Refuelling near thunderstorms
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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-
And this: (for an up to date example for you)
And finally:
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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
mobile phones pose a real risk.
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.
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.
Read the whole thing here
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Brisbane. Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mobile phones
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
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
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only is this getting overheated, it has also got way off topic? 
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.........
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.........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Brisbane. Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC9 strike
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
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
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Brisbane. Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Earthing
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: BANKSTOWN AUSTRALIA YSBK-BWU
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
poncho
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: BANKSTOWN AUSTRALIA YSBK-BWU
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
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
