth if there was a chance they were wrong.

pps,

ooh, it looks like I've inadvertently stepped on Mr Perpetual_Hold_File's toes. My humble apologies. :}

must remember to refresh the page before adding post script! :\

[Perpetual_Hold_File]

The dilution of facts through personal interpretation?

Is that right?

The only person diluting their facts with personal interpretation is you chocks away.

Before you make sweeping unsubstantiated claims against what I say, how about backing yourself up because you have left yourself wide open.

And no, I wont use my memory either to back up my "stories".

Here is where I get my "personal" interpretation. You decide if it has been "diluted"

From amta.org (australian mobile telecommunications association)-

21 July 2003

Claims that mobile phones have caused fires at petrol stations are an urban myth, the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA) said today.

AMTA CEO Graham Chalker said the myth originates from a hoax email ‘warning’, which often falsely claims to be from Shell Chemicals and includes a number of completely fictitious incidents.

“Mobile phones do not cause petrol stations to blow up. In fact there is no evidence whatsoever that a mobile phone has ever caused an explosion at a petrol station anywhere in the world,” Mr Chalker said.

Shell UK said in a letter to the mobile phone industry last year that “the email is from a non-Shell source and that the originating email was an Internet hoax. This would indicate that the three cases being referred to are completely fictitious… Shell has no knowledge of any specific incident of ignition that occurred as a result of using a mobile phone on forecourts”.

“The email ‘warning’ was originally sent to a Shell employee based in Jamaica as an email attachment. Without checking the authenticity of the incidents they then forwarded the email to various employees and external agencies. It has spiralled from this one source and was linked to Shell by the original senders email address,” Mr Chalker said.

“This urban myth has been around for years and many media outlets, including in Australia, inadvertently continue to report it as fact.


Link here (http://www.amta.org.au/default.asp?Page=237)

And more evidence to support my "personal interpretation". This is a link to a study "Investigation of the Potential for Wireless Phones to Cause Explosions at Gas Stations" (2001) and I quote once again:

To conclude, research into the cell phone – gas station issue provided virtually no evidence to suggest that cell phones pose a hazard at gas stations. In fact, there has never been a confirmed incident implicating a cell phone at a gas station anywhere in the world.

the whole report is
here (http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.ou.edu/engineering/emc/projects/GS1%5FX.html) should you like to make your own personal interpretation.

So mr chocks away, it is quite amazing isn't it?
You can even read about the hoax email that started the whole thing here at urbanlegends.com

Urbanlegends (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-cellphone-gas-fires.htm)

So get YOUR facts right, don't insult me with egotistical preaching about "profession", get off your "self righteous" high horse, crawl back into your hole and keep your mouth shut about things you have no knowledge about. :mad:

I do believe that that is strike three- YOU'RE OUT! :}

[mikeboggan]

Whoa....steady on guy's.

Calm down, this is getting a bit overheated...

Mobile phones are only a potential risk, but we all know that they transmit on such a low power, that the risk is infinitesimal. It would be different if they transmitted at aircraft power, but they don't.

Rules are rules though.

Stay cool brothers in planes.

Mike

[Chocks Away]

PHF... you've gotta learn to be calm when reading material, otherwise you mis-interpret. (Probably comes with maturity)

My claim of being "from memory" was explaning the source of what I was writing, until I obtained better. It wasn't a jab at you.

Let us pray...
Now the FACTS:
CASE 3 : FEB 18, 2002
FROM : ASSOCIATION FOR PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES ADMIN
Another Mobile Phone Ignition
Reported via BP Oil UK of another mobile phone appearing to have caused ignition of a flammable atmosphere.
Engineer working on an open panel that used Supply Gas Instrumentation, recieved an incoming call on his Nextel Mobile Phone. When he flipped it open to answer the call, a flash fire occured, causing Second Degree burns to his forearms and reddening of his nose and cheeks.
As a result Chevron Texaco USA have instructed a ban on mobile phone use, in the field.
Fortunately, the man concerned was wearing Safety Glasses preventing any eye injury.
Author: Jim Swartz, Main Pass 41 Asset Team.

Further details on Cases 1 and 2 are still being sort, as I have a life.

I wouldn't expect the AMTA to say anything different. Like Dan Kelly mentioned previously, vested interests given it's their income/industry.

Your 2001 report on Wireless ignitions is abit outdated.
Technology and the power of data/mobile transmissions has changed somewhat, in the past 2 years!

The big "Urban Legend" reference, WOW... you know it's a trash site for sceptics. If thats your bible being a sceptic and not following rules, you're in the wrong profession kid.

Telecommunication experts also claim that no damage is caused to the brain from mobile phones... you are an obvious example, proving that theory wrong. :p

Who said anything about Preaching, also. This was a FACTUAL reply to the question of refuelling with Lightning/Storms. The answer is still 10km.

Finally, only three things are needed to create a fire: Heat, Fuel and Air.
Now when you are actively surrounded by two of them already and are unsure what a mobiles' tranmissions are capable of, wouldn't it be wise to err on the side of safety and FOLLOW THE RULES?

Here endeth the lesson.
Let us pray

[Perpetual_Hold_File]

When will you get it?

I am quite open to mature debate on the subject. Your first load of drivel slandering me and my ideas indicated that you were not capable of intelligent conversation on the matter.

Therefore my reply was sculpted for your understanding and excitable immaturity

You can’t seem to understand that the AMTA is endorsing the idea that mobile phones pose a negligible risk to igniting fuel vapour and therefore the vested interest in saying so would be detrimental to them if it were true, due to the potential legal ramifications (which seems to be the determining factor in many decisions these days), not to mention the ethical one of reporting that such a practice is safe when it is not.

My examples a bit out dated for you?

OK, from July 2003 a paper entitled “Use of Mobile Phones and Portable Radios in Gasoline Stations” A Motorola Background Paper July 2003

In response to rumors that attracted considerable attention in 1999, Motorola commissioned a review by an independent scientific, engineering and technical consulting firm: Exponent Failure Analysis Associates. Exponent concluded in December 1999 that “the use of a cell phone at a gasoline filling station under normal operating conditions presents a negligible hazard” and that the likelihood of such an accident under any conditions “is very remote.” “Automobiles (which have numerous potential ignition sources) pose a greater ignition hazard,” the report said. “Finally, other potential ignition sources are present, such as static discharge between a person and a vehicle.”

Heat, fuel and air for a fire? There is more heat and sources of ignition from engines in cars than from mobile phones.

From the same paper-
The petroleum industry has devoted additional attention to this subject. In the United States, the Petroleum Equipment Industry and American Petroleum Institute have emphasized that mobile phones are not a focus of their campaign to alert consumers about the demonstrable danger that static discharge poses when fueling a vehicle.

And this: (for an up to date example for you)
The U.K. Institute of Petroleum hosted a technical seminar on the issue in March 2003 and oncluded there was no evidentiary or technical evidence to support the view that
mobile phones pose a real risk.

And finally:
The use of mobile phones in gasoline stations long ago attained the status of “Internet hoax” or “urban legend” – rumor and supposition accorded undue credence because of repeated mentions in the media, over the Internet and by email – of incidents that defied verification and technical plausibility. In the end, public policies and consumer advice must be based not on speculation but fact. The facts in this case are clear. They are
reinforced by extensive engineering analysis and suggest that there is no sound technical basis to prohibit the use of mobile phones in gasoline stations or single them out as hazards.

I hope that the people at Motorola know that the urban legends site is a trash site for skeptics. They seem to come to the conclusion that it is an urban legend. Fancy that.

Read the whole thing here (http://www.motorola.com/mot/documents/0,,423,00.pdf)

As for damage to the brain from mobile phones, you really are clutching at straws.

I have said nothing at all about refueling near thunderstorms. I
know nothing about it.

Chocks away, judgments and opinions on matters are based upon sound evidence that can back up any claims that are made. I have made a claim, I have shown you the evidence.

You have made a fool of yourself with incoherent, inconsistent, unproven and poorly referenced material that is far from being FACTUAL.

Back into your hole.

[mikeboggan]

C'mon guys, Don't get personal about this..
There are Pro's and Con's for everything.
This is a Q & A section after all...
Chill out...PLEASE...
I am looking for AS/NZ standards, or workplace practices, I can't change anything with Sh*t fights... Be cool Guys.

Mike

[megle2]

With the heat and emotion this subject is generating, will my computer burst into flame if I make / receive a call on my mobile phone while reading the posts??

[airsupport]

Not only is this getting overheated, it has also got way off topic? :rolleyes:

With regards the original topic, IF anyone is thinking that the restriction on refuelling near a thunder storm is silly?

I was working on tarmac at the OLD Brisbane Airport many years ago now, we were refuelling many Aircraft during the morning rush period, and lightning struck one of the DC9s being refuelled.

The Engineer doing the refuelling was touching the Aircraft at the time, and although he did survive, he was knocked to the ground and VERY bruised and in a state of shock for hours......... :(

[mikeboggan]

Airsupport,
I bet that was scary.!!!
Thanks for the reply, can you remember more details? Temp, what time of year, that sort of stuff.
I would love to hear more about it.

Mike

[airsupport]

Mike,

Yes, it was VERY scary, and to this day I am very nervous whenever lightning is around.

I cannot remember that much detail, not even the year, would have been in the 1970s.

Still now see people, even refuellers, that do NOT use all the earthing wires, especially the one from the tanker to the ground, which some people will tell you is NOT necessary. :(

That was the thing that saved the Engineer that day, always use all the bonding/earthing wires available............. We found the entry point of the lightning on the DC9, but there was NO exit point, it went out through the tanker, and had the tanker not been earthed properly, it would have ALL gone out through the Engineer, instead of only a small part of it, and surely been fatal.

Best regards,

airsupport.

[mikeboggan]

Air Support,

It is always our practice to Earth the Aircraft to ground, the tanker to the Aircraft, and, the tanker to ground, whoops almost forgot, and the hose to the Aircraft.
Must be years of ingrained Air Force training.

I still hate Mobile phones though....can't hide anywhere...Hahaha.

Mike

[arby]

thr truth about mobile phones is full of hesteria.
I drive load and deliver petrol ,Kero (Jet A1 to you), and a number of chemicals including Ketones alcohols, and volatile hydrocarbons.
In a number of Terminals the supervisors use mobile phones in the loading racks, the only thing they specify is that the phone must be in a leather pouch, this prevents the battery causing a spark if the phone is dropped. The output of todays mobile phones is about 600 micro watts, to induce a voltage into a right sized piece of metal to cause a spark is about 1 billion to one, petrol has a very narrow flamability range i.e between 24 to 1 upper limit 6 to 1 lower limit by WEIGHT. kero has a flash point of about 40C from memory. petrol has a flash of minus43. things like acetylene are far more volatile ie 93 to 1 upper 4 to 1 lower, otherwise all those idiots who throw butts under my 40,000 ltr load of petrol would have me in the news every week( they shure scare the s**t out of me). I supose its like the hesteria we have about ethanol, servo's on fire etc.
I would not fuel near a storm because of fear of lightning strike

:ok: :confused: :O

[poncho]

A bit off the topic.

Why is it necessary to earth an aircraft when refueling but not a car.

Poncho

[Dan Kelly]

I'm not sure of the accuracy of my answer but I think that there's a metal cable running from the fuel bowser nozel, embedded in the hose wall which is earthed.

When the fuel nozel is inserted into the filler cap it makes contact with the metal surrounds of the filler area and thus earths the car and hose.

[arby]

DAN KELLY go to the top of the class. spot on.
When we unload fuel tankers the same happens in fact the hoses undergo continuity checks every 6 months.
If you are old enough you may remember petrol tankers had to drag a chain around, always sent sparks flying , then someone woke up and they were all removed . how times change:confused: :ok: :ok: :ooh: