europa-list
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Europa-List: Power loss and Inspecting comments

Subject: Re: Europa-List: Power loss and Inspecting comments
From: Bud Yerly <budyerly@msn.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 23:58:57
Graham,
Cardinal rule of fueling....Do not fuel from a can resting in a vehicle. 
 Ever.  Do not fill the jerry can inside a vehicle.
2nd rule. Never transport fuel from a vehicle by hand and pour directly 
to another vehicle.
3rd rule.  When fuelling a vehicle, airplane, or transferring fuel from 
one can to another, set the jerry can on the ground, ground the 
vehicle/aircraft (aircraft sit on rubber and the static electricity is 
on the outside of the plane just like a container), ground yourself to 
the can and the plane by setting one had on the grounded can and the 
other on or near the fuel inlet lip.  This depletes any outer static 
charge on you, the cans or what you are fuelling.  Static electricity 
resides on the outside of a vessel not inside it, so if you connect a 
ground, the ground must have a method of transferring from the skin to 
the ground.  I use a brass stud from the skin (the firewall will do but 
a ground jack on the skin is best) to the earth.  The ground made from 
the earth to the tailpipe is a good ground to the aircraft electrical 
system and will only work if there is a through stud to collect the 
charge on the skin to the aircraft electrical system.
Also don't fuel if an electrical storm is within 5 (some agencies 
require 10) miles of the fuelling point.


It is interesting to note many pilots put a pad around their fuel filler 
made of rubber with static cling so as to protect their paint finish.  
Too bad sparks fly when the pad is used.  FBOs here in the States now 
use anti-static pads around the fuel filler neck to prevent scratches.  
Just recently, US regulations require the fuel truck to the plane is 
required to be connected to prevent static discharge as the fuel truck 
is running and powered and is the source of the possible electrical 
charge, and by connecting both together, the charge is now neutral 
between the two.  The fueling person is grounded to the hose and becomes 
neutrally charged also, but many agencies still require a ground from 
the truck to the plane and to the earth.  That makes more sense to me.

So I believe the wound was self inflicted.  The same type accident has 
happened many times when filling jerry cans.  The spark jumps as the 
spigot of one can approaches the other.  I did a how to fuel an aircraft 
---From jerry cans brief (actually long and boring) at Rough River a few 
years ago based on my experience and the written documentation from the 
State of Alaska Department of Transportation.  It seems many bush pilots 
were burning up their aircraft in the dry Alaskan bush (it is a desert 
up there).  These guidelines for fuelling cut the fuelling accidents to 
nil.  I have been using these techniques since the 70's without incident 
and I figure if it isn't broke, why change.

Regards,
Bud Yerly


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: GRAHAM SINGLETON<mailto:grahamsingleton@btinternet.com> 
  To: europa-list@matronics.com<mailto:europa-list@matronics.com> 
  Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 6:13 AM
  Subject: Re: Europa-List: Power loss and Inspecting comments


  Paul, Jim & Bud
  I still think aluminum is the best advice for the breather and it 
needs to be grounded, fuel droplets rushing up the tygon during fueling
  can act like a Van de Graaf static generator. I'm pretty sure that was 
the cause of the fire my German friends had at Luebek .
  They were refueling after a 2 hour flight, hot dry day. Standard 
breather system, vapour coming out of the breather, a foot or so from 
the filler,
  (this was a Classic) metal Jerry can sitting in the car for hours.
  Holding the metal funnel waiting for the last bit of fuel to drain in. 
Quiet "POP!" and flames in the funnel. Burning fuel was split on the top 

  of the fuselage and over the tailplane as Jens threw the burning 
funnel away. His arm got burnt too.
   Graham


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
  From: Paul McAllister <paul.the.aviator@gmail.com>
  To: "europa-list@matronics.com" <europa-list@matronics.com> 
  Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 5:09
  Subject: Re: Europa-List: Power loss and Inspecting comments


  Bud, 


  Thank you for your comments.  Well thought out and valuable as always.


  I was one of the earlier pioneers of the system to route my filling 
vent and into the top of the cobra inlet. For the fuel tank / system 
vent I did something different again.


  I adopted the idea that Robin use and placed my vent in the backside 
of the wing root.  At the time I thought this was a great idea, but over 
time perhaps its only a good idea, maybe not even that.  The upside is 
that it is unlikely to be plugged by mud, but there are a number of 
downsides:


  - Once in a great while, if I over fill the tank, it will run out of 
this vent and out of the wing root over the flap. I inspect the flap 
regularly to make sure fuel has not got inside the core and dissolved 
the foam.


  - If I over fill the tank the fumes make there way into the flap drive 
slot during flight.


  - I have to take the wing off to inspect the vent which doesn't happen 
regularly.  There is a slight risk on my area that an insect called a 
"Mud Dauber" can get in there.


  So, in conclusion, while these departures from the original design 
seem like a good idea there are often hidden consequences.


  Over the years I have become involved in inspecting and technical 
counselling for the EAA, and the experience of this community has taught 
me that fuel systems and modifications to them feature high on the list 
of accident causes.


  Cheers, Paul


  On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Bud Yerly 
<budyerly@msn.com<mailto:budyerly@msn.com>> wrote:

    Jim, and tibits for the rest of us:
    After the tire failure and the subsequent off roading mud and dirt 
experience while cross country, I commend you for your pursuit of the 
problem which cost you much time, and money.  You knew you had a mud 
plugged vent, but an experienced guy like you missed the kinked vent 
line cause.  So what's a normal guy to do?

    I had to ponder that we (really me), are always quick to assume an 
engine related problem is causing the power loss.  You told me about 
finding the kink but I still assumed that you had a carb problem.  You 
cleared the clogged vent, but who would have thought about the rest of 
the vent system and a possible kinked line when the plane has been 
flying for years.  I am anal about fuel system install and operation, 
but once installed, I rarely look beyond making sure there is not 
chaffing or leaks.

    Added for all of us:
    Recently I just finished an extended annual and another fuel tank 
replacement / annual in a couple aircraft that I helped customers build 
back in 2002 and 2004.  Interesting to note that on both aircraft, that 
they were past the 5 year hose replacement timeframe (we all dread 
that).  In both aircraft I found that the vent line was kinked or 
compromised.  In one of the aircraft when the upholsterer forced the 
fabric around the fuel cover he had forced the fuel cover over one of 
the polyurethane vent lines and over time the cover pushed on it nearly 
flat so it barely vented properly, and on the other, the vent line was 
perfect looking, but the hose was horribly brittle because the vent tube 
was made from clear Tygon tubing.  Tygon is supposed to be completely 
impervious to fuel related problems.  Duh, maybe not...

    In my old Europa Operators Manual there was the requirement to pull 
the fuel bosses off and flush the tank annually, which is quite tough, 
but never to check our vent system, and in the new ops manual, it only 
indicates to check and inspect for leaks.  The 5 year recommendation for 
changing hoses is still there, but not the vent lines.  Vent lines never 
get checked.  

    As far as I know, you are the first with an underside vent that ever 
got plugged, however, you are the only mono I know of with the vent on 
the bottom and operate off of grass a lot.  In the trigear the vent on 
the bottom is always clean, but your point of the oil overflow on the 
right side of the cowl exit and a centrally located vent will be a 
potential problem for oil, grime and dirt.  I'll have to admit I will 
make sure my annual checklist is changed to check the vents.

    I prefer not to vent out of the top because with the motor glider in 
turns when trying to soar, the fuel sprays out of the vent in right 
turns.  It also will vent fuel out if overfilled on a hot day in Florida 
and let set in the sun (especially a mono), which of course can ruining 
the paint.  

    Inspecting an aircraft is not an exact science.  Manufacturers and 
regulating agencies give only vague guidance.  We are the manufacturer 
as the builder, so we set the guidelines for inspections of our 
aircraft, and if the kit manufacturer gives guidance, we the 
manufacturer of the aircraft should be more specific, not less to 
include info on our added systems, changes, modifications, and 
additional wear areas or time change items due to all the above.  I'm in 
the US, and have my A&P use the FAA FAR 43 Appendix D as well as the 
engine 100 hour checklist and I insist on him using the Kit 
Manufacturers guidelines such as the Appendix E of the build manual and 
Section 8 of the Ops manual when inspecting an experimental aircraft.  
Now, I have been accused of doing a complete rebuild instead of an 
annual inspection, but I am anal so that is my excuse, but on an 
experimental aircraft (especially one I didn't help build or maintain) I 
have found that there are many non standard items, routing conflicts 
between wiring, fuel lines, brake lines and control cables, as well as 
poor installation of equipment and structural construction mistakes that 
the builder and final FAA inspector missed on the initial Airworthiness 
Inspection.  The FAA actually requires us, as US Experimental Aircraft 
Manufacturers, to have established maintenance and operations 
procedures.

    I am attaching my personal annual inspection checklist out in the 
open to show what we the builder can do to improve the inspections on 
our aircraft.  I only just added an item to inspect the fuel vents since 
you called me about the problem weeks ago.  I developed this checklist 
long ago, before becoming a Europa owner and just tailored it to include 
items in the Europa Section 8 inspection, the FAA and LAA recommended 
guidelines etc.  I am preparing to submit some of this info in a 
condensed fashion in an updated Tech Support section of Europa's Website 
as well as some other notes we all should know when maintaining the 
Europa.  Now this is my personal checklist, not for general 
dissemination as a Europa Directive, but provided for others to see that 
an annual inspection is not a walk around.  But then again, it is not an 
IRAN (Inspect and Repair as Necessary) like the military does by 
completely disassembling every panel, inside and out, instruments, 
wings, engine, etc. and inspect, refurbish, service and repair all the 
above, it is however, more than a quick check for wrinkles in the skin, 
change the oil and sign it off.

    Great job of troubleshooting and thanks for the report Jim.  Your 
findings and my recent observations have changed my annual checklist for 
sure...

    Regards,
    Bud Yerly
httphttp://www.matronics.com/contribution===========
=


<http://forums.matronics.com/>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-L
ist<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>