Refuelling near thunderstorms
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Brisbane. Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refuelling near thunderstorms
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/magazi...98/tstorms.htm
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/magazi...98/tstorms.htm
Another mature response FO - u know what you can do with the cokebottle!
TL
TL
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Brisbane. Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Brisbane. Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working in fuel tanks
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
Guess what I did.....
I bet you got both questions right....
He left the Hangar faster than normal..with skid marks lol
Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Brisbane. Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mobile phones
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: new zealand
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Its amazing.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chocks
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.
ps (edit)
Chocks a Google search of Australian sites only, with the search criteria of "mobile phone safety" led me to this link 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!
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.
ps (edit)
Chocks a Google search of Australian sites only, with the search criteria of "mobile phone safety" led me to this link 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!
Last edited by Dan Kelly; 21st Sep 2003 at 15:52.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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 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
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.
I do believe that that is strike three- YOU'RE OUT!
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
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 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
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.
I do believe that that is strike three- YOU'RE OUT!
Last edited by Perpetual_Hold_File; 21st Sep 2003 at 18:33.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Brisbane. Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mobile phones
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
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
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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
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.
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