Temporarily removing fuel and replacing it into the same aircraft

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Does anyone know of a FAR that prohibits removing fuel, avgas in this
case, and then putting it back into the same plane? The plane is flown
for part 91 service only.

Examples:

1.) The plane is 50 pounds overweight for conditions. 10 gallons is
siphoned out into a clean, single-purpose, approved for gasoline
container. The sealed container is stored in a safe place. 2-3 hours
later, upon completing the trip and returning to the field, I pour it
back into the tank.

2.) I want to calibrate a fuel dipstick, so I remove a gallon at a time
while taking readings. After I read the tank, I return the fuel to the
tank.

I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this can't
cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Does anyone know of a FAR that prohibits removing fuel, avgas in this
> case, and then putting it back into the same plane? The plane is
> flown for part 91 service only.
>
> Examples:
>
> 1.) The plane is 50 pounds overweight for conditions. 10 gallons is
> siphoned out into a clean, single-purpose, approved for gasoline
> container. The sealed container is stored in a safe place. 2-3
> hours later, upon completing the trip and returning to the field, I
> pour it back into the tank.
>
> 2.) I want to calibrate a fuel dipstick, so I remove a gallon at a
> time while taking readings. After I read the tank, I return the fuel
> to the tank.
>
> I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this
> can't cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.

I can't think of ant FAR that could even remotely make what you are wanting
to do a violation.

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:33:28 -0400, B A R R Y >
wrote:

>Does anyone know of a FAR that prohibits removing fuel, avgas in this
>case, and then putting it back into the same plane? The plane is flown
>for part 91 service only.
>
>Examples:
>
>1.) The plane is 50 pounds overweight for conditions. 10 gallons is
>siphoned out into a clean, single-purpose, approved for gasoline
>container. The sealed container is stored in a safe place. 2-3 hours
>later, upon completing the trip and returning to the field, I pour it
>back into the tank.
>
>2.) I want to calibrate a fuel dipstick, so I remove a gallon at a time
>while taking readings. After I read the tank, I return the fuel to the
>tank.
>
>I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this can't
>cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.

First Reaction: If it's okay to use a GATT jar, what would the cutoff
be? Two ounces? A cup? 49 gallons?

Second Reaction: A violation of the National Fire Code will get you
thrown off the airport faster than a FAR violation will. The question
about where the cutoff is can probably be found in the NFC.

Third Reaction: If you're gonna do it anyway, common sense says don't
release a lot of gasoline fumes in an enclosed place and if you don't
KNOW that the transfer equipment is safe from a static electricity
standpoint, DON'T do it. There are faster, less painful ways to die.

Don

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Don Tuite wrote:
>
> Second Reaction: A violation of the National Fire Code will get you
> thrown off the airport faster than a FAR violation will. The question
> about where the cutoff is can probably be found in the NFC.

How much fuel is in your riding mower and other power equipment? Or the
car(s) in your garage? Did I say store it on the airport? How many 5
gallon gas cans are on a typical landscaping or race car trailer?

> Third Reaction: If you're gonna do it anyway, common sense says don't
> release a lot of gasoline fumes in an enclosed place and if you don't
> KNOW that the transfer equipment is safe from a static electricity
> standpoint, DON'T do it. There are faster, less painful ways to die.

Thanks. I didn't ask for knee-jerk, flame-war (pun intended) inducing,
chicken little reactions.


If someone can cite a part 43, 91, etc... rule that says fuel removed
from an aircraft with safe and legal defueling methods can't be returned
to the same tank, I'd be very much obliged! ;^)

[Michael[_1_]]

On Jul 23, 12:33 pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this can't
> cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.

The world is full of 'experts' who will tell you that something is
against the FAR's. When pressed, they will tell you to call the FSDO
if you don't believe them. Those experts can't ever seem to quote the
relevant FAR. They are best ignored.

There is no such regulation in the Part 91 world.

Michael

[John Godwin]

B A R R Y > wrote in
. net:

> Does anyone know of a FAR that prohibits removing fuel, avgas in
> this case, and then putting it back into the same plane? The
> plane is flown for part 91 service only.

Nope. Maintenance shops do it all the time. The shop I'm familiar with
have special containers and procedures (comply with fire and other
safety codes).

--

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Michael wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:33 pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
>> I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this can't
>> cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.
>
> The world is full of 'experts' who will tell you that something is
> against the FAR's. When pressed, they will tell you to call the FSDO
> if you don't believe them. Those experts can't ever seem to quote the
> relevant FAR. They are best ignored.
>
> There is no such regulation in the Part 91 world.

Thanks!

I've been searching 91 and 43, both electronically and on paper, but my
43 experience is limited.

The problem in this case, is that the "expert" is related to an airport
manager.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 12:33 pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
>>> I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this
>>> can't cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.
>>
>> The world is full of 'experts' who will tell you that something is
>> against the FAR's. When pressed, they will tell you to call the FSDO
>> if you don't believe them. Those experts can't ever seem to quote
>> the relevant FAR. They are best ignored.
>>
>> There is no such regulation in the Part 91 world.
>
> Thanks!
>
> I've been searching 91 and 43, both electronically and on paper, but
> my 43 experience is limited.
>
> The problem in this case, is that the "expert" is related to an
> airport manager.


So what. If it is against FAA rules tell the manager that if he would kindly
show you the rule you will be more than happy not to do it. If it is aganist
an airport rule then he and you should do the same.

[Maxwell]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. net...
> Does anyone know of a FAR that prohibits removing fuel, avgas in this
> case, and then putting it back into the same plane? The plane is flown
> for part 91 service only.
>
> Examples:
>
> 1.) The plane is 50 pounds overweight for conditions. 10 gallons is
> siphoned out into a clean, single-purpose, approved for gasoline
> container. The sealed container is stored in a safe place. 2-3 hours
> later, upon completing the trip and returning to the field, I pour it back
> into the tank.
>
> 2.) I want to calibrate a fuel dipstick, so I remove a gallon at a time
> while taking readings. After I read the tank, I return the fuel to the
> tank.
>
> I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this can't
> cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.

Defueling is common practice in the airline business. We always defueled
before bringing in both narrow and wide body aircraft. I feel certain they
reused the same fuel.

[Newps]

The FAA does not get into fueling/defueling. At all.




B A R R Y wrote:
> Don Tuite wrote:
>
>>
>> Second Reaction: A violation of the National Fire Code will get you
>> thrown off the airport faster than a FAR violation will. The question
>> about where the cutoff is can probably be found in the NFC.
>
>
> How much fuel is in your riding mower and other power equipment? Or the
> car(s) in your garage? Did I say store it on the airport? How many 5
> gallon gas cans are on a typical landscaping or race car trailer?
>
>> Third Reaction: If you're gonna do it anyway, common sense says don't
>> release a lot of gasoline fumes in an enclosed place and if you don't
>> KNOW that the transfer equipment is safe from a static electricity
>> standpoint, DON'T do it. There are faster, less painful ways to die.
>
>
> Thanks. I didn't ask for knee-jerk, flame-war (pun intended) inducing,
> chicken little reactions.
>
>
> If someone can cite a part 43, 91, etc... rule that says fuel removed
> from an aircraft with safe and legal defueling methods can't be returned
> to the same tank, I'd be very much obliged! ;^)

[Brian[_1_]]

On Jul 23, 12:46 pm, Michael >
wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:33 pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
>
> > I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this can't
> > cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.
>
> The world is full of 'experts' who will tell you that something is
> against the FAR's. When pressed, they will tell you to call the FSDO
> if you don't believe them. Those experts can't ever seem to quote the
> relevant FAR. They are best ignored.
>
> There is no such regulation in the Part 91 world.
>
> Michael


I have to agree with Michael, there are a lot of experts who know
rules that don't exist.

FSDO's aren't the experts and are often the source of such myths.

Locally we have had a FSDO inspector tell us we could not carry
passengers while towing gliders. He reversed this after I inquired to
he and is boss as to where this rule came from.

Recently another FSDO inspector told a local 141 flight school that
all the gas caps on their aircraft needed to be painted Red. I am
still trying to figure out which hat or book he might have pulled that
rule out of. Maybe someone here knows?

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Al G[_2_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. net...
> Does anyone know of a FAR that prohibits removing fuel, avgas in this
> case, and then putting it back into the same plane? The plane is flown
> for part 91 service only.
>
> Examples:
>
> 1.) The plane is 50 pounds overweight for conditions. 10 gallons is
> siphoned out into a clean, single-purpose, approved for gasoline
> container. The sealed container is stored in a safe place. 2-3 hours
> later, upon completing the trip and returning to the field, I pour it back
> into the tank.
>
> 2.) I want to calibrate a fuel dipstick, so I remove a gallon at a time
> while taking readings. After I read the tank, I return the fuel to the
> tank.
>
> I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this can't
> cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.

I hope it is not a violation, I've had to do this at remote mountain
airstrips
for years. I have seen tanks calibrated(Sticks & Gauges) in an approved
shop.


Al G

[pgbnh]

Greater likelihood is that you may be violating an AIRPORT rule. If your
field does not permit self-fueling, then the activity you note would
probably be considered a violation. But FAR's???? Naahh !
"Al G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Does anyone know of a FAR that prohibits removing fuel, avgas in this
>> case, and then putting it back into the same plane? The plane is flown
>> for part 91 service only.
>>
>> Examples:
>>
>> 1.) The plane is 50 pounds overweight for conditions. 10 gallons is
>> siphoned out into a clean, single-purpose, approved for gasoline
>> container. The sealed container is stored in a safe place. 2-3 hours
>> later, upon completing the trip and returning to the field, I pour it
>> back into the tank.
>>
>> 2.) I want to calibrate a fuel dipstick, so I remove a gallon at a time
>> while taking readings. After I read the tank, I return the fuel to the
>> tank.
>>
>> I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this can't
>> cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.
>
> I hope it is not a violation, I've had to do this at remote mountain
> airstrips
> for years. I have seen tanks calibrated(Sticks & Gauges) in an approved
> shop.
>
>
> Al G
>

[Bob Gardner]

An FAA ops inspector at HQ once gave me a list of all of the regulatory
agencies pilots have to answer to. One of them was the EPA. If there is any
prohibition against doing what you suggest you will find it in EPA regs, not
FARs. The FARs are only the tip of the iceberg.

Bob Gardner

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. net...
> Does anyone know of a FAR that prohibits removing fuel, avgas in this
> case, and then putting it back into the same plane? The plane is flown
> for part 91 service only.
>
> Examples:
>
> 1.) The plane is 50 pounds overweight for conditions. 10 gallons is
> siphoned out into a clean, single-purpose, approved for gasoline
> container. The sealed container is stored in a safe place. 2-3 hours
> later, upon completing the trip and returning to the field, I pour it back
> into the tank.
>
> 2.) I want to calibrate a fuel dipstick, so I remove a gallon at a time
> while taking readings. After I read the tank, I return the fuel to the
> tank.
>
> I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this can't
> cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.

[Bob Gardner]

Pilots frequently say "I can't find it in the regulations" after limiting
their search to Parts 1, 61, 67, 91, and (occasionally) 119/135. An FAA ops
inspector at HQ once gave me a list of all of the agencies whose regulations
impact pilots. I no longer have the list, but as I recall there were about
20. We know about the NTSB Part 830 accident/incident regs because they are
on the knowledge exams, and we know that there are National Park Service,
Bureau of Land Management, and Interior Department regs affecting both
airspace and landing areas because they show up on sectionals and things
like the Grand Canyon SFAR. What I am leading up to is a guess that the
Environmental Protection Agency may very well have a reg that speaks to the
operation you propose. The airport management and/or the governmental entity
operating the airport might have local regulations on the subject.

Bottom line is that you can't just look to the FARs when contemplating an
action.

Bob Gardner

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. net...
> Does anyone know of a FAR that prohibits removing fuel, avgas in this
> case, and then putting it back into the same plane? The plane is flown
> for part 91 service only.
>
> Examples:
>
> 1.) The plane is 50 pounds overweight for conditions. 10 gallons is
> siphoned out into a clean, single-purpose, approved for gasoline
> container. The sealed container is stored in a safe place. 2-3 hours
> later, upon completing the trip and returning to the field, I pour it back
> into the tank.
>
> 2.) I want to calibrate a fuel dipstick, so I remove a gallon at a time
> while taking readings. After I read the tank, I return the fuel to the
> tank.
>
> I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this can't
> cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.

[Bob Gardner]

Sorry about the double post...senior moment.

Bob

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
. ..
> An FAA ops inspector at HQ once gave me a list of all of the regulatory
> agencies pilots have to answer to. One of them was the EPA. If there is
> any prohibition against doing what you suggest you will find it in EPA
> regs, not FARs. The FARs are only the tip of the iceberg.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Does anyone know of a FAR that prohibits removing fuel, avgas in this
>> case, and then putting it back into the same plane? The plane is flown
>> for part 91 service only.
>>
>> Examples:
>>
>> 1.) The plane is 50 pounds overweight for conditions. 10 gallons is
>> siphoned out into a clean, single-purpose, approved for gasoline
>> container. The sealed container is stored in a safe place. 2-3 hours
>> later, upon completing the trip and returning to the field, I pour it
>> back into the tank.
>>
>> 2.) I want to calibrate a fuel dipstick, so I remove a gallon at a time
>> while taking readings. After I read the tank, I return the fuel to the
>> tank.
>>
>> I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this can't
>> cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.
>

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:52:18 -0700, Brian wrote:

> I have to agree with Michael, there are a lot of experts who know rules
> that don't exist.

There's even a FAR which states this. I don't recall which, off hand, but
you could get it by calling your local FSDO.

- Andrew

[[email protected]]

: Recently another FSDO inspector told a local 141 flight school that
: all the gas caps on their aircraft needed to be painted Red. I am
: still trying to figure out which hat or book he might have pulled that
: rule out of. Maybe someone here knows?

Perhaps the same theorem we used in a math course in graduate school.... the "CRE."

Complete-Rectal-Extraction

;-)

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning pgbnh > wrote:
: Greater likelihood is that you may be violating an AIRPORT rule. If your
: field does not permit self-fueling, then the activity you note would
: probably be considered a violation. But FAR's???? Naahh !
: "Al G" > wrote in message
: ...

My friendly-neighborhood AIRPORT manager tried to mandate no self-fueling of aircraft shortly after we shelled out just
shy of $2000 for an autogas STC for our PA-28-180. I pointed him in the direction of the regulations regarding restrictions on
public airports that accept federal funding. Included in those (can't find the link at the moment) is a requirement that pilots
can fuel their own aircraft for non-commercial use. Non-issue after that.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[150flivver]

Some FBOs have a policy that prohibits fuel that has been removed from
an aircraft from going into any other aircraft. They'll use the
"used" fuel for AGE (ground equipment) but won't pump it back into an
airplane for liability reasons (could have become contaminated in the
airplane they took it from, perhaps?). I don't know of anything that
prohibits a private owner from defueling his part 91 aircraft and
refueling it with the properly stored "used" fuel. Common sense
requires the fuel to be kept free of contamination and proper safety
measures utilized in the refueling process.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"150flivver" > wrote

> I don't know of anything that
> prohibits a private owner from defueling his part 91 aircraft and
> refueling it with the properly stored "used" fuel. Common sense
> requires the fuel to be kept free of contamination and proper safety
> measures utilized in the refueling process.

From the things I have seen, there is even more danger in defueling. There can
be considerable static electricity generated in fuel falling into a fuel
container.

Planes have been burned to the ground, and the hangar with it. I'm sorry, but I
don't remember where I read these articles.
--
Jim in NC

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "150flivver" > wrote
>
> > I don't know of anything that
> > prohibits a private owner from defueling his part 91 aircraft and
> > refueling it with the properly stored "used" fuel. Common sense
> > requires the fuel to be kept free of contamination and proper safety
> > measures utilized in the refueling process.
>
> From the things I have seen, there is even more danger in defueling.
> There can be considerable static electricity generated in fuel falling
> into a fuel container.

Google for "Kelvin water dropper experiment".

I think the key is to make sure that the airplane and the container are in
good electrical contact with each other. Just like you see the line guys
do every time they fuel your plane from the truck.

[J. Severyn]

> wrote in message
...
>
> My friendly-neighborhood AIRPORT manager tried to mandate no self-fueling
> of aircraft shortly after we shelled out just
> shy of $2000 for an autogas STC for our PA-28-180. I pointed him in the
> direction of the regulations regarding restrictions on
> public airports that accept federal funding. Included in those (can't
> find the link at the moment) is a requirement that pilots
> can fuel their own aircraft for non-commercial use. Non-issue after that.
>
> -Cory

The FAA doc is AC 150/5190-6
http://tinyurl.com/yo2ezv
John Severyn
KLVK Livermore, Ca.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:33:28 -0400, B A R R Y >
wrote:

>Does anyone know of a FAR that prohibits removing fuel, avgas in this
>case, and then putting it back into the same plane? The plane is flown
>for part 91 service only.
>
>Examples:
>
>1.) The plane is 50 pounds overweight for conditions. 10 gallons is
>siphoned out into a clean, single-purpose, approved for gasoline
>container. The sealed container is stored in a safe place. 2-3 hours
>later, upon completing the trip and returning to the field, I pour it
>back into the tank.
>
>2.) I want to calibrate a fuel dipstick, so I remove a gallon at a time
>while taking readings. After I read the tank, I return the fuel to the
>tank.
>
>I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this can't
>cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.

barry
you cant do it with people in the aircraft. that is in the regs.

when you do it make sure you have an earth connection between the
aircraft and the container. this can be as simple as a piece of fence
wire in the container touching the aircraft so as to bleed static
differences between the two. more elaborate would be a piece of
automotive wire with a crocodile clip on each end clipped between the
aircraft and the container.
with static taken care of you worst problem is spillage.

when you have the time go and get a copy of the regs and read them
yourself. it isnt difficult to understand them and you will have in
your memory an authoritative picture of them. the world gets easier
after that.

when you put the fuel back into the aircraft just pour it through a
funnel with a micromesh filter in it, they are as cheap as chips in
discount automotive shops and they exclude crud and water.

Stealth Pilot

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> So what. If it is against FAA rules tell the manager that if he would kindly
> show you the rule you will be more than happy not to do it. If it is aganist
> an airport rule then he and you should do the same.

That's the plan! If there is a FAR against returning the removed fuel
to the aircraft, I'd gladly respect it, without having to be told.
Since my own research turned up nothing, I pick the vast expertise of
knowledge here. <G>

I like to have my ducks in a row without causing a rub. The manager who
works for the state agency that owns the airport doesn't have single
problem with any of this. The "expert" is a self-employed mechanic,
related to the manager of the FBO who runs the field, and I'd prefer to
continue the good relationship I have with both of them.

Airport rules prohibit storing fuel cans in hangars, so I wouldn't do
that. There is no airport rule against gas cans in or on vehicles, or
fuel transfer tanks, ala Jay's "Grape". Several local pilots are
various sorts of contractors (landscape, tree surgeon, builders, heavy
equipment repair...) and have had many gas and diesel cans in the
parking lot, on business trucks and trailers.

Thanks!

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Maxwell wrote:
>
> Defueling is common practice in the airline business. We always defueled
> before bringing in both narrow and wide body aircraft. I feel certain they
> reused the same fuel.

Now that you mention that, I seem to remember a crewmember telling me
how the MD-88 I was aboard was ferrying fuel from DFW to SJO.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Thanks for all the GREAT info!

[El Maximo]

FWIW, I found the best way to de-fuel my plane is through the carb.
Unfortunately, it renders the fuel unusable, but it's alot of fun.


"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. net...
>
>
> Thanks for all the GREAT info!

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

El Maximo wrote:
> FWIW, I found the best way to de-fuel my plane is through the carb.
> Unfortunately, it renders the fuel unusable, but it's alot of fun.

Me too, but when you're 50 pounds over, and don't have the extra hour...

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Stealth Pilot > wrote:
: when you do it make sure you have an earth connection between the
: aircraft and the container. this can be as simple as a piece of fence
: wire in the container touching the aircraft so as to bleed static
: differences between the two. more elaborate would be a piece of
: automotive wire with a crocodile clip on each end clipped between the
: aircraft and the container.
: with static taken care of you worst problem is spillage.

: when you have the time go and get a copy of the regs and read them
: yourself. it isnt difficult to understand them and you will have in
: your memory an authoritative picture of them. the world gets easier
: after that.

: when you put the fuel back into the aircraft just pour it through a
: funnel with a micromesh filter in it, they are as cheap as chips in
: discount automotive shops and they exclude crud and water.

: Stealth Pilot

My setup for doing this is the same as what I use to haul cargas to the airport for my plane. I
use a few plastic, 6-gallon cans. To minimize the risk of contamination (from bad service station fuel
with sludge, water, stuff in the cans, etc), I rigged a water-absorbing spin-on fuel filter with a
pour-spout that will screw into the can. Then I just move the filtering pour spout from one can to the
other as I dump it in.

I minimize the electrical arcing risk by *ALWAYS* touching the filtering pour spout (which is
metal BTW) with one hand while I touch the wing with my other some distance away from the fuel tank
filler neck. Then while tipping the can into the neck, I maintain grounding with my fingers until the
metal spout makes contact with the plane. Sounds complicated, but it's not... prevents the possibility
of arcing where it counts (at the filler neck) even with plastic fuel containers.

I've never found any crude in sumping the tanks since I started using the filter 4 years ago.
Before then there was always a bit of water and the occasional bits of particles from the cargas.
Defueling and refueling just means one more trip through the filtering pour spout.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Ross]

El Maximo wrote:
> FWIW, I found the best way to de-fuel my plane is through the carb.
> Unfortunately, it renders the fuel unusable, but it's alot of fun.
>
>
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>
>>Thanks for all the GREAT info!
>
>
>
That took me a second reading to understand. That's great and I agree.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[JB]

On Jul 24, 11:55 am, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.owning Stealth Pilot > wrote:
> : when you do it make sure you have an earth connection between the
> : aircraft and the container. this can be as simple as a piece of fence
> : wire in the container touching the aircraft so as to bleed static
> : differences between the two. more elaborate would be a piece of
> : automotive wire with a crocodile clip on each end clipped between the
> : aircraft and the container.
> : with static taken care of you worst problem is spillage.
>
> : when you have the time go and get a copy of the regs and read them
> : yourself. it isnt difficult to understand them and you will have in
> : your memory an authoritative picture of them. the world gets easier
> : after that.
>
> : when you put the fuel back into the aircraft just pour it through a
> : funnel with a micromesh filter in it, they are as cheap as chips in
> : discount automotive shops and they exclude crud and water.
>
> : Stealth Pilot
>
> My setup for doing this is the same as what I use to haul cargas to the airport for my plane. I
> use a few plastic, 6-gallon cans. To minimize the risk of contamination (from bad service station fuel
> with sludge, water, stuff in the cans, etc), I rigged a water-absorbing spin-on fuel filter with a
> pour-spout that will screw into the can. Then I just move the filtering pour spout from one can to the
> other as I dump it in.
>
> I minimize the electrical arcing risk by *ALWAYS* touching the filtering pour spout (which is
> metal BTW) with one hand while I touch the wing with my other some distance away from the fuel tank
> filler neck. Then while tipping the can into the neck, I maintain grounding with my fingers until the
> metal spout makes contact with the plane. Sounds complicated, but it's not... prevents the possibility
> of arcing where it counts (at the filler neck) even with plastic fuel containers.
>
> I've never found any crude in sumping the tanks since I started using the filter 4 years ago.
> Before then there was always a bit of water and the occasional bits of particles from the cargas.
> Defueling and refueling just means one more trip through the filtering pour spout.
>
> -Cory
>
> --
>
> ************************************************** ***********************
> * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
> * Electrical Engineering *
> * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
> ************************************************** ***********************

I've never had to off-load fuel but just in case....

For plastic containers (with plastic spouts) and a plastic siphon hose
from the wing tank to the container which is sitting on the tarmac,
what's the best way to ground and avoid static build up?

--Jeff

[Newps]

JB wrote:

> For plastic containers (with plastic spouts) and a plastic siphon hose
> from the wing tank to the container which is sitting on the tarmac,
> what's the best way to ground and avoid static build up?
>


It's plastic, there's nothing you can do but hope.

[Don Tuite]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:02:54 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>JB wrote:
>
>> For plastic containers (with plastic spouts) and a plastic siphon hose
>> from the wing tank to the container which is sitting on the tarmac,
>> what's the best way to ground and avoid static build up?
>>
>
>
>It's plastic, there's nothing you can do but hope.
>
It might help to run some sash chain through the hose with enough left
over to pile up in the wing tank and storage tank. Knot the chain to
prevent it from pulling thorugh the hose.

Sash chain: That flattish chain people with old fashioned windows use
between the window sash and the sash wieghts.

Don

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Don Tuite wrote:
>
> It might help to run some sash chain through the hose with enough left
> over to pile up in the wing tank and storage tank. Knot the chain to
> prevent it from pulling thorugh the hose.

Exactly.

Ground wire, as accompanies every fuel dock and truck, works just as well.

[Maxwell]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. net...
> Don Tuite wrote:
>>
>> It might help to run some sash chain through the hose with enough left
>> over to pile up in the wing tank and storage tank. Knot the chain to
>> prevent it from pulling thorugh the hose.
>
> Exactly.
>
> Ground wire, as accompanies every fuel dock and truck, works just as well.

If you didn't go with a continuous wire, wouldn't you be gambling on a
possible arc between links?

I know hoses sold for fuel transfer have metal fittings on each end, and
they are bonded to a coil spring in the rubber hose.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Maxwell wrote:
>
> If you didn't go with a continuous wire, wouldn't you be gambling on a
> possible arc between links?

The sash chain I'm familiar with has small, very tight links. It's
almost like an extra flexible bicycle chain. Personally, I use a wire,
because I have it.

As for the chain, you have a point, but I'd have to think conditions
would have to be so perfect...

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> Maxwell wrote:
> >
> > If you didn't go with a continuous wire, wouldn't you be gambling on a
> > possible arc between links?
>
> The sash chain I'm familiar with has small, very tight links. It's
> almost like an extra flexible bicycle chain. Personally, I use a wire,
> because I have it.
>
> As for the chain, you have a point, but I'd have to think conditions
> would have to be so perfect...

Chains are often used for grounding, I think in part because they are so
flexible. Wire tends to curl and kink. It's easy to imagine scenarios
where a wire develops a kink which keeps it from making contact with what
it's supposed to be touching.

I'm thinking of things like chains hanging from the bottom of fuel trucks,
with the end dangling on the road surface. This is an application where
gravity provides the contact force. Where you've got clamps to make the
contact, it's probably less of an issue.

[Darrel Toepfer]

"pgbnh" > wrote:
> "Al G" > wrote...
>> "B A R R Y" > wrote...

>>> 2.) I want to calibrate a fuel dipstick, so I remove a gallon at a
>>> time while taking readings. After I read the tank, I return the
>>> fuel to the tank.
>>>
>>> I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this
>>> can't cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.
>>
>> I hope it is not a violation, I've had to do this at remote
>> mountain
>> airstrips
>> for years. I have seen tanks calibrated(Sticks & Gauges) in an
>> approved shop.

> Greater likelihood is that you may be violating an AIRPORT rule. If
> your field does not permit self-fueling, then the activity you note
> would probably be considered a violation. But FAR's???? Naahh !

Fly it to a remote strip and do as you wish, but follow the antistatic
procedures others have mentioned...

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:55:49 GMT, Darrel Toepfer >
wrote:

>"pgbnh" > wrote:
>> "Al G" > wrote...
>>> "B A R R Y" > wrote...
>
>>>> 2.) I want to calibrate a fuel dipstick, so I remove a gallon at a
>>>> time while taking readings. After I read the tank, I return the
>>>> fuel to the tank.
>>>>
>>>> I've been told this is a violation. The person who tells me this
>>>> can't cite a FAR, and I can't find one in my own search.
>>>
>>> I hope it is not a violation, I've had to do this at remote
>>> mountain
>>> airstrips
>>> for years. I have seen tanks calibrated(Sticks & Gauges) in an
>>> approved shop.
>
>> Greater likelihood is that you may be violating an AIRPORT rule. If
>> your field does not permit self-fueling, then the activity you note
>> would probably be considered a violation. But FAR's???? Naahh !

Check those airport rules, but when I had the Deb weighed for a new
W&B (old airplanes like old pilots tend to gain weight) they drained
the tanks. (it was down to about 60 gallons) and then put it back
along with enough to top off *all* tanks.

If it's a violation that was a mighty big company doing the violating.
>
>Fly it to a remote strip and do as you wish, but follow the antistatic
>procedures others have mentioned...