Fueling with passengers on board?

[Typhoon]

According to the CARs:

No person operating an aircraft shall permit the fuelling of the aircraft while an engine used for the propulsion of the aircraft is running and passengers are on board the aircraft or are embarking or disembarking, unless subsection 704.33(4) or 705.40(3), as applicable, is complied with.

I'm just looking for some clarification. I understand you can't fuel the aircraft when the engines are running and passengers are on board, but can you fuel the aircraft when passengers are disembarking/embarking when the engines aren't running (is the embarking/disembarking part separate to the engines running and having people on board part)?

[300_hour_wonder]

short answer yes

long answer I belive you need to have it all listed in your COM and SOP's but you are looking for CAR 725.40 (2) fueling with passengers on board http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#725_40 it tells you all of the requirements in order to do so.

[ogc]

My understanding is no you cannot.

However, you can get special permission to be able to refuel with passengers on board.

[Typhoon]

Great thanks a lot. So basically, the straight up car is no your aren't allowed to fuel while the engines are on and passengers are on board, and you can also not fuel the aircraft while passengers are embarking/disembarking. Then the standards/approval in the air operator certificate may permit the above to happen?

[300_hour_wonder]

Sounds about right if you look at your COM it is required to show your companies polices regarding fueling CAR 725.135 (v)

see the COM isn't just useful for keeping the desk level in the crew room

ps I'm looking up the 705 CAR's cause thats what I'm more familiar with but if needed you should be able to find the similar one in the 704 CAR's if that's what you are operating under

[PanEuropean]

Typhoon:

I am not at all familiar with the CARs you cited, but just from looking at the grammatical construction of the two paragraphs you quoted, it appears to me that the legislation prohibits having passengers on board, or having passengers embarking and disembarking, while an engine is running. In other words - again, just looking at the grammer - if no engine is running, you may refuel while passengers are on board or while passengers are embarking and/or disembarking.

Michael

[Pratt X 3]

As found in the CARS: ( http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#602_09 )

Fuelling with Engines Running

602.09 No person operating an aircraft shall permit the fuelling of the aircraft while an engine used for the propulsion of the aircraft is running and passengers are on board the aircraft or are embarking or disembarking, unless subsection 704.33(4) or 705.40(3), as applicable, is complied with.
(amended 2005/11/15; previous version)

The title is Fuelling (sic) with Engines Running, so this CAR deals with that situation, the act of fueling an aircraft with the engine(s) running. It does not cover fueling with the engine(s) off. The CARS are written in Lawyer so it isn't always clear what they are trying to say and they probably got paid by the word but when there is an "and" it means there are at least 2 conditions required to satisfy the regulation (as PanEuropean pointed out as I was typing this).

In regular person English, this should read:

602.09 With an engine running, do not fuel an aircraft with passengers embarking, on board or disembarking.

[BTyyj]

They must have the rules recently, as I remember in the Air Ontario crash, the pilots left on a single engine .

[CD]

jackg737...

The rule was changed in 1990 as a result of the Air Ontario crash in Dryden. The regulation introduced at the time stated:

540 .1 No operator of an aircraft shall permit the fuelling of the aircraft while an engine used for the propulsion of the aircraft is operating if passengers are on board or are entering or leaving the aircraft.

Description
The Commission of Inquiry into the Air Ontario Crash at Dryden recommended that "Transport Canada prohibit the refuelling or an aircraft with an engine operating where passengers are on board, boarding or deplaning" . The Commission found that the practice exposes passengers to undue risks. The purpose of the amendment to the Air Regulations is to implement the Commission's recommendation which will increase the level of aviation safety.

Canada Gazette, Part II: SOR/90-589 28 August, 1990

The references to the subpart 704 and 705 "exceptions" came later to recognize that some aircraft (i.e. Saab 340) are equipped with a propellor brake that changes the "engine used for propulsion" into an APU and may be operating pursuant to specific conditions that are identified in the standards.

[MichaelP]

Regardless of regulation you should use your common sense!

If the airliner has single point refueling then they can fuel with the less flammable turbine fuel with passengers on board, engines off.

If I'm operating an aircraft running on gasolene (Avgas or Mogas) I insist everyone is clear of the aircraft while fueling takes place.
Fires are fortunately rare, but you don't want to be comfortably seated in an aircraft when it occurs!

[AirFrame]

Fires are fortunately rare, but you don't want to be comfortably seated in an aircraft when it occurs!

Actually, when i'm fuelling the RV with a passenger still on-board, the person closest to a fire extinguisher is the passenger, who has an extinguisher within arm's reach. Still, I tend to be extra careful when fuelling with a passenger on-board.

[Tim]

The title is Fuelling (sic)

you can spell it with one 'L' or 2

[MichaelP]

the person closest to a fire extinguisher is the passenger, who has an extinguisher within arm's reach.

It's like sitting close to a bomb with a fire extinguisher... I don't feel comfortable with any passenger who I'm responsible for the safety of being put in this situation.

I had a friend who did have a fire when fueling his Taylor Monoplane... The fire took all the doped fabric off in seconds, and left him with a recover job... He was lucky!
You expect a passenger to grab the fire extinguisher and put the fire out when the fuel tank has just exploded covering him/her with flaming fuel?
I'd rather the passenger not be there and I have always insisted my passengers get out of the aircraft before I refuel.

When I have delivered fuel to another pilots aircraft I have also insisted his/her passengers deplane before I did so.

I cannot overstress the importance of this... Petrol fumes burn explosively and no-one should be in their vicinity when this happens regardless of how close and how big the fire extinguisher is.

[Hedley]

Petrol burns fast and it burns explosively

Tiny, but crucial correction to the above: Petrol (aka gasoline) does not burn, in liquid form.

You can toss a burning cigarette in a pail of liquid gasoline and it won't burn, as long as the gasoline isn't evaporating.

For gasoline to combust (ie burn quickly) it must evaporate and be mixed in a small acceptable range with oxygen. Too rich a mixture, it won't burn. Too lean a mixture, it won't burn, either. Just ask anyone who's had trouble starting a 4 stroke engine

Liquid gasoline is harmless. Gasoline fumes are tremendously dangerous. Knowledge of this tiny difference can make a huge difference. When I was younger, I routinely started camp fires using gasoline. I didn't get hurt because I knew a little bit about chemistry. You probably don't want to know how I weld up gas tanks, either.

Tangent: I'm a mathematician/electrical engineer type. Decades ago, in university, I was the only EE type that didn't detest chemistry. Never understood that. Chemistry is how you make horsepower!

[MichaelP]

OK, agreed and I have corrected my post to "petrol fumes".

And that is the difference between airline ops where single point refueling is done with passengers on board and the way we stick a nozzle into an open tank.

As we refuel, the gasolene is splashed about and fuel vapour spills out of the fuel tank opening.
If this vapour (fumes) comes in contact with an ignition source (you're wearing a static creating sweater on this cold dry winter's day) then you will probably get an explosion. If there's enough air in the tank itself you will get an explosion perhaps rupturing the tank and spilling fuel to make more fuel vapour to turn it into a vision of hell!

(At BPIAA I recommended we did not wear the sweaters we were supplied with because these caused a lot of static and touching anything grounded was shocking).

Airline style single point refueling is closed circuit; the fuel is unlikely to come in contact with an ignition source and enough oxygen to accidently catch fire.

There was a fire in a homebuilt amphib at Langley this past summer. That aeroplane was destroyed in minutes!

My friend with the Taylor Monoplane (small tank behind the firewall) lost his fabric and his eyebrows but the whole aeroplane and the tank did not catch fire. I think he was quick with the extinguisher and perhaps the fuel cap.