Hot Refuelling

[VLift]

If the aircraft operators manual limitations section requires a minimum crew including a pilot, and the crew position is stated as "at one set of controls" or "in the cockpit" or some such obvious statement, and the pilot is not where that limitation describes, the aircraft is not being operated in accordance with the limitations section of the aircraft.

[ShyTorque]

My last job had an SOP where the minimum crew for a rotors running refuel was three persons. One actually carrying out the refuel, one to act as safety man (and to communicate with the pilot who could not see the refueller from the seat) and the pilot who WAS to remain at the controls.. .. .With only one person carrying out a R/R refuel, who assists if there is a fire or other incident? In my opinion it's very risky indeed and the financial aspects don't justify it.. . . . <small>[ 08 March 2002, 21:48: Message edited by: ShyTorque ]</small>

[CyclicRick]

It sounds like a damn dangerous practice to me. I always believed that the law (including flight manual and company flight ops manual)states (in any country) that "the pilot shall remain at the controls for the entire period of aircraft operation ie rotors turning". .I wouldn't do anything else, I've heard of at least three incidents where the thing has decided to do anything other than stay still. One rolled over and killed the pilot!. .Hot re-fuelling is ok, but let someone else do it..please!

[paco]

Of course, silly me, saving money for them upstairs; That's all right then. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . .. .phil

[the coyote]

With regard to CAO 95.7 exemption re leaving the controls: skids, lockable controls etc. To my knowledge, frictions are not considered control locks so I guess if you ever have an incident one might be leaving themselves open according to the letter of the law.

[H-43]

I find it interesting reading about the apparent "dangers" of hot refuling without a pilot at the controls. Maybe it is different in other types of operations but almost all logging operations I have worked around the pilot hot refuels the aircraft himself. They usually take a break to and will leave the helicopter running and just walk around to stretch. I have never heard or seen anything bad happen during one of the maybe 5,000 refuels I have been around. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" />

[paco]

The best way out of trouble is not to get into it. Just because it hasn't happened the last 5000 times doesn't mean it won't on the 5001st.. .. .Phil

[paulgibson]

Interesting to read differing idea's on this (and many other subjects). As I referred to in my earlier post, it is, in our CASA approved ops manual, legal to conduct self hot-refuel, under the aforementioned proviso's(spelling??). This, of course, never removes the requirement of common sense and good airmanship.

[matador]

Well, I understand that doityourself is kind of dangerous and if something happens it would be kind of hard to solve any problem, I know about several major incidents and fatal accidents on helicopters with nobody in the controls but if you want to be SAFE do like the Spanish Civil Aviation ADministration. JUST PROHIBBIT IT!!! Last year they thought it was dangeruos and wasn't worth the risk so they prohibbited not only SELF refueling, but any refuelling AT ALL, of course they let the OPS Manual of the Company to stablish a procedure that could be specifically approved, but that will never happen.. .They don't seem to care about money saving in cycles or if it's a critical moment for stopping a fire or.... They just want you to stop.

[ozoilfield]

It would be interesting to see a legal interperation of what "... safety of the helicopter or the presons on. or in the vicinity of ..." means (CAO 75.7 ss 7.2(d)).. .. .To me "hot refuelling" would not fit the defination as it is a commercial or operational decision to carryout this procedure. If the pilot noticed someone walkng towards the tail rotor of the helicopter, this would constitute a "... safety of the helicopter or the presons on. or in the vicinity of, ...". .. .papagolf . .. .Operations Manuals on OZ are not "approved" but may be subject to a Direction under CAR 215(3) for an operator to change a procedure that is in contravention of a CAR/CAO.. .. .If your company OM alows the pilot to exit and then find him/herself in the unhappy situation of surveying a heap of ashes and then trying to justfy why he/she left the controls to hot refuel. I believe the company is not doing the right thing by its pilots with this policy and is on very shaky ground especially if a claim is made on the company's insurance.. .. .I know of one instance where a payout has been knocked back.. . . . <small>[ 11 March 2002, 01:49: Message edited by: ozoilfield ]</small>

[paulgibson]

Ozoilfield, thanks for pointing out the subtle difference re CASA. Again, referring to our OM, it says that the OM has been 'accepted' by the Authority.. .. .I agree that this has been put in our OM to attempt to cover _rse on the very odd occassion that this practise does occur, but I appreciate that if push came to shove in the aftermath of an incident then one would have to question its 'validity'.. .. .A practical reasons quoted to justify self hot refuel is time-saving to avoid getting caught in deteriorating weather. Now before I get 'howled down' by all and sundry, let me remind everyone that this example is not my personal quote, it is our OM's.

[4dogs]

Folks,. .. .Like so many things these days, the original plan will be interpreted by people who have no knowledge of the relevant circumstances, the "ill to be cured" or the intention of the drafters. The one person who had the job of writing the instructions and who did not agree with the policy intent and who probably included the clever words about the safety of the operation to either sabotage the intent or to satisfy someone else's concept of the charter of the regulator is still employed by the regulator. I am sure that his testimony will either reflect his long held view or be carefully disingenuous - nonetheless, the solution for anyone facing prosecution is to subpoena the relevant files and the other staff members in order to establish the intent of the legislation.. .. .You may be lucky enough to discover that the intent was to permit self-refuelling (no risk to other persons and the risk to capital equipment clearly sheeted home to the operator), particularly for mustering operations where the issue was time out of the air. . .. .The point has been made about commercial decisions: in most cases, hot refuelling is a commercial decision but the regulator took the view that risk management had a place at this particular table - if there was management of the personal risk to the pilot, removal of the risk to third persons and almost total elimination of risk to the general public, then the regulator should not unnecessarily impede certain limited operations or create unnecessary criminal liability.. .. .In my personal view, the Australian hot refuelling legislation was a seminal step forward in practical legislation. There was no intention to create "open slather" but the somewhat artificial acceptance vs approval argument for Operations manuals was a complication - CAR(88) 215 was always intended to be the control mechanism and it is good to see that the mechanism is obviously being exercised. . .. .The real irony is that CASA pounced on the regulatory paradigm of "outcomes-based" legislation in lieu of "prescriptive" legislation in 1996, yet the hot refuelling rules set the precedent some 6 years prior. As my dear father was wont to say: "There are none so blind as those who will not see!"

[ShyTorque]

Just a cross reference to Lu Z's post in reply to the "Safe Flying" topic.

This is in regard to the accident occurring whilst a helicopter was allowed to run unoccupied..................

[wineboy]

I have hot-refuelled by myself (locking controls) many times while carrying out remote area operations like; stream sampling etc. While part of the reason was to keep cylces down it was also used as a safety blanket just it case you had troubles starting again and you're stuck in the great ozzie outback with just you and your hand pump

I guess Arkaroola isn't that remote, but it's a ****** to walk around...

The Coyote.. your correct frictions are not lockable controls, good point.

[Aesir]

I totally agree with "Wineboy"...

I myself do hot refueling with no one on the controls and the main reason is that I dont want to be stuck with lots of fuel and A/C that wont start.

Its perfectly legal in my country (Iceland) but of course the pilot will have to use common sense.

[ShyTorque]

I can accept there are good reasons why in some situations

One pilot I wouldn't endorse was the NZ one who left a Squirrel rotors running at ground idle while he disembarked his passengers (at an airport on S. Island). The aircraft was on the grass by an unlocked gate, about ten yards from a public viewing area next to the carpark.

I was amazed to watch him walk off carrying a suitcase, through the carpark into the terminal building. He didn't reappear for well over 10 minutes. I was tempted to go and pull the fuel shutoff because if something had gone wrong, the flying debris would have been a public danger. Eventually I got my son to video it because I thought it might be useful to the BOI!

[407 Driver]

Shytorque, I have seen a similar thing happen on the S Island.
A pilot refuelled a 206 at idle, then the he entered the offfice for 10 to 15 minutes, leaving the aircraft at idle with 20 + heli-hikers around the idling craft. There was an inbound 350 in a hot 1/4 mile final when our 206 pilot ran to the aircraft, jumped in, increased throttle to 100% and immediatley climbed 100' vertical, big nose-over and departed the scene as the 350 was landing beside him.

The company in question had a wrecked 206 in the hangar, and another old 206 wreck clearly visible to the public in a rear shed off of the parking area......????????

I think that they may have another very soon....

[deeper]

matador,

they thought it was dangerous and wasn't worth the risk so they prohibbited not only SELF refueling, but any refuelling AT ALL

must be a lot of pilots sitting around with nothing to do.

[Ascend Charlie]

I have discussed this with CASA FOIs on several occasions, usually during our inspections. The Ops manual is worded to allow solo hot refuelling when the circumstances require, mostly on bushfire bucketing ops when the fuel load is light (30 mins useable) and you can't stay away from the action too long. CASA has always agreed to it.

As i recall it, (I don't work there any more) the conditions were:
Skids
Frictions
Idle
Stay in the immediate vicinity.
Use your brain.

Obviously there was no condition to allow somebody to have lunch under a tree for 45 minutes with the engine churning away - obviously being paid for the Hobbs meter.

[SASless]

Azzend Charlie....did I read you correctly...."use your brain" as words of advice from an AirCop....sure not what the Pom's would tell you for sure!