Unload fuel, how?

[Greg Bockelman]

Leaving fuel behind is the classic first link in an accident chain.

I beg to differ. I have a MAJOR pet peeve with people who think you should be able to fill the tanks with fuel and the plane with people and baggage and be under gross weight. You sacrifice flexibility with that attitude. And proper preflight planning alleviates the running out of fuel scenario.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

*Edit* To Un-hijack the thread, siphoning with clear tubing is the best quick way to get gallons out.

Why does it have to be clear tubing?

 

[Tom-D]

Why does it have to be clear tubing?

It's easier to see you've been successful in getting the syphon started.

It's too hard to lift the hose and see if it is running.

 

[BillTIZ]

Anyone else remember Jean Shepherd's tasting guide to automotive gasolines, based on syphoning gas out of other folks' cars during the Depression? "Sinclair had an amusing piquance, with an aftertaste redolent of industrial cleaning fluid..."

Not that far back, but I do remember the suck start syphoning method to get gas from dad's truck to the lawn mower. Tasted horrible.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

It's easier to see you've been successful in getting the syphon started.

It's too hard to lift the hose and see if it is running.

LMAO. But that does not mean it HAS to be clear tubing to siphon.

 

[Henning]

You've probably never heard of a "jiggle Syphon"

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Jiggle-Syph...ols_Equipment&hash=item336f711088#ht_2394wt_1

Had one...meh, it's ok at best plus it looks like you're whacking off on the side of the car.

 

[Henning]

Why does it have to be clear tubing?

If you suck on it with your mouth, so you see it before you drink it.

 

[W. Stewart]

I have only defueled once in the 13 years I have been flying. I siphoned 15 gallons out into three new gas cans and used it later. I did get some gas in my mouth, though, and belched gas for the next few hours.

Wells

 

[Geico266]

unscrew the sump drains.

I've done this dozens of time. The RV-12 fuel tank must come out for annual. Draining fuel is not that big of deal if you have a place to put it.

This is the portable fuel tank I use to haul mogas and to defuel planes.

 

[TMetzinger]

As a data point - NOT ONE FBO in our area will defuel an aircraft back into their fuel truck. They all cite liability concerns and in a few cases have pointed out that their contract with AvFuel/whoever specifically prohibits it.

What they sometimes will do is have a separate system/tank just for defueling and they use that to run heaters and tugs and other things that won't generate multimillion dollar lawsuits if there's a fuel contamination issue.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

As a data point - NOT ONE FBO in our area will defuel an aircraft back into their fuel truck.

That would be a good thing. If I were to get my ride defueled, it would be mostly auto gas - possibly with ethanol. Most of you wouldn't want that in your airplane.

 

[a33321654]

Forgive my noobness. I read about the EPA fine that embry riddle received for dumping fuel samples on the ground. I've only had 1 flight so far and that's what we did. What is the appropriate procedure for dumping the sample fuel. I'm assuming you wouldn't want to put it back in the tank for contamination issues.

 

[poadeleted20]

Forgive my noobness. I read about the EPA fine that embry riddle received for dumping fuel samples on the ground. I've only had 1 flight so far and that's what we did. What is the appropriate procedure for dumping the sample fuel. I'm assuming you wouldn't want to put it back in the tank for contamination issues.

The correct procedure is to dump the fuel either into a dump container provided by the airport for that purpose (many states, including Florida, require that such a container be provided on the flight line), or if you use a "GATS" jar, back into your fuel tank through the filter in the jar. The fuel from the dump container is, as discussed above, usually used in airport vehicles, lawn mowers, etc, where contamination isn't such a critical issue. Dumping it on the ground is a violation of the Federal Clean Water Act throughout the USA, and a violation of state law in many (if not most) states (including, most notably, Florida).

 

[pilotod]

That's another good question. I was told to just pour it on some weeds or anywhere on the concrete surface. When the plane has been in the hangar I was told it was ok to dump the sample in the floor drain.

Jamie

What is the appropriate procedure for dumping the sample fuel. I'm assuming you wouldn't want to put it back in the tank for contamination issues.

 

[poadeleted20]

That's another good question. I was told to just pour it on some weeds or anywhere on the concrete surface. When the plane has been in the hangar I was told it was ok to dump the sample in the floor drain.

The floor drain is probably the worst place to send it -- that goes right back into the water supply. At least on a concrete surface some of it can evaporate before seeping into the ground water (although that evaporation would technically violate the Clean Air Act). Purpose-specific dump container, or GATS jar -- "anything else would be uncivilized."

 

[bobmrg]

That's another good question. I was told to just pour it on some weeds or anywhere on the concrete surface. When the plane has been in the hangar I was told it was ok to dump the sample in the floor drain.

Jamie

IMHO either method violates EPA regulations (and probably many more). Purposely dumping fuel into a drain? What were you thinking? Here in the Seattle area, a guy was on the verge of a large fine for letting 1/4 cup of oil get into the water at a marina.

Bob Gardner

 

[tonycondon]

if its clean i usually dump it back in the tank.

 

[Tom-D]

if its clean i usually dump it back in the tank.

me too

 

[poadeleted20]

if its clean i usually dump it back in the tank.

Me, too -- through the filter in my GATS jar.

 

[tonycondon]

if the sample is clean what is the reason for the GATS jar?

 

[Tom-D]

if the sample is clean what is the reason for the GATS jar?

If you are getting enough crap out of your tanks to need a Gats jar, you'd best get the problem fixed.

 

[poadeleted20]

if the sample is clean what is the reason for the GATS jar?

Peace of mind. And you don't know it will be clean until you pull the sample. Then, if it's not clean, where do you put it? Too many airports don't have dump cans, and then you're stuck with it unless you don't mind polluting the planet unnecessarily.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you are getting enough crap out of your tanks to need a Gats jar, you'd best get the problem fixed.

That suggests that a little "crap" is OK to dump back in. I don't agree. And the GATS jar also traps water, which may have come in via a route you can't fix (e.g., refueling in the rain).

 

[Tom-D]

That suggests that a little "crap" is OK to dump back in. I don't agree. And the GATS jar also traps water, which may have come in via a route you can't fix (e.g., refueling in the rain).

Not really, If your eye sight is good enough to fly, you should be able to see debris in the sample.

OBTW, the screen in your Gats jar has a proper nomenclature, do you know it?

 

[Fearless Tower]

simply call the de-fuel truck.

If that option is available.....but here is a question - does removing the sump drain and re-installing it fall under -
"23. Cleaning or replacing fuel and oil strainers or filter elements." of the list of pilot authorized maintenance, or does it require an A&P.

In other words, is a sump drain considered a fuel strainer. When I think of a fuel strainer, I usually think of a gascolator, but I am curious as to how broad the FAA's interpretation is.

 

[N801BH]

If that option is available.....but here is a question - does removing the sump drain and re-installing it fall under -
"23. Cleaning or replacing fuel and oil strainers or filter elements." of the list of pilot authorized maintenance, or does it require an A&P.

In other words, is a sump drain considered a fuel strainer. When I think of a fuel strainer, I usually think of a gascolator, but I am curious as to how broad the FAA's interpretation is.

I am betting it will take an A&P to replace it,,,, if not remove it in the first place...

Ben.

 

[cirrusmx]

Forgive my noobness. I read about the EPA fine that embry riddle received for dumping fuel samples on the ground. I've only had 1 flight so far and that's what we did. What is the appropriate procedure for dumping the sample fuel. I'm assuming you wouldn't want to put it back in the tank for contamination issues.

John and Martha King 80s-90s style, just throw it on the ramp. however, pouring it back on the tanks forces you to check again the fuel level.

 

[Tom-D]

If that option is available.....but here is a question - does removing the sump drain and re-installing it fall under -
"23. Cleaning or replacing fuel and oil strainers or filter elements." of the list of pilot authorized maintenance, or does it require an A&P.

In other words, is a sump drain considered a fuel strainer. When I think of a fuel strainer, I usually think of a gascolator, but I am curious as to how broad the FAA's interpretation is.

I wouldn't think that working on a fuel tank is the same as a strainer, or a gascolator. If the FAA allowed you to work on a tank it would say "Tank"

 

[Tom-D]

I am betting it will take an A&P to replace it,,,, if not remove it in the first place...

Ben.

I doubt that I would work for any owner stupid enough to want to de-fuel this way.

 

[N801BH]

I doubt that I would work for any owner stupid enough to want to de-fuel this way.

I don't want to be based at an airport with someone dumb enough to try it.... Can you imagine the dog and pony show when he/she tries to screw it back on with the fuel flowing out like a firehose..

Ben...

For the record I do drain my planes tanks dry about every 10'th fill up. I will fly it till it has 7 -10 gallons and then place gas cans under the gascolator.. It drains at 1 gal a minute... I do that to check of the accuracy of my JPI 450. With 100LL I have the cal number figured out so it is accurate to 1%... But,, I run a mixture of premium auto fuel and 100LL. I get anywhere from 2% to 14 % ethanol when I buy it in bulk and the alky really changes the amount the totalizer shows as used. It's the price one pays when running auto fuel...

 

[Tom-D]

I don't want to be based at an airport with someone dumb enough to try it.... Can you imagine the dog and pony show when he/she tries to screw it back on with the fuel flowing out like a firehose..

Ben.....

Been there tried that.. I've also had 100LL in my armpit.

The best way to remove and replace a leaking drain valve from a fuel tank that has fuel in it, is to use a rubber glove with a big cuff. and be quick.

 

[Tom-D]

OBTW, the screen in your Gats jar has a proper nomenclature, do you know it?

seems not..

"Coalescing screen", its primary purpose is to separate water from the gas.

but the mesh is small enough that any matter passing thru it will pass thru the entire system.

Gats Jars are a good device, they allow you to take a better sample and pour it back with piece of mind.

but a "Mr. Funnel" is better. they prevent the debris/water from getting into the tank.

OBTW you can fix getting water in the tank when fueling in the rain.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I wouldn't think that working on a fuel tank is the same as a strainer, or a gascolator. If the FAA allowed you to work on a tank it would say "Tank"

But you aren't working on the tank-simply unscrewing and reinstalling a drain. FAA doesn't allow a PPL to work an engine, but the gas collator is connected to it.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I don't want to be based at an airport with someone dumb enough to try it.... Can you imagine the dog and pony show when he/she tries to screw it back on with the fuel flowing out like a firehose..

Probably depends on the individual and how much is in the tank.

While I am not recommending unscrewing the drain as the best method, FWIW, I have seen a drain swapped out on a full tank by an A&P and was surprised at how little fuel was lost.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Lawn mowers, tugs, etc. Embry-Riddle's entire gardening machinery fleet now runs on 100LL drained from sumps on preflights. Savings helped pay the EPA fine from when they got caught dumping samples on the ramp (multiply 13 sumps/172 times 30 or 40 flights/day times like five hundred bucks per violation and the numbers add up). Turns out it was cheaper to comply with the Clean Water Act than to ignore it. How often does that happen?

But isn't it illegal to burn 100LL in anything other than an airplane, too?

 

[Tom-D]

But you aren't working on the tank-simply unscrewing and reinstalling a drain. FAA doesn't allow a PPL to work an engine, but the gas collator is connected to it.

nope, the drain is part of the tank, The gascolator is not a part of an engine it is part of the fuel system, and mentioned in FAR 43- A, as allowed, the tank drains are not.

 

[denverpilot]

But isn't it illegal to burn 100LL in anything other than an airplane, too?

Shh. Don't tell the helicopter guys or the blimp drivers.

 

[Tom-D]

Probably depends on the individual and how much is in the tank.

While I am not recommending unscrewing the drain as the best method, FWIW, I have seen a drain swapped out on a full tank by an A&P and was surprised at how little fuel was lost.

Surprisingly the more fuel in the tank the better, I have two old gas caps that have the vent soldered shut, I put them on open the drain until no fuel will come out, and remove /replace the bottom drains.

and of course replace the caps with the correct caps and put the fuel I caught back in the tanks.

Cessna's have a cross feed vent system, you must cap both tanks, and the under wing vent.

 

[TMetzinger]

But isn't it illegal to burn 100LL in anything other than an airplane, too?

I don't think so, not unless there's a catalytic converter involved. Even then I don't know if it's illegal or just dumb.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't think so, not unless there's a catalytic converter involved.

Tim's right -- and there are no catalytic convertors in lawn mowers. In fact, until 2007, NASCAR was running leaded fuel until political correctness (from NASCAR? ) drove them to change to the newer unleaded Sunoco 260GTX fuel.