Is this the death of GA

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

William Hung writes:

That's a lot of ifs Jay. Is the convenience, in this case really
worth it? Is your insurance company aware of this practice? My
guess is no. I would have to go with Matt on this one, Jay.

What percentage of refuelings of this type have ended in fire?

Insurance companies always want zero risk, for maximum profit. They
don't care how much it costs their clients.


Ah, so you're singing form the same song sheet as Jay...


Bertie

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't want
to lose an airplane AND a building.

That's the rule here, too. We can have it parked right in front of the
hangar but no part of the airplane can be across the door threshold. I
assume it is for the reason you state.

Our FBO routinely fuels owner's aircraft in their hangars. Always has.

Ten years ago, when we first moved into a hangar, we would return from a
flight, put the plane away, and flip a little red flapper up on the door.
Next time we came to the airport, the flapper was down, the plane was
fully fueled, and we'd get a bill at the end of the month. God, I miss
those days...

I think gas was, like, $1.74 per gallon -- and we bitched about it!

ELM, which is only 30 or so miles from where I live, lost a maintenance
hangar, 4 airplanes and lots of tools and spare parts due to a fueling
accident with an airplane inside the hangar. With the fuel spreading
across the floor, once it was ignited the hangar went up almost instantly.
Nobody was seriously injured, but even with the airport fire department
literally next door, the hangar was a total loss.

What was the fuel doing on the floor, and what ignited it?


This is one rule that I believe is grounded in common sense.


I believe this is one rule that is grounded in common nonsense, and/or
simple negative fantasy. If your refueling procedure allows ANY chance of
fire, or even significant spill, that procedure needs to be changed
immediately.

Even aircraft tied down on a flight line are MUCH too close to each other to
afford a fire.

If we have any concerns of aircraft stored indoors, then we need to be
completely defueling them prior to storage or maintenance, just like the
airlines do. It would be just as easy to argue leaving fuel in an aircraft
while stored indoors is an unacceptable hazard as well. Then if a fire does
get started in the hanger, the aircraft is much less likely to contribute to
the problem.

"Maxwell" wrote in
:


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't
want to lose an airplane AND a building.

That's the rule here, too. We can have it parked right in front of
the hangar but no part of the airplane can be across the door
threshold. I assume it is for the reason you state.

Our FBO routinely fuels owner's aircraft in their hangars. Always
has.

Ten years ago, when we first moved into a hangar, we would return
from a flight, put the plane away, and flip a little red flapper up
on the door. Next time we came to the airport, the flapper was down,
the plane was fully fueled, and we'd get a bill at the end of the
month. God, I miss those days...

I think gas was, like, $1.74 per gallon -- and we bitched about it!

ELM, which is only 30 or so miles from where I live, lost a
maintenance hangar, 4 airplanes and lots of tools and spare parts due
to a fueling accident with an airplane inside the hangar. With the
fuel spreading across the floor, once it was ignited the hangar went
up almost instantly. Nobody was seriously injured, but even with the
airport fire department literally next door, the hangar was a total
loss.

What was the fuel doing on the floor, and what ignited it?


This is one rule that I believe is grounded in common sense.


I believe this is one rule that is grounded in common nonsense, and/or
simple negative fantasy. If your refueling procedure allows ANY chance
of fire, or even significant spill, that procedure needs to be changed
immediately.

Even aircraft tied down on a flight line are MUCH too close to each
other to afford a fire.

If we have any concerns of aircraft stored indoors, then we need to be
completely defueling them prior to storage or maintenance, just like
the airlines do. It would be just as easy to argue leaving fuel in an
aircraft while stored indoors is an unacceptable hazard as well. Then
if a fire does get started in the hanger, the aircraft is much less
likely to contribute to the problem.


There are a lot of factors in play during refueling that are not with
fuel at rest. One is the static charge induced by merely moving the fuel
down the hose, the vapor produced by pumping and the possible
concentration to a good ignition mixture in an enclosed space.


Bertie

writes:

In Capitalism there is a tension between "maximizing profit" and
remaining competitive. This is a Good Thing, and it is the engine that
drives free economies.

How much competition is there for this type of insurance?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

In Capitalism there is a tension between "maximizing profit" and
remaining competitive. This is a Good Thing, and it is the engine that
drives free economies.

How much competition is there for this type of insurance?

Another subject in which you don't know **** from Shinola.

On Feb 25, 3:39 pm, Benjamin Dover wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote :

writes:

In Capitalism there is a tension between "maximizing profit" and
remaining competitive. This is a Good Thing, and it is the engine that
drives free economies.

How much competition is there for this type of insurance?

Another subject in which you don't know **** from Shinola.

There ya go...

On Feb 25, 2:43 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
In Capitalism there is a tension between "maximizing profit" and
remaining competitive. This is a Good Thing, and it is the engine that
drives free economies.

How much competition is there for this type of insurance?

Google Results = 1,850,000 for Aviation Insurance

I'll let you educate yourself and stay busy. If you read one page each
second we won't have to reply to you for twenty-one (21) and one half
(1/2) days.

That would be a Very Good Thing.


Dan

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

In Capitalism there is a tension between "maximizing profit" and
remaining competitive. This is a Good Thing, and it is the engine that
drives free economies.

How much competition is there for this type of insurance?


None, nbody wants to do it since you blew the whistle. Thanks a bunch
****face.


Bertie

On Feb 25, 4:45 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote :

writes:

In Capitalism there is a tension between "maximizing profit" and
remaining competitive. This is a Good Thing, and it is the engine that
drives free economies.

How much competition is there for this type of insurance?

None, nbody wants to do it since you blew the whistle. Thanks a bunch
****face.

Bertie

Stop making me laugh out loud -- makes it look like I'm not working!

Nomen Nescio wrote in
:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Bertie the Bunyip

There are a lot of factors in play during refueling that are not with
fuel at rest. One is the static charge induced by merely moving the
fuel down the hose, the vapor produced by pumping and the possible
concentration to a good ignition mixture in an enclosed space.

And let's not forget the Dip**** Factor

http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...view&current=S
hell_-_191107.flv

Ah, one "episode" and the PC "safety nannies" decide that it's "unsafe" to
smoke around gas.

If it were unsafe people would be blown up doing it all the time.

Am I right?




Bertie