Hot Refuelling
Guest
Posts: n/a
GH, I would be very interested to hear why you are of that opinion?
Hot fuelling is used in offshore, medical, firefighting, logging, Ag, SAR, etc, every day. It is used by a large and varied fleet of helicopters and operators.
What part of this operation is so hazardous to make you consider that my post demonstrates a perceived risk.
As you have no idea as to our procedures, I am interested in how you reach this conclusion? I take it that you do not use hot fuelling operations yourself?
Hot fuelling is used in offshore, medical, firefighting, logging, Ag, SAR, etc, every day. It is used by a large and varied fleet of helicopters and operators.
What part of this operation is so hazardous to make you consider that my post demonstrates a perceived risk.
As you have no idea as to our procedures, I am interested in how you reach this conclusion? I take it that you do not use hot fuelling operations yourself?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just in case "choppercop" returns to this thread, here's some "official" stuff:
Two chapters from US Army Field Manual 10-67-1 9 - Concepts and Equipment of Petroleum Operations <http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/10-67-1/contents.html>:
CHAPTER 15. REFUELING FROM REFUELING SYSTEMS
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...-1/CHAP15.HTML
CHAPTER 16. REFUELING FROM TANK VEHICLES
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...-1/CHAP16.HTML
FORT MCCOY AAF AVIATION SOP:
Section headed "D-3 RAPID REFUEL OPERATIONS ("Hot Gas")"
http://www.mccoy.army.mil/garrison/d...a/soppages.htm
Two chapters from US Army Field Manual 10-67-1 9 - Concepts and Equipment of Petroleum Operations <http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/10-67-1/contents.html>:
CHAPTER 15. REFUELING FROM REFUELING SYSTEMS
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...-1/CHAP15.HTML
CHAPTER 16. REFUELING FROM TANK VEHICLES
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...-1/CHAP16.HTML
FORT MCCOY AAF AVIATION SOP:
Section headed "D-3 RAPID REFUEL OPERATIONS ("Hot Gas")"
http://www.mccoy.army.mil/garrison/d...a/soppages.htm
Guest
Posts: n/a
Your "Official" military crap has nothing to do with the civilian world. We use less volitale fuels, low pressure-low volume fuelers, better trained and motivated personnel and rarely fill top the tank off while running. We do not depend on the closed circut system to stop the fueling process.
Show me some CIVILIAN "hot refueling" accidents. Millions of gallons are pumped every day into every concivable type of helicopter using this method. It's a whole lot less dangerous than pumping gasoline into an automoble yet this is done every day with an almost zero statistical rate of accident.
[This message has been edited by Lama Bear (edited 13 March 2001).]
Show me some CIVILIAN "hot refueling" accidents. Millions of gallons are pumped every day into every concivable type of helicopter using this method. It's a whole lot less dangerous than pumping gasoline into an automoble yet this is done every day with an almost zero statistical rate of accident.
[This message has been edited by Lama Bear (edited 13 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lama Bear wrote "Your "Official" military crap has nothing to do with the civilian world. We use [...] better trained and motivated personnel"
... and my cock's a kipper!
Just FYI a "civilian" hot-refuel is just as dangerous as a "crap military" one! If you cannot see that this procedure - dispensing open-line fuel, at times, only feet from a heat source at hundreds of degrees - is a dangerous one... then I pity you.
... and my cock's a kipper!
Just FYI a "civilian" hot-refuel is just as dangerous as a "crap military" one! If you cannot see that this procedure - dispensing open-line fuel, at times, only feet from a heat source at hundreds of degrees - is a dangerous one... then I pity you.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can only hope that it is a large kipper unlike your experience.
We must use better trained and motivated personnel, we don't have refueling accidents but the military does.
Show me the accidents. Don't tell me what might happen. Tell me about all the times it's resulted in an accident. You've got a computer, research the records and back up your words. It won't happen, the accidents are not there.
The vapors that exit the fuel port are rapidly mixed by rotor wash with ambient air, falling below the narrow mixture range required for combustion. If you spray fuel into the engine area you will probably have a fire but then we don't pressurize our fuel systems by filling them to the top.
I'll even accept some first hand knowledge of specific accidents from your vast experience. Come on show me the accidents, I don't need your pity but if that's all you have I'll have to take it.
We must use better trained and motivated personnel, we don't have refueling accidents but the military does.
Show me the accidents. Don't tell me what might happen. Tell me about all the times it's resulted in an accident. You've got a computer, research the records and back up your words. It won't happen, the accidents are not there.
The vapors that exit the fuel port are rapidly mixed by rotor wash with ambient air, falling below the narrow mixture range required for combustion. If you spray fuel into the engine area you will probably have a fire but then we don't pressurize our fuel systems by filling them to the top.
I'll even accept some first hand knowledge of specific accidents from your vast experience. Come on show me the accidents, I don't need your pity but if that's all you have I'll have to take it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have to agree with Cyclic Hotline, most operations use hot refuelling every day without any problems.
In the Southern North Sea, it used to be done regularly between flights for different customers onshore as well as on offshore platforms. It was rarely done with passengers on board unless the winds were very strong requiring ballast during the deck turnaround.
I do not believe that there is any significant statistical evidence to support the contention that it is dangerous.
LE
In the Southern North Sea, it used to be done regularly between flights for different customers onshore as well as on offshore platforms. It was rarely done with passengers on board unless the winds were very strong requiring ballast during the deck turnaround.
I do not believe that there is any significant statistical evidence to support the contention that it is dangerous.
LE
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lama Bear,
"...we don't have refueling accidents but the military does. Show me the accidents. [...] You've got a computer, research the records and back up your words. It won't happen, the accidents are not there."
It appears I can use the NTSB's database more effectively than you. This was the first returned result:
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?...96LA175&akey=1
Note: "According to the operator the accident helicopter was routinely 'hot refueled.'"
Of course, as you say, "we don't have refueling accidents". Sort of goes hand-in-hand with "At the subsequent Board of Inquiry..."
No doubt there are on-line records of accidents, if it was my project I would be out there looking for them. But it isn't. Choppercop wrote in the originating post "I would like any and all opinions and any other documentation that can be provided." Not "I don't want to hear how the gash-hands in a military outfit do it". Of course, following your assertion that this is not a hazardous operation there should be no need for a presentation, as everyone connected should already be certified for normal fuelling operations.
I also note your comment "we don't pressurize our fuel systems by filling them to the top." Is this how you envisage pressurized systems work!?! Oh dear. Oh dear. Oh dear.
"...we don't have refueling accidents but the military does. Show me the accidents. [...] You've got a computer, research the records and back up your words. It won't happen, the accidents are not there."
It appears I can use the NTSB's database more effectively than you. This was the first returned result:
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?...96LA175&akey=1
Note: "According to the operator the accident helicopter was routinely 'hot refueled.'"
Of course, as you say, "we don't have refueling accidents". Sort of goes hand-in-hand with "At the subsequent Board of Inquiry..."
No doubt there are on-line records of accidents, if it was my project I would be out there looking for them. But it isn't. Choppercop wrote in the originating post "I would like any and all opinions and any other documentation that can be provided." Not "I don't want to hear how the gash-hands in a military outfit do it". Of course, following your assertion that this is not a hazardous operation there should be no need for a presentation, as everyone connected should already be certified for normal fuelling operations.
I also note your comment "we don't pressurize our fuel systems by filling them to the top." Is this how you envisage pressurized systems work!?! Oh dear. Oh dear. Oh dear.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This thread is showing the symptoms of another personality war...lets inject some logic into it, perhaps the swelling will subside:
Any fuel, i.e. that which is volatile, must be treated with caution. When firedrills are conducted by the organisation I work within, one of the demonstrations is to show just how difficult it is to set fire to avtur / F34 / jet A-1, in its liquid form. It is apparent that it takes a conscientious effort to pursuade the fuel to burn. HOWEVER, the vapours coming off it are extremely inflammable(flammable, depending on your interpretation!). Not only does it ignite almost instantaneously but it spreads with lightning speed. If the fire triangle is complete, you qualify for trouble[ignition, fuel, oxygen].
Rotors running refuel provide all 3 components. Rotors stopped don,t (no ignition). Theoretically, a radio transmission or flicking a live switch could provide the ignition source.
Twice, I have been present when a filler cap had been inadvertently left off a gazelle helo and twice when it lifted into the hover, a ball of flame enveloped the mid section of the a/c before the pilot was forced to land! Those fumes were sucked straight into the engine. The rotors didn't have time to dilute the mixture.
Just because the ignition source isn't a blow torch doesn't mean to say the vapours swirling around the airframe won't just as easily ignite.
Don't try this at home: Garden debris, sprinkling of fuel to get it going, cigarette lighter 5 feet away, damn thing won't light....just sparking....whooosh! what the f**k was that.
Comparison of mil Vs civvy standards is another subject for a hot thread...
Safe refuelling
------------------
Thermal runaway.
Any fuel, i.e. that which is volatile, must be treated with caution. When firedrills are conducted by the organisation I work within, one of the demonstrations is to show just how difficult it is to set fire to avtur / F34 / jet A-1, in its liquid form. It is apparent that it takes a conscientious effort to pursuade the fuel to burn. HOWEVER, the vapours coming off it are extremely inflammable(flammable, depending on your interpretation!). Not only does it ignite almost instantaneously but it spreads with lightning speed. If the fire triangle is complete, you qualify for trouble[ignition, fuel, oxygen].
Rotors running refuel provide all 3 components. Rotors stopped don,t (no ignition). Theoretically, a radio transmission or flicking a live switch could provide the ignition source.
Twice, I have been present when a filler cap had been inadvertently left off a gazelle helo and twice when it lifted into the hover, a ball of flame enveloped the mid section of the a/c before the pilot was forced to land! Those fumes were sucked straight into the engine. The rotors didn't have time to dilute the mixture.
Just because the ignition source isn't a blow torch doesn't mean to say the vapours swirling around the airframe won't just as easily ignite.
Don't try this at home: Garden debris, sprinkling of fuel to get it going, cigarette lighter 5 feet away, damn thing won't light....just sparking....whooosh! what the f**k was that.
Comparison of mil Vs civvy standards is another subject for a hot thread...
Safe refuelling
------------------
Thermal runaway.
Guest
Posts: n/a
GH
The accident you site was a result of moving a vehicle under the rotor disk of a running helicopter and the pilot's in-attention to the controls. If you want to discuss this type of operation that is one thing, to include it as a refueling accident is streching the definition. If you want to talk about helipad integrity and general operating procedures around running helicopters that will be for another thread.
GH wrote... Is this how you envisage pressurized systems work!?!...
No it's not. When you use a closed circut refueling system and fill the tank, a couple of things have to work properly.The closed circut nozzel must be properly attached and in operable condition, the tank must have adequate venting, (I wonder where all these hazardous fumes go?) and the system must shut it's self off when the tank fills. If any of these malfunction the tank becomes pressurized and the fuel is spilled overboard, often as a mist that is very volatle. Then the engine exhaust become a ignition scource. I've got a little over 30 years commercial experience so I do have a limited idea of how things work but then I am only a pilot.
The accident you site was a result of moving a vehicle under the rotor disk of a running helicopter and the pilot's in-attention to the controls. If you want to discuss this type of operation that is one thing, to include it as a refueling accident is streching the definition. If you want to talk about helipad integrity and general operating procedures around running helicopters that will be for another thread.
GH wrote... Is this how you envisage pressurized systems work!?!...
No it's not. When you use a closed circut refueling system and fill the tank, a couple of things have to work properly.The closed circut nozzel must be properly attached and in operable condition, the tank must have adequate venting, (I wonder where all these hazardous fumes go?) and the system must shut it's self off when the tank fills. If any of these malfunction the tank becomes pressurized and the fuel is spilled overboard, often as a mist that is very volatle. Then the engine exhaust become a ignition scource. I've got a little over 30 years commercial experience so I do have a limited idea of how things work but then I am only a pilot.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just my two pennies but are you not forgetting something very important regarding "hot refuelling" and that is the fact that the rotors turning are increasing risk of static. You can see this clearly when slinging or hoisting at night or low light. The few accidents I have heard of happened due to the static between the nozzle and the helicopter. I haven't heard of any where the engine exhaust actually caused a problem. I would say that proper grounding procedures are vital and very important. We "hot refuel" on a daily basis with no problems at all.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
From: OZ
Hot Refuelling
I have posted the following on D and G but only one reply from ORH.. .. .Saw a copy of a Direction under CAR 215 (3) to an AOC holder to remove from the company's OM procedures that allowed company pilots to hot refuel a helicopter with no pilot being at the controls.. .. .To me, CAO 20.10 ss 3.3 does not allow this but CAO 75.7 ss 7.2 seems to allow it, or put it a different way, does not specifically prohibit it. . .. .There seems to differing views as to what can and cannot be done.. .. .What is correct and are any operators allowing this to be carried out?
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
From: Canberra, Australia
I'm unsure of the rules, but during the 94 bushfires in Sydney I saw plenty of pilots hot refuelling out of drums whilst the rotors were still turning and no-one in the cockpit. Didn't seem like a good practice to me.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Our Company ops manual says that the pilot must be able to justify his absence from the cockpit IAW CAO 95.7 (skid landing gear, lockable controls, absence is safety related and in immeadiate vicinity)if conducting self hot-refuel. Also we must not exceed 5 hours (M/R) before shutting down and doing a fuel drain.. .. .So yes we can do it, we just have to able to justify it.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
From: 3 Degrees North
Interesting thread....totally agree with papagolf. Anyway it depends who you speak to in Casa as far as understanding the exemption for helo ops. If it was illegal to self hot refuel, then half of the country operators are breaching the law, particularly the mustering industry. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,330
Likes: 74
From: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Absence from the controls is the sort of thing I've always regarded as not allowed, except for safety reasons, like when a customer is about to walk into the tail rotor. Self-hot fuelling would not be one of them.. .. .Why is it done? I'm sure there must be a perfectly good reason, though I can't think of one right now.. .. .Phil
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
From: Norwich, CT USA
Well, the real reason you do hot fueling is to keep your cycles down. Hell you can run out of cycles in one fire season, if you are working a bad one. Out of cycles, then its time for engine over hauls. Its about ecomomics, you just have to be real carefull and if the winds are to strong, have somebody fuel for you or shut down. I don't mind doing hot fueling, but I still would rather sit at the controls and let a ground crew do the fueling. But sometimes that is not an option, so I make for dam sure the controls are frictioned down. Make sure that the helicopter is on real stable ground before you exit.