refulling with engine running
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Livingston, Scotland
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fareastdriver,
There are just one or two differences between an aircraft and a car, not many I admit, just a few.
Civy requirements for safety are very, very different to military requirements. Why increase the risks when you are able do things effectively and more safely through use of simple planning and preparation.
You also have to remember the MOD has much experience at hot fuelling: this chap does not.
There are just one or two differences between an aircraft and a car, not many I admit, just a few.
Civy requirements for safety are very, very different to military requirements. Why increase the risks when you are able do things effectively and more safely through use of simple planning and preparation.
You also have to remember the MOD has much experience at hot fuelling: this chap does not.
Last edited by hval; 21st May 2012 at 21:13.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Taif-Saudi Arabia
Age: 64
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fareastdriver
I appreciate what you say about thousands of unqualified refuellers... Last year a motorist realised his car was on fire on the A1 and continued another 2 miles so he could stop at the Biggleswade Sainsburys petrol station..... wait for it........Cos he knew that they would have a fire extinguisher there!!! Very nearly a qualifier for a Darwin award methinks!
I appreciate what you say about thousands of unqualified refuellers... Last year a motorist realised his car was on fire on the A1 and continued another 2 miles so he could stop at the Biggleswade Sainsburys petrol station..... wait for it........Cos he knew that they would have a fire extinguisher there!!! Very nearly a qualifier for a Darwin award methinks!
I am trying to be rational, but!
500 metres???. Where are you going to find airfield apron where there is 500 metres clearance. The fuel connections are airtight; fuel is normally pumped into aircraft by the ton without any sign of leakage. Why should an engine running on the other side have any effect?. The greatest chance of a fire is a wet start after the refuelling is finished. I have been on an Emirates 777 at Bangkok where the aircraft was refuelled. That was on a normal stand and only the cabin doors were opened.
As soon as one mentions refuelling with the engines running the hooters go, Elfin Safety goes into overdrive and the empire builders step in. Apart from ensuring that the live engine is not gassing somebody normal refuelling precautions are adequate because nothing is different.
Those of us who are old enough can remember French refuellers sitting on a wing pouring 100/130 into wing tanks with the inevitable Gauloise lit up.
1/ Park in location away from anything that could be destroyed if there were an explosion. Turn off engine on side of access.
2/ Deplane all unnecessary persons to safe location
3/ Establish exclusion zone (500 m diameter) minimum
4/ Ensure attendance of briefed and trained fire personnel with fire equipment (tenders and hand extinguishers)
5/ Ensure aircraft chocked
6/ Ensure aircraft is earthed
7/ Ensure access to fueling points is safe and will not produce fod
etc...
2/ Deplane all unnecessary persons to safe location
3/ Establish exclusion zone (500 m diameter) minimum
4/ Ensure attendance of briefed and trained fire personnel with fire equipment (tenders and hand extinguishers)
5/ Ensure aircraft chocked
6/ Ensure aircraft is earthed
7/ Ensure access to fueling points is safe and will not produce fod
etc...
As soon as one mentions refuelling with the engines running the hooters go, Elfin Safety goes into overdrive and the empire builders step in. Apart from ensuring that the live engine is not gassing somebody normal refuelling precautions are adequate because nothing is different.
Those of us who are old enough can remember French refuellers sitting on a wing pouring 100/130 into wing tanks with the inevitable Gauloise lit up.
Just another erk
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 77
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fareastdriver
Not only the French, the Italians were good at it as well. 
Those of us who are old enough can remember French refuellers sitting on a wing pouring 100/130 into wing tanks with the inevitable Gauloise lit up.
Last edited by ArthurR; 22nd May 2012 at 08:46.
FED, the issue is not leakage, it is the fuel vapour displaced by your statement
Fuelling is a common and essential activity. It involves tons of potentially dangerous fluids being transferred between containers. It is not inconceivable that the correct conditions for inadvertent ignition of the fuel will occur. It is reasonnable to reduce the sources of potential ignition.
From the Airbus document linked by hval (it does not mention 500m isolation zone or many of his other 'precautions' as it only deals with fuelling with pax on board) the following bit tells you why hot engines and fuelling products should be avoided when possible.
There will be times when hot refuelling has to be done. It would be foolish in the extreme to consider it a normal part of airfield operations. It carries additional risks that should be assessed and mitigated- essentially apply some common sense. Loss of aircraft due to fuel vapour ignition has occurred in flight. That it hasn't occurred on the ground may possibly be due to the
going into overdrive.
fuel is normally pumped into aircraft by the ton without any sign of leakage
From the Airbus document linked by hval (it does not mention 500m isolation zone or many of his other 'precautions' as it only deals with fuelling with pax on board) the following bit tells you why hot engines and fuelling products should be avoided when possible.
Auto-ignition can occur, if the fuel temperature reaches 220oC (428oF), for
example if fuel spills over hot parts of an engine, or hot brakes
An external source can also ignite fuel, if the fuel temperature reaches 40oC
(104oF). This threshold is lower, if fuel is sprayed over the ignition source.
Therefore, the higher the refueling pressure, the higher the risk.
example if fuel spills over hot parts of an engine, or hot brakes
An external source can also ignite fuel, if the fuel temperature reaches 40oC
(104oF). This threshold is lower, if fuel is sprayed over the ignition source.
Therefore, the higher the refueling pressure, the higher the risk.
Elfin Safety
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500m Exclusion Zone
For Health & Safety reasons, all risks have to be managed and reduced to zero where possible. That is what Health & Safety is about. it does not matter how low the probability of an explosion will occur, it is the consequences of an explosion that have to be managed.
As for the 500m exclusion zone, have you seen what happens when tonnes of contained explosive go "bang"? 500m may not be enough, it may be too much.
As for the 500m exclusion zone, have you seen what happens when tonnes of contained explosive go "bang"? 500m may not be enough, it may be too much.
Just out of curiosity I had a look at other situations where hot fuelling occurs- the most obvious was motorsport so was surprised to see the F1 guys stopped doing this 3 years ago. Although the fuels are far more volatile than Kerosine the key factor seems to be systems to take vented fuel from the ullage space away from the vehicle were employed.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Harley Quinn - US forces use a 'closed loop' system for their rotors turning refuelling installations which recovers vapour from the ullage.
Last edited by The Helpful Stacker; 22nd May 2012 at 16:30.
