Gas Theft Nashua (ASH)

On 4 Feb 2006 06:48:10 -0800, "Hank Rausch"
wrote:

Flew into Nashua last Sunday for business, topped off the tanks right
after setting down. When I came back from business on Thursday, found
the right tank down quite a bit. I was going crazy looking for the
leak and checking the drain for seepage, until the line guy pointed out
that he filled the tank back up exactly 5 gallons--which happens to be
the volume of a standard gas can. He said he'd seen it happen to
another plane on the line, both tanks down 5 gallons.

If this kind of thievery is going on at the airport, I'd be more
concerned about my airplane and its components than gas in the tanks.
A radio is worth a lot more than 5 gallons of avgas.

And if no one is notices gas siphoning, are they similarly oblivious
to people stealing an airplane to use for some nefarious purpose?
Whatever happened to Airport Watch?

RK Henry

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"RST Engineering" wrote:

I would ten times over risk gas theft over water condensation overnight
in
half-full or nearly empty tanks.

But, if you fill it up, and they siphon it out, don't you still have the
same problem?

Yes, but the siphoning is an unlikely event. If condensation were a serious
concern, you'd prefer to take a small chance of theft plus condensation
rather than defending against theft at the cost of a much greater chance of
condensation.

--Gary

If you hook up a tube to the fuel drain and the vent is working
properly, a locking cap won't make a difference.

You'd have to be pretty patient to drain a significant amount thru a
quickdrain.

(a) You can go through the math all day long and still not explain why I
have drained the (hangared) 182 after a particularly humid day or two and
get a tablespoon or two of water in the quick drains.

(b) You cannot explain why "drain the sumps" is a daily check list event for
both fuel trucks AND airplanes.

(c) You cannot explain why CessBeePipMoo all have drains at the low point of
the fueling system. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper not to have to put
them in there. Somebody somewhere thought it was a good idea.

(d) You cannot explain why a hangared 150 from this airport fifteen years
ago dumped it into a pasture off the end of the runway and then proceeded to
drain two QUARTS (yes, that's quarts) of water from the tanks.

Jim


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"RST Engineering" wrote:

I would ten times over risk gas theft over water condensation overnight in
half-full or nearly empty tanks.

There's not enough water in 20 gallons of air to matter.

How much water is there? In *extremely* wet conditions (saturated air at
20 deg. C) there are only 14.7 g/kg of water in the air. A cubic foot of
air at SLP weighs about 34 grams at 20 C. 10 gallons is ~27 cu. ft., so
that gives about 900 g. of air and about 14 g. of water. Not a problem.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

I once hooked a tube to the gascolator drain tube of my 182 and drained five
gallons in a few minutes. I put vicegrips on the drain control to keep it
open.

"RST Engineering" wrote:

(a) You can go through the math all day long and still not explain why
I have drained the (hangared) 182 after a particularly humid day or
two and get a tablespoon or two of water in the quick drains.

I see: math is false and your charming story is proof. Very convincing.
I have one too: I've been keeping a 172RG with 62-gal. capacity tanks
outdoors in one of the most humid places in the U. S. for six years. I
never top the tanks unless I specifically need to for the next flight.
Only once in that time have I ever had water in a sample, and that was
due to a bad fuel cap gasket.

So, you've got your little story and I've got mine--so what? I'm the
one with the real numbers on his side.

(b) You cannot explain why "drain the sumps" is a daily check list
event for both fuel trucks AND airplanes.

Indeed I can: it is done to test for and drain *any* contaminants from
the tanks. Was that supposed to be hard?

(c) You cannot explain why CessBeePipMoo all have drains at the low
point of the fueling system. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper not
to have to put them in there. Somebody somewhere thought it was a
good idea.

Indeed I can: they are there to enable testing for and draining of *any*
contaminants from the tanks. Was that supposed to be hard?

(d) You cannot explain why a hangared 150 from this airport fifteen
years ago dumped it into a pasture off the end of the runway and then
proceeded to drain two QUARTS (yes, that's quarts) of water from the
tanks.

You cannot explain why your anecdotes conflict with empirical knowledge
of the composition and behavior of the atmosphere. Come back when you
can.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

RST Engineering wrote:

(b) You cannot explain why "drain the sumps" is a daily check list event
for both fuel trucks AND airplanes.

(c) You cannot explain why CessBeePipMoo all have drains at the low point of
the fueling system. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper not to have to put
them in there. Somebody somewhere thought it was a good idea.

Aren't there other, more common reasons for sumping the fuel, such as
removing sediment, checking fuel type, and removing water that may have
been introduced via a contaminated fuel source?

Any of these problems could take an aircraft down, so the value of having
the sumps is much greater than simply removing water that may have
condensed within the cells/bladders/tanks from the surrounding humid air.


(d) You cannot explain why a hangared 150 from this airport fifteen years
ago dumped it into a pasture off the end of the runway and then proceeded to
drain two QUARTS (yes, that's quarts) of water from the tanks.

And you can attest to the fact that the accident aircraft was indeed
hangared this entire time, ruling out leaky (which is pretty common with
old 150s) or non-existent fuel caps, and that the water was not introduced
from an external contaminated source?

--
Peter

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
.. .
(a) You can go through the math all day long and still not explain why I
have drained the (hangared) 182 after a particularly humid day or two and
get a tablespoon or two of water in the quick drains.

Dan Luke calculated there could be 14 grams of water in 20 gallons of air.

1 tablespoon = 15 milliliters = 15 grams

(b) You cannot explain why "drain the sumps" is a daily check list event
for both fuel trucks AND airplanes.

(c) You cannot explain why CessBeePipMoo all have drains at the low point
of the fueling system. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper not to have to
put them in there. Somebody somewhere thought it was a good idea.

Water can enter tanks in ways other than condensation.

RST Engineering wrote:

(d) You cannot explain why a hangared 150 from this airport fifteen years
ago dumped it into a pasture off the end of the runway and then proceeded
to
drain two QUARTS (yes, that's quarts) of water from the tanks.

Sounds like good ol' pilot error to me. Somebody F'ed up and forgot to sump
the fuel system.

RK Henry wrote:


If this kind of thievery is going on at the airport, I'd be more
concerned about my airplane and its components than gas in the tanks.
A radio is worth a lot more than 5 gallons of avgas.

Today, yes.