My Engine Fire!!

[[email protected]]

It's 10pm. It's 6 degrees outside. I decide to go flying. I fly an Cessna
150.

The engine has a Tanis preheater. During the pre-flight I notice that the
engine block feel reasonably warm. Everything else looks good.

I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. No joy. I let it crank for a
reasonable time to clear any flooding and repeat.

I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. No joy. I let it crank for a
reasonable time to clear any flooding and repeat.

I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. Backfire. I pause and wonder
"what the heck, it's never done that before." Then I notice a glow
from
under the engine cowling. And smoke. How weird, that's never happen before.
About two nanoseconds later I realize the engine is on FIRE!!!!!

I begin to bail out of the plane. But I cannot get my seatbelt undone. I
say
out loud "calm down", get my seat belt undone, and leave the plane.

About 30 seconds later, watching a bit of glow and smoke come from under my
cowling, I realize that the plane is not going to immediatly explode. I go
back to the plane and look for a fire extinguisher. There is none, but I do
grab my flight bag and run to the car. No fire extiguisher there either.

By now about a minute has gone by. The glow is gone, but the smoke
continues.
I sit and wait. I'd like to open the oil-access door, but I have no idea if
the fire is out and don't want to add any extra oxygen.

Finally, after 5 minutes, I walk to the plane. The cowling is cool to the
touch. I open the oil access door. Everything looks fine. Great! Now I
can go flying.

Er, not. I decide that people who fly after engine compartment fires are
those people who end up on the "How Stupid Was He" columns in my
favorite
flying magazine. I push the plane back in the hanger.

The mechanic says it might be that I over-primed the engine. It also might
be
an accumuation of oil from an oil leak. Everything important seems to be OK
except my pride.

Conclusions:

1) I forgive myself the panic two seconds with the seat belt. Next time I'll
be calmer but it was my first engine fire and I was un-calm for only two
seconds.

2) One should remember the fuel shut-off valve. It's quite out-of-sight, but
this would have been the only time in my whole flying career that it would
have actually been useful.

3) I'm gonna have to reread the "cold weather starting procedure"
section of
the manual.

4) The inside of the cowl is rather hard to see. How the heck is one suppose
to know if there is oil accumulating? Especially since there were no
significant oil drippings onto the hanger floor and the engine was not
consuming oil unreasonably.

5) Fire extinguishers. For this fire it would have made things worse. For a
different fire, it might have made things better. Hmmmmmm.

6) Insurance. The plane is insured, and I can clearly afford the deductable.

That makes many things OK.



----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email

[T-Boy]

In article >, says...
>
> It's 10pm. It's 6 degrees outside. I decide to go flying. I fly an Cessna
> 150.
>
> The engine has a Tanis preheater. During the pre-flight I notice that the
> engine block feel reasonably warm. Everything else looks good.
>
> I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. No joy. I let it crank for a
> reasonable time to clear any flooding and repeat.
>
> I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. No joy. I let it crank for a
> reasonable time to clear any flooding and repeat.
>
> I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. Backfire. I pause and wonder
> "what the heck, it's never done that before." Then I notice a glow
> from
> under the engine cowling. And smoke. How weird, that's never happen before.
> About two nanoseconds later I realize the engine is on FIRE!!!!!

I'd like to hear the opinions of others - but the first thing I'd have
done at this point is - keep cranking! While cranking, turn the fuel to
off (even if you have to stop for a bit). I'd probably open the
throttle wide too - while cranking - suck it all in.

If sucking it back into the carb didn't work - I'd carry on with your
procedure (bail out! :)

--
Duncan

[JDupre5762]

>I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. Backfire. I pause and wonder
>"what the heck, it's never done that before." Then I notice a glow
>from
>under the engine cowling. And smoke. How weird, that's never happen before.
> About two nanoseconds later I

>realize the engine is on FIRE!!!!!

>I begin to bail out of the plane. But I cannot get my seatbelt undone. I
>say
>out loud "calm down", get my seat belt undone, and leave the plane.
>

Before bailing from the plane try this. Throttle and Mixture off and crank the
starter. This should draw the burning gases through the carburetor and into
the cylinders where without any further fuel they will die for lack of oxygen.
I would be that the carburetor's aluminum venturi is distorted or melted away
completely.

John Dupre'

[Jay Honeck]

> 5) Fire extinguishers. For this fire it would have made things worse.

How so?

> That makes many things OK.

Thanks for sharing that story -- it's one of my "worst-case scenarios,"
especially with the kids strapped in the back seats.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell]

Interesting story (assuming you are not an April Fools troll), but you did
not quite learn the right lessons. If it makes you feel any better, one of
my students did the same thing just a couple of weeks ago, except that I was
with him and we used the proper emergency procedure, limiting damage to a
burned air filter and an hour of cleaning soot off the engine.

First of all, you over-primed the engine, but you knew that, didn't you? You
have a pre-heater, which means that you do not use cold weather starting
procedures. Letting it crank a reasonable time to clear any flooding does
not get rid of the fuel on the air filter and everywhere else it has dripped
under the cowling. No more than two shots of primer should have been plenty.
If the engine does not start you stop cranking and find out why.

Secondly, you seriously abused that poor starter. Your POH specifies wait
periods between attempts to start the engine in order to allow the starter
to cool. The service life of the starter is greatly shortened by this kind
of treatment.

As others pointed out, you should have known whether the plane had a fire
extinguisher and where it was located, as well as whether it is effective
against fuel fires. Most aircraft have Halon extinguishers which work well
on such fires.

You also need to study your emergency procedures. Your checklist contains a
procedure for fire while starting the engine and you should have committed
that to memory. You should also practice all these emergency procedures on a
regular basis. Jumping out of an airplane on fire endangers not only your
airplane but all the airplanes around you. The owners of those planes would
have come looking for you expecting compensation for the damage to their
property.

When you put the plane away in the hangar you did not really know that the
fire was out. Something could have been smoldering away in the cowling.
Hours later the fire might have restarted and burned down the hangar, the
neighboring hangars, and all the planes inside them. You could have been
liable for literally millions of dollars of damage. The cowling needs to
come off (all of it, not just the top piece) and you need to take a look
everywhere.

The one thing you did right was not fly the airplane immediately. A mechanic
needs to examine the engine for damage, especially to the air filter,
wiring, and hoses.

[James M. Knox]

wrote in :

> It's 10pm. It's 6 degrees outside. I decide to go flying. I fly an
> Cessna 150.

I can hardly imagine going outside in 6 degrees. Heck, I can hardly
imagine 6 degrees.

Your surprise and reactions are reasonable, don't bother worrying about how
you could have reacted differently or sooner. That's the past.

It sounds as though your A&P doesn't think you have any damage. That's
surprising, but great news. It doesn't take much of a carb fire to char
wire insulation or put holes in that thin SCAT tubing. You made the right
decision to wait for an examination.

Now, get the plane go back, have a nice flight, and don't let it worry you.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[Mike Z.]

Having gone through this past winter with a Tanis, I just want to comment on the priming angle.

After being plugged in all night, low of 10f, now 20f, I give the old girl 1 to 1.5 squirts and she starts in 2 blades. Answering
your questions in advance, I have primer on only one cylinder. Once I start to crank, I will pump the throttle once, maybe twice.

Point of all this being, it appears that the Tanis keeps it warm enough that the engine starts about the same as it would on a nice
75 degree summer day.

Mike Z

> wrote in message ...
>
> It's 10pm. It's 6 degrees outside. I decide to go flying. I fly an Cessna
> 150.
>
> The engine has a Tanis preheater. During the pre-flight I notice that the
> engine block feel reasonably warm. Everything else looks good.
>
> I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. No joy. I let it crank for a
> reasonable time to clear any flooding and repeat.
>
> I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. No joy. I let it crank for a
> reasonable time to clear any flooding and repeat.
>
> I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. Backfire. I pause and wonder
> "what the heck, it's never done that before." Then I notice a glow
> from
> under the engine cowling. And smoke. How weird, that's never happen before.
> About two nanoseconds later I realize the engine is on FIRE!!!!!
>
> I begin to bail out of the plane. But I cannot get my seatbelt undone. I
> say
> out loud "calm down", get my seat belt undone, and leave the plane.
>
> About 30 seconds later, watching a bit of glow and smoke come from under my
> cowling, I realize that the plane is not going to immediatly explode. I go
> back to the plane and look for a fire extinguisher. There is none, but I do
> grab my flight bag and run to the car. No fire extiguisher there either.
>
> By now about a minute has gone by. The glow is gone, but the smoke
> continues.
> I sit and wait. I'd like to open the oil-access door, but I have no idea if
> the fire is out and don't want to add any extra oxygen.
>
> Finally, after 5 minutes, I walk to the plane. The cowling is cool to the
> touch. I open the oil access door. Everything looks fine. Great! Now I
> can go flying.
>
> Er, not. I decide that people who fly after engine compartment fires are
> those people who end up on the "How Stupid Was He" columns in my
> favorite
> flying magazine. I push the plane back in the hanger.
>
> The mechanic says it might be that I over-primed the engine. It also might
> be
> an accumuation of oil from an oil leak. Everything important seems to be OK
> except my pride.
>
> Conclusions:
>
> 1) I forgive myself the panic two seconds with the seat belt. Next time I'll
> be calmer but it was my first engine fire and I was un-calm for only two
> seconds.
>
> 2) One should remember the fuel shut-off valve. It's quite out-of-sight, but
> this would have been the only time in my whole flying career that it would
> have actually been useful.
>
> 3) I'm gonna have to reread the "cold weather starting procedure"
> section of
> the manual.
>
> 4) The inside of the cowl is rather hard to see. How the heck is one suppose
> to know if there is oil accumulating? Especially since there were no
> significant oil drippings onto the hanger floor and the engine was not
> consuming oil unreasonably.
>
> 5) Fire extinguishers. For this fire it would have made things worse. For a
> different fire, it might have made things better. Hmmmmmm.
>
> 6) Insurance. The plane is insured, and I can clearly afford the deductable.
>
> That makes many things OK.
>
>
>
> ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
> http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
> NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
> made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email

[mikem]

(Account of overpriming and resulting engine fire deleted)

Any of the carburettor mounted below engine Lyc and Continental
engines are prone to this...

I had it happen to me in a 182. The 182 is particularly prone
if the engine starts normally, and you taxi the
aircraft a short distance (say to the fuel island), shut off
the engine, leave it off for a few min, and then restart...

What happens is that the metal induction tubes are still cold
soaked; the short run not being sufficient to heat them. Fuel
evaporates normally in the carb during the engine run, but because
of the induction tubes are cold, the fuel droplets condense
on the cold metal surface, like moisture condenses on a cold
beer glass.

As long as the engine is running, there is sufficient flow
up the induction system to suck the fuel into the cylinders.
If you shut off the engine, the condensed fuel runs back down
through the carburettor, and puddles in the carb air box.
A backfire during the next restart attempt is all it takes
to set the puddle of gas alight.

The admonition in the manual for continuing to crank in an
attempt to suck the fire up into the induction is there for
a reason. Be especially wary of an induction fire on the
second restart if the previous engine run was just a few
min...

MikeM
Skylane '1MM

[Cockpit Colin]

By any chance did you also pump the throttle a few times?

[Marty]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

Good stuff snipped....

> Most aircraft have Halon extinguishers which work well
> on such fires.
>
>
CJ,
Is there a special exclusion for the use of Halon in planes?
I thought Halon was outlawed or common use and now required special
permitting.
Great stuff tho.

Marty

[Peter Duniho]

"Marty" > wrote in message
...
> Is there a special exclusion for the use of Halon in planes?
> I thought Halon was outlawed or common use and now required special
> permitting.

AFAIK, halon *production* is banned. However, there's a considerable
stockpile of halon left, and you can still purchase halon extinguishers. No
permits required to buy.

Pete

[[email protected]]

wrote in message >...
> It's 10pm. It's 6 degrees outside. I decide to go flying. I fly an Cessna
> 150.
>
> The engine has a Tanis preheater. During the pre-flight I notice that the
> engine block feel reasonably warm. Everything else looks good.
>
> I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. No joy. I let it crank for a
> reasonable time to clear any flooding and repeat.
>
> I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. No joy. I let it crank for a
> reasonable time to clear any flooding and repeat.
>
> I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. Backfire. I pause and wonder
> "what the heck, it's never done that before." Then I notice a glow
> from
> under the engine cowling. And smoke. How weird, that's never happen before.
> About two nanoseconds later I realize the engine is on FIRE!!!!!
>
> I begin to bail out of the plane. But I cannot get my seatbelt undone. I
> say
> out loud "calm down", get my seat belt undone, and leave the plane.
>
> About 30 seconds later, watching a bit of glow and smoke come from under my
> cowling, I realize that the plane is not going to immediatly explode. I go
> back to the plane and look for a fire extinguisher. There is none, but I do
> grab my flight bag and run to the car. No fire extiguisher there either.
>
> By now about a minute has gone by. The glow is gone, but the smoke
> continues.
> I sit and wait. I'd like to open the oil-access door, but I have no idea if
> the fire is out and don't want to add any extra oxygen.
>
> Finally, after 5 minutes, I walk to the plane. The cowling is cool to the
> touch. I open the oil access door. Everything looks fine. Great! Now I
> can go flying.
>
> Er, not. I decide that people who fly after engine compartment fires are
> those people who end up on the "How Stupid Was He" columns in my
> favorite
> flying magazine. I push the plane back in the hanger.
>
> The mechanic says it might be that I over-primed the engine. It also might
> be
> an accumuation of oil from an oil leak. Everything important seems to be OK
> except my pride.
>
> Conclusions:
>
> 1) I forgive myself the panic two seconds with the seat belt. Next time I'll
> be calmer but it was my first engine fire and I was un-calm for only two
> seconds.
>
> 2) One should remember the fuel shut-off valve. It's quite out-of-sight, but
> this would have been the only time in my whole flying career that it would
> have actually been useful.
>
> 3) I'm gonna have to reread the "cold weather starting procedure"
> section of
> the manual.
>
> 4) The inside of the cowl is rather hard to see. How the heck is one suppose
> to know if there is oil accumulating? Especially since there were no
> significant oil drippings onto the hanger floor and the engine was not
> consuming oil unreasonably.
>
> 5) Fire extinguishers. For this fire it would have made things worse. For a
> different fire, it might have made things better. Hmmmmmm.
>
> 6) Insurance. The plane is insured, and I can clearly afford the deductable.
>
> That makes many things OK.
>
>
>
> ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
> http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
> NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
> made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email








I think one prime is all that is allowed. I finally decided to always
preheat on 31 degree fareineheit days for my carburated engine. It
seems not necessesary, except one prime always works!!

Fuel injection engines are another matter. Preheating helps
vaporization so a good easy start is also assured. And a loud backfire
is never to be encountered due to a slow start.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Marty wrote:
>
> I thought Halon was outlawed or common use and now required special
> permitting.

Halon is banned in Europe. Recycling Halon is still allowed in America.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > I thought Halon was outlawed or common use and now required special
> > permitting.
>
> Halon is banned in Europe. Recycling Halon is still allowed in America.
>
Recycling? Not _use_?

[C J Campbell]

"Marty" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Good stuff snipped....
>
> > Most aircraft have Halon extinguishers which work well
> > on such fires.
> >
> >
> CJ,
> Is there a special exclusion for the use of Halon in planes?
> I thought Halon was outlawed or common use and now required special
> permitting.
> Great stuff tho.

Halon is not outlawed. You cannot produce it, but there are sufficient
stockpiles of the stuff to make fire extinguishers for years.

It is a great example of the idiocy of environmental laws. Bureaucrats would
rather you burn alive than suffer a miniscule risk of getting cancer 20
years down the road.

[Marty]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Marty" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > Good stuff snipped....
> >
> > > Most aircraft have Halon extinguishers which work well
> > > on such fires.
> > >
> > >
> > CJ,
> > Is there a special exclusion for the use of Halon in planes?
> > I thought Halon was outlawed or common use and now required special
> > permitting.
> > Great stuff tho.
>
> Halon is not outlawed. You cannot produce it, but there are sufficient
> stockpiles of the stuff to make fire extinguishers for years.
>
> It is a great example of the idiocy of environmental laws. Bureaucrats
would
> rather you burn alive than suffer a miniscule risk of getting cancer 20
> years down the road.
>

Guess I need not worry too much about the 20lb bottle I have then ;-)

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> It is a great example of the idiocy of environmental laws. Bureaucrats
would
> rather you burn alive than suffer a miniscule risk of getting cancer 20
> years down the road.

Actually, it was banned as a ozone-depleter, if I recall correctly. I
suppose that could lead to skin cancer, but most people consider that to be
the least of the concerns with respect to the ozone layer disappearing.

In any case, there are other fire extinguishing agents that work just as
well. Yes, they aren't necessarily as friendly to your airplane, but having
to spend more money after a fire isn't the same kind of thing as making you
"burn alive".

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It is a great example of the idiocy of environmental laws. Bureaucrats
> would
> > rather you burn alive than suffer a miniscule risk of getting cancer 20
> > years down the road.
>
> Actually, it was banned as a ozone-depleter, if I recall correctly. I
> suppose that could lead to skin cancer, but most people consider that to
be
> the least of the concerns with respect to the ozone layer disappearing.
>
> In any case, there are other fire extinguishing agents that work just as
> well. Yes, they aren't necessarily as friendly to your airplane, but
having
> to spend more money after a fire isn't the same kind of thing as making
you
> "burn alive".

Are you seriously suggesting that the tiny quantities of halon discharged in
airplane fires will have any appreciable effect on the ozone? What makes you
think the other agents do not have the same or worse environmental effects?

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Are you seriously suggesting that the tiny quantities of halon discharged
in
> airplane fires will have any appreciable effect on the ozone?

No. It's not the individual fires for which an individual canister of halon
is discharged that's the problem. It's the total leakage that happens over
the entire production, distribution, and storage lifetime of halon products.

That said, one aspect of halon and similar agents is that a very small
amount goes a very long way, in terms of depleting ozone. Because they act
to encourage chemical reactions that get rid of ozone without actually being
consumed in those reactions themselves (things that behave this way are
known as catalysts), once ANY halon or other depleting agent gets into the
upper atmosphere, it stays there for a very long time doing harm.

> What makes you
> think the other agents do not have the same or worse environmental
effects?

Um, because they don't. Your question is like asking what makes me think I
can't use water as fuel for my airplane. The chemical agents used in fire
extinguishers now are very different from halon, in that they are not
catalysts for ozone-reducing reactions.

In any case, I'm not here to debate the merits of halon bans with you. I
was simply explaining WHY the ban exists, and the error in your assumption
that a) you have to burn alive without halon and b) that cancer is the
concern. You should feel free to contest the ban as much as you like, but
if you don't get your facts straight everyone will just think you're an
idiot.

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Are you seriously suggesting that the tiny quantities of halon
discharged
> in
> > airplane fires will have any appreciable effect on the ozone?
>
> No. It's not the individual fires for which an individual canister of
halon
> is discharged that's the problem. It's the total leakage that happens
over
> the entire production, distribution, and storage lifetime of halon
products.
>
> That said, one aspect of halon and similar agents is that a very small
> amount goes a very long way, in terms of depleting ozone. Because they
act
> to encourage chemical reactions that get rid of ozone without actually
being
> consumed in those reactions themselves (things that behave this way are
> known as catalysts), once ANY halon or other depleting agent gets into the
> upper atmosphere, it stays there for a very long time doing harm.
>
> > What makes you
> > think the other agents do not have the same or worse environmental
> effects?
>
> Um, because they don't. Your question is like asking what makes me think
I
> can't use water as fuel for my airplane. The chemical agents used in fire
> extinguishers now are very different from halon, in that they are not
> catalysts for ozone-reducing reactions.
>
> In any case, I'm not here to debate the merits of halon bans with you. I
> was simply explaining WHY the ban exists, and the error in your assumption
> that a) you have to burn alive without halon and b) that cancer is the
> concern. You should feel free to contest the ban as much as you like, but
> if you don't get your facts straight everyone will just think you're an
> idiot.
>

You are quite right. I am just an idiot who asks dumb questions. Questions
like, "Halon has been banned for ten years now. Is the ozone layer coming
back?"

But we will let it rest. Suffice it to say that there is considerable
dispute as to whether chlorofluorocarbons have had any effect on the ozone
layer at all. There is certainly no hard scientific data supporting the
theory.

So we will re-state my assertion as, "Bureaucrats would rather that you burn
alive than risk any damage to their pet environmental religious theories."

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> You are quite right. I am just an idiot who asks dumb questions. Questions
> like, "Halon has been banned for ten years now. Is the ozone layer coming
> back?"

Obviously the meaning of the word "catalyst" has escaped you.

> But we will let it rest. Suffice it to say that there is considerable
> dispute as to whether chlorofluorocarbons have had any effect on the ozone
> layer at all. There is certainly no hard scientific data supporting the
> theory.

I guess that depends on your definition of "hard". There is at least as
much evidence in favor of the CFC ozone-depletion theory as there is in
favor of the theory of evolution. You probably don't believe in that theory
either, is my guess, so there's not really any point in trying to discuss it
with you.

> So we will re-state my assertion as, "Bureaucrats would rather that you
burn
> alive than risk any damage to their pet environmental religious theories."

Your assertion is still false. It assumes that halon is the only way to put
a fire out in an airplane, which is simply not the case.

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You are quite right. I am just an idiot who asks dumb questions.
Questions
> > like, "Halon has been banned for ten years now. Is the ozone layer
coming
> > back?"
>
> Obviously the meaning of the word "catalyst" has escaped you.
>
> > But we will let it rest. Suffice it to say that there is considerable
> > dispute as to whether chlorofluorocarbons have had any effect on the
ozone
> > layer at all. There is certainly no hard scientific data supporting the
> > theory.
>
> I guess that depends on your definition of "hard". There is at least as
> much evidence in favor of the CFC ozone-depletion theory as there is in
> favor of the theory of evolution. You probably don't believe in that
theory
> either, is my guess, so there's not really any point in trying to discuss
it
> with you.
>

If you mean by the theory of evolution such concepts as DNA inheritance,
natural selection, and genetic drift, then your assumptions about what I
believe are entirely unfounded.

To elevate a peripheral theory about ozone depletion to the level of the
foundation of all biological science is silly beyond belief.