Hot Refuelling
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 567
Likes: 4
From: Hereford UK
Pull up a sandbag!! Or more to the point, a 250' tree
Can't remember the rules but it only seemed like common sense to me..... Borneo jungle, an plenty of it, LP's only big enough for 1 A/C, Scout, single pilot, 3 x 45 Galls drums and zenith pumps, water contam tabs etc etc, all at designated fuel LP's. (most)
It was common practice to be at GI, with frictions on and to refuel the aircraft yourself. We even tried hand pumps but the mighty nimbus even at GI seemed to burn more than you could pump in so that idea was binned, I might add it was blo*dy hard work on that pump. Risk of fire!! Most definately! Gravity filler cap probably 3' from the jetpipe!!
Why You might ask? Sometimes the mighty brussel could be a cow to start and no matter how many times you tapped or kicked starter solenoids she just would not light up. Result, set fire to it!! Walk!! recover it, with what?
Sorry, not quite in the spirit of what the topic writer had in mind but I thought it might add a little humour to the miriad of rules and regs that we all have to comply with nowadays.
Better? I'm not totally convinced!!!! Yes, I still am very much a commercial pilot.
Can't remember the rules but it only seemed like common sense to me..... Borneo jungle, an plenty of it, LP's only big enough for 1 A/C, Scout, single pilot, 3 x 45 Galls drums and zenith pumps, water contam tabs etc etc, all at designated fuel LP's. (most)
It was common practice to be at GI, with frictions on and to refuel the aircraft yourself. We even tried hand pumps but the mighty nimbus even at GI seemed to burn more than you could pump in so that idea was binned, I might add it was blo*dy hard work on that pump. Risk of fire!! Most definately! Gravity filler cap probably 3' from the jetpipe!!
Why You might ask? Sometimes the mighty brussel could be a cow to start and no matter how many times you tapped or kicked starter solenoids she just would not light up. Result, set fire to it!! Walk!! recover it, with what?
Sorry, not quite in the spirit of what the topic writer had in mind but I thought it might add a little humour to the miriad of rules and regs that we all have to comply with nowadays.
Better? I'm not totally convinced!!!! Yes, I still am very much a commercial pilot.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Ascend Charlie
I can't see how CASA can be happy with frictions, as the CAO's state "controls locked", if you go with the proper definition of a lock:
1) A device operated by a key, combination, or keycard and used, as on a door, for holding, closing, or securing.
2) A section of a waterway, such as a canal, closed off with gates, in which vessels in transit are raised or lowered by raising or lowering the water level of that section.
3) A mechanism in a firearm for exploding the charge.
4) An interlocking or entanglement of elements or parts.
The above definition requires the helicopter controls to be locked with either a key, combination or keycard.
I know this would mean there would be no hot refuelling carried out, unless some engineer has designed a lockable collective/cyclic!
It doesn't mention engine at idle in the CAOs either but common sense would prevail, unfortunately in a court of law, legal documents would outweigh good, old common sense!
I also have another bone of contention with CASA and the wording of their documents in regard to sling loads over public areas, but I have let of enough steam for the moment.
I can't see how CASA can be happy with frictions, as the CAO's state "controls locked", if you go with the proper definition of a lock:
1) A device operated by a key, combination, or keycard and used, as on a door, for holding, closing, or securing.
2) A section of a waterway, such as a canal, closed off with gates, in which vessels in transit are raised or lowered by raising or lowering the water level of that section.
3) A mechanism in a firearm for exploding the charge.
4) An interlocking or entanglement of elements or parts.
The above definition requires the helicopter controls to be locked with either a key, combination or keycard.
I know this would mean there would be no hot refuelling carried out, unless some engineer has designed a lockable collective/cyclic!
It doesn't mention engine at idle in the CAOs either but common sense would prevail, unfortunately in a court of law, legal documents would outweigh good, old common sense!
I also have another bone of contention with CASA and the wording of their documents in regard to sling loads over public areas, but I have let of enough steam for the moment.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,008
Likes: 62
From: North Queensland, Australia
Q. Getting out of your running aircraft isn't a real big deal. If you desperately needed to take a leak, say, I'm sure you'd do it, given a flattish pad and so on, for as long as it took.
Hot refuelling isn't a problem either as long as you take appropriate care (ie don't go splashing fuel onto hot bits of the aircraft).
Adding the two, why is it such a big deal to get out and self-hot refuel?
A. It isn't, as long as you take reasonable precautions (fire extinguishers, be aware of the wind, don't be stupid about it; i.e. shut down if you're not happy.
Hot refuelling isn't a problem either as long as you take appropriate care (ie don't go splashing fuel onto hot bits of the aircraft).
Adding the two, why is it such a big deal to get out and self-hot refuel?
A. It isn't, as long as you take reasonable precautions (fire extinguishers, be aware of the wind, don't be stupid about it; i.e. shut down if you're not happy.
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
From: Australasia
Heliport,
Why was this thread resurrected?
In Australia, this operation was one of the first that was regulated on a risk management basis. The only time it really made sense was when the mission was time critical - mustering, aeromed and firefighting being obvious candidates - rather than mere convenience.
The policy intent was crystal clear - it is a pity (perhaps more a disgrace) that the final drafting muddied the waters so much.
Stay Alive
Why was this thread resurrected?
In Australia, this operation was one of the first that was regulated on a risk management basis. The only time it really made sense was when the mission was time critical - mustering, aeromed and firefighting being obvious candidates - rather than mere convenience.
The policy intent was crystal clear - it is a pity (perhaps more a disgrace) that the final drafting muddied the waters so much.
Stay Alive
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Reposted from the thread on pilot leaving the controls!!
Under Australian Law.......
Whilst we pilots enjoy a vast amount of flexibility, and can normally justify what we do is lawful and beyond attack by CASA or some legal challenger!!!
The defence of doing it this way for years, or my battery is weak, or the cycle count is to high is no defence at all.
I have just fought this one out with CASA [and lost]....and with "Strict Liability Penalties" applicable...[CAR 225[3], I don't ever want to fight this cause in a court.
The following rules apply:
CAR 225 [1]....The PIC must ensure that one [1] pilot is at the controls from rotors start to rotors stop.
However:
CAO 95.7....Exemption from General Requirement for pilot to be at the controls.
CAO 95.7.1....Allows you to exercise 95.7.2, regardless of CAR 225 [1] and CAR 230 [2], but not CAR 225 [2]
CAO 95.7.2…Does not permit the pilot to leave the controls, unless:
1]…The helicopter is equipped with skids.
2]…The collective and cyclic controls can be locked.
3]…If a passenger is onboard, then they can’t reach the controls.
4]…The pilot considers his/her absence is require based on safety of passengers or persons on the ground.
5]…The pilot remains in the vicinity of the helicopter.
Now the bad news:
CAO 95.7.2
1]...This immediately excludes all wheeled helicopters…..great!
2]...This excludes another bunch…AS350 and B206 series, as these aircraft only have frictions, NOT locks [AS350 collective lock accepted, but not the cyclic friction]….the legality here is locks verses frictions.
3]…Passengers onboard…OK
4]…We tend to use this safety clause to cover most vague or fringe legalities…in this case it won’t stand up in court [or so the CASA lawyers say] unless there is real danger to someone.
The action of protecting offloading passengers does not hold water, as you could have shut down. Fouled wires/slinging equipment falls into the same barrel, as does refueling in the bush. [Don’t yell at me over this one, it’s a legal interpretation]…and as I said with Strict Liability applying, its going to end you up in some very hot and expensive water.
5]…The pilot to remain in the vicinity…OK.
Solo Hot Refuelling falls into this same CAO.....CAO 95.7.2 [4]...we normally justify in our own minds that our action is lawful [after all we are putting out roaring fires], however that may well not be lawful.
Assuming that we can "justify" that all the above CAR/CAO's are complied with, then check CAO 20.4.2, regarding Fire Extinguishing Systems....some aircraft don't even carry a hand unit anymore.
Also CAO 20.5.3 that requires the hose to have a "Quick Cutoff" immeadiately before the tank entry point....that does not mean at the pump. So we now have to pump with one hand and hold the quick realease with the other to satisfy the CAO!!
Not trying to be difficult here, just focusing all Aussie Rotorheads to the law as it stands....thats what the lawyer will be focusing on when someone is having a go at you.
The CASA debriefing I had regarding this exercise was that the industry has been doing all sorts of things for years and years, and most of that activity makes perfect sense, however it may not be legal if tested.
Whilst we pilots enjoy a vast amount of flexibility, and can normally justify what we do is lawful and beyond attack by CASA or some legal challenger!!!
The defence of doing it this way for years, or my battery is weak, or the cycle count is to high is no defence at all.
I have just fought this one out with CASA [and lost]....and with "Strict Liability Penalties" applicable...[CAR 225[3], I don't ever want to fight this cause in a court.
The following rules apply:
CAR 225 [1]....The PIC must ensure that one [1] pilot is at the controls from rotors start to rotors stop.
However:
CAO 95.7....Exemption from General Requirement for pilot to be at the controls.
CAO 95.7.1....Allows you to exercise 95.7.2, regardless of CAR 225 [1] and CAR 230 [2], but not CAR 225 [2]
CAO 95.7.2…Does not permit the pilot to leave the controls, unless:
1]…The helicopter is equipped with skids.
2]…The collective and cyclic controls can be locked.
3]…If a passenger is onboard, then they can’t reach the controls.
4]…The pilot considers his/her absence is require based on safety of passengers or persons on the ground.
5]…The pilot remains in the vicinity of the helicopter.
Now the bad news:
CAO 95.7.2
1]...This immediately excludes all wheeled helicopters…..great!
2]...This excludes another bunch…AS350 and B206 series, as these aircraft only have frictions, NOT locks [AS350 collective lock accepted, but not the cyclic friction]….the legality here is locks verses frictions.
3]…Passengers onboard…OK
4]…We tend to use this safety clause to cover most vague or fringe legalities…in this case it won’t stand up in court [or so the CASA lawyers say] unless there is real danger to someone.
The action of protecting offloading passengers does not hold water, as you could have shut down. Fouled wires/slinging equipment falls into the same barrel, as does refueling in the bush. [Don’t yell at me over this one, it’s a legal interpretation]…and as I said with Strict Liability applying, its going to end you up in some very hot and expensive water.
5]…The pilot to remain in the vicinity…OK.
Solo Hot Refuelling falls into this same CAO.....CAO 95.7.2 [4]...we normally justify in our own minds that our action is lawful [after all we are putting out roaring fires], however that may well not be lawful.
Assuming that we can "justify" that all the above CAR/CAO's are complied with, then check CAO 20.4.2, regarding Fire Extinguishing Systems....some aircraft don't even carry a hand unit anymore.
Also CAO 20.5.3 that requires the hose to have a "Quick Cutoff" immeadiately before the tank entry point....that does not mean at the pump. So we now have to pump with one hand and hold the quick realease with the other to satisfy the CAO!!
Not trying to be difficult here, just focusing all Aussie Rotorheads to the law as it stands....thats what the lawyer will be focusing on when someone is having a go at you.
The CASA debriefing I had regarding this exercise was that the industry has been doing all sorts of things for years and years, and most of that activity makes perfect sense, however it may not be legal if tested.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: Here,there &everywhere
Friction Lock???
Red Wine,
Is there no such thing as a friction lock??
Is there NO danger to passengers embarking and disembarking a aircraft with a spinning tail rotor(I've had many a pax wanting to walk around the back after beeing briefed and warned again on short finals)????
I know its not what you say, but what CASA says.
Surely this can be interpereted in different ways
Is there no such thing as a friction lock??
Is there NO danger to passengers embarking and disembarking a aircraft with a spinning tail rotor(I've had many a pax wanting to walk around the back after beeing briefed and warned again on short finals)????
I know its not what you say, but what CASA says.
Surely this can be interpereted in different ways
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
From: Australia
DC......
Sorry I can't really answer that with any sincerity.
Some RFM's talk about frictions and others about locks.
In this instance its "Locks" in the legislation.
Dzeroplus...gave us a dictionary description of locks on page 2.
Over to you....I post on this rather restrictive topic in order to educate Rotorheads as to their liabilities and responsibilities if you go outside the law, regardless if its a conventional wisdom procedure or not!!
Some RFM's talk about frictions and others about locks.
In this instance its "Locks" in the legislation.
Dzeroplus...gave us a dictionary description of locks on page 2.
Over to you....I post on this rather restrictive topic in order to educate Rotorheads as to their liabilities and responsibilities if you go outside the law, regardless if its a conventional wisdom procedure or not!!
Joined: Aug 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 83
From: Gold Coast, Australia
RW,
You may have a job waiting at the Law Courts after flying!!
(exemption etc, unless):
CAO 95.7.7.2(b):
"the helicopter is fitted with a serviceable means of locking the cyclic and collective controls"
It may be a long bow to draw your conclusion that "In this instance it is "Locks" in the legislation."? ISTM that we're discussing semantics in this case, and I can't honestly see that whoever in CASA drafted CAO95.7 meant to imply that it (CAO95.7) would need to be so rigidly interpreted and enforced, down to the definition of what is a 'means of locking the controls'.
Bell's friction system seems to have sufficed for many years, and it would be a long and drawn out court case to prove otherwise.
You may have a job waiting at the Law Courts after flying!!
(exemption etc, unless):
CAO 95.7.7.2(b):
"the helicopter is fitted with a serviceable means of locking the cyclic and collective controls"
It may be a long bow to draw your conclusion that "In this instance it is "Locks" in the legislation."? ISTM that we're discussing semantics in this case, and I can't honestly see that whoever in CASA drafted CAO95.7 meant to imply that it (CAO95.7) would need to be so rigidly interpreted and enforced, down to the definition of what is a 'means of locking the controls'.
Bell's friction system seems to have sufficed for many years, and it would be a long and drawn out court case to prove otherwise.
Last edited by John Eacott; 6th May 2004 at 10:31.
