Yeah, why not? It works, no prayer required. Besides, how much water you think it takes to shut you down?
Dumping fuel over Miami
- Thread starter Captain
- Start date
Yeah, why not? It works, no prayer required. Besides, how much water you think it takes to shut you down?
Captain
Final Approach
I sumped the container about half full of 100LL. I then added water to about 3/4 full. I then emptied the contents through the filter and was left with about a teaspoon of water in the container and 99% of the water in the bucket with the fuel. It was a brand spanking new container. I never used one again except to sump and dump if contaminated.
I rate the GATS container about as effective as those paper X-Ray glasses fron the '60s.
Jaybird180
Final Approach
denverpilot
Tied Down
One of the downsides to a high-wing. The fuel truck guy always leaves with the only ladder (on the truck) the second he's done if you don't catch him. 
My caps aren't reachable from standing on the struts either. I'm 5' 11" and I've tried.
My caps aren't reachable from standing on the struts either. I'm 5' 11" and I've tried.
One of the downsides to a high-wing. The fuel truck guy always leaves with the only ladder (on the truck) the second he's done if you don't catch him.
My caps aren't reachable from standing on the struts either. I'm 5' 11" and I've tried.
That's the advantage to flying in flip flops, just kick one off and stand on the firewall.
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
My experience is very much different- it removed the water so well that we bought a couple at work to see if it worked with other solvents (ethyl acetate ruined the filter so no go). We thought we had something that chemists could use to more extract compounds from worked-up reactions- when extracting the compounds from the water quench, they often form emulsions with the organic solvent, so the chemst can't finish the extraction until the emulsion clears.
Captain
Final Approach
Meh, maybe mine was broke. Like many products I buy, I gave it a shot to work and it failed and I never tried it again. The idea that my life has to depend on a silly screen doing its job just so some EPA geeks don't have to think about a cup of gas getting evaporated blows my mind. Especially now that's I've watched a thousand gallons of the stuff get dumped over Miami.
I think yours is broke, not really surprised, but the medium in use works well. I had several funnels with similar elements for fueling small stuff in Indonesia, things worked great.
denverpilot
Tied Down
That's the advantage to flying in flip flops, just kick one off and stand on the firewall.
Not following. You can't reach my caps standing on the firewall either. (Nor really stand on the firewall since there's a cowl over it.)
C-182P with LR tanks, the caps are out past the wing strut.
Jesse would laugh when I'd start the 30 yard walk to the building at LNK to go get the ladder...
ChrisK
En-Route
Every time I read DenverPilot's posts I hear them in my head in Jeb Burnside's voice. I have no idea why.
Carry on. Nothing to see here.
Carry on. Nothing to see here.
Jaybird180
Final Approach
Actually I was also thinking 'why can't he reach' then when I realized, Oh C182!!!
6'1" can reach either.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
One of the downsides to a high-wing. The fuel truck guy always leaves with the only ladder (on the truck) the second he's done if you don't catch him.
My caps aren't reachable from standing on the struts either. I'm 5' 11" and I've tried.
That's why ya carry a small (3-step) stepladder in the baggage compartment... Or, at least, we do.
Jaybird180
Final Approach
Really! Broken!!! Not trying to be funny, but did you read the instructions? In order for the filter to "work" the fuel must coat the element first. There are also 2 holes that are unfiltered.
With fuel and water mix, allow them to separate, the water will settle to the bottom
Pour slowly enough for the 100LL to coat the filter, do not exceed the level of the filter, I agitatite it a little to ensure a good coat while pouring
The water will not escape through the filter because the fuel forms a barrier.
Note: Ensure the seal is intact and the lid is secure.
try it with a realistic mix of fuel to water, maybe 10-25%
Try again. The GATS works. No magic involved.
denverpilot
Tied Down
That's why ya carry a small (3-step) stepladder in the baggage compartment... Or, at least, we do.
Heh. Yeah. It's in the hangar and gets forgotten sometimes.
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
The EPA didn't state that there's no environmental impact from dumping fuel. Of course there is. The EPA stated that fuel dumping doesn't happen often enough to raise a regulatory concern for them, and when it does happen, it's generally an unusual emergency situation.
Actually, it does not.
I generally insist on standing on the ladder and fueling. Some locations don't permit that, but I'd rather not have a filler neck broken off, or a wing bladder punctured, or other damage. I never let a fueler move the ladder until I've put the cap in place myself. Even if the fueler put the cap in place, I remove and reinstall it. If I'm responsible for that cap in flight, I want to know that it's where I want it. I also want to visually check the fuel level, and I always check the tank with a flashlight, and dip my fingers in the fuel, rub them together (slipper that evaporates: avgas; slippery that does not, kerosine; not slippery: water), and smell the fuel. Same with underwing samples.
I also dump fuel on the ground.
We used to fill garden sprayer ****-cans with avgas to wash large radial engines. We referred to it as "wing solvent."
\I dare you to walk through Marina Del Rey and say that...
Good point Henning......
You can also run your hand down into the stack of a "Hotsy" steam jenny and remove layers of soot..... Or even the tailpipe on an older vehicle with a manual choke... Unburned byproducts exist everywhere..
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
Many years ago I flew some of the world's prettiest Twin Commanders in the LA Basin and throughout Southern California doing air attack duties for the USFS. I washed and polished the aircraft every day. Places like Hemet, every morning I could remove a thick filthy slude off the airplane, and it had nothing to do with unburned jet fuel. Simply being in California was enough. Absolute filth. In fact, I got more crap settling out of the atmosphere than I typically got on the airplane flying through ash and fires.
A hotsy isn't remotely similiar to a turbojet or turbofan engine, nor are the output products or values close or even similar.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
I dare you to walk through Marina Del Rey and say that...
Help me with that one.
Hmmmmm..
1- They both burn Kerosene...
2- They both have a burner can......
3- They both have a fan that assists combution....
4- They both create heat.....
One just does it on a bigger scale...
I agree the parallel is a stretch.. but.. I would be very interested in reading the chemical composition of the exhaust of both devices... Do you have a link to a verifiable, legimate document that details the contents of both burners exhaust?.....
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
It's more than just a stretch. There's nothing at all similar between a turbojet engine and a "hotsy."
True, both have a flame. So does a candle. So does a reciprocating engine. So does a forest fire. None of which can be compared to a turbine engine, either.
Both make a roaring noise. Does that make them similar?
There's nothing remotely similar between a turbine engine and a hotsy. Nothing.
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
A link to show something doesn't exist? You won't find one, as one doesn't prove a negative. How about a link to show that a llama and a dump truck aren't the same? Probably won't find any comparative papers on that, either.
There's nothing remotely similar between a "hotsy" and a turbojet engine.
There's nothing remotely similar between a "hotsy" and a turbojet engine.
Marina Del Rey is right next to the take off end of LAX. On a 50' boat if you wash it and start to wax the top sides, you'll be mopping up soot with the wax pad before you're done applying.
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
That's what I thought you meant. I flew out of LAX for 27 years and never flew over Marina Del Rey.
Whether you take off on Runways 25 or Runways 24, there is nothing but old streets where houses used to be but the city bought them and tore them down. Then, there is briefly a beach, then the ocean.
From the departure end of Runways 25s the slips at Marina del Rey are over 2.5 n.m. the north. From the departure ends of Runways 24s the slips are over 1.5 n.m. to the north.
Check it out on Google Earth.
Yep, and the prevailing winds blow the departure soot right back on the marina lol. I had enough care contracts there to know the score.
BTW, it's not from anything else unless that soot is coming from China. The prevailing winds on both are off the ocean.
Hemet is downwind from the basin and LAX, LAX soot is part of what you got in Hemet. Marina Del Rey has nothing upwind of it until China. LAX is right next door taking off into the wind. The only thing producing soot for Marina Del Rey is aircraft taking off at LAX and an occasional tanker off ElSegundo. Typical prevailing wind (slight left crosswind for 24s or 25s) takes the departure pollution and settles it right on Marina Del Rey.
Last edited:
Judging from your posts it appears as if you are a experienced senior pilot with alot more knowledge then me. Especially in the fossil fuel combustion dept... I defer to your superior answers, in fact since I was born and raised in the south my parents taught me to respect my elders and address them with dignity... Because there is already a "Captain" that posts on POA I will refer to you as "Master"..... So, I guess my question is.... does the exhaust of a turbojet engine contain ANY hydrocarbon byproducts ?
Thanks in advance for your accurate and precise answer to that question Master Bader. Errrrrrrrrrr..... That does not sound too good
..May I just call you Douglas instead ...
.......
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
No, there was a branching off back there somewhere claiming that the exhaust waste doesn't leave nasty slimy crap on the ground like dumping fuel does, that's not quite true. There's certainly a lesser concentration but it's not clean.
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
Obviously, yes.
A "hotsy" doesn't have a significant compression ratio; in fact it has none. It has no compressor. It has no dedicated compressor, nor combustor designed with atomizing fuel nozzles, crafted airflow designed for efficiency and control, or any of the other things a turbine engine has. There's a reason that your "hotsy" doesn't cost six million dollars a copy.
The JT9D I operate presently has approximately a 25:1 compression ratio for the airflow, and fuel flow is adjusted accordingly. Airflow is adjusted by various bleed valves which change the amount of air and the pressure at the various stages of compression, before reaching the burner can. The combustion process is significantly more refined and precise than your "hotsy." The burning efficiency is very different.
The efficiency of a turbine engine varies with it's speed. A turbine engine operates much more efficiently, generally speaking, in the 90% operating range. During an approach and landing at LAX, the engine will be in the 68% range; less efficient. On takeoff, the power will be much higher, efficiency higher, but only to a point.
Turbine aircraft are not leaing a trail of fuel on the way to or from the airport. I've operated enough turbine aircraft of all kinds, turboprops, turbojets, turbofans, from Learjets and Sabreliners to the 747, to Caravans, Air Tractors, Piaggios, C-130's, even avgas burning turbojets, and a host of others; in some of the aircraft I'm in the exhaust stream when I open the canopy, and frankly the slick and slime that some describe here just isn't happening. I've spent a lot of time caring for some of those aircraft, including a lot of time cleaning them. I'm just not seeing all the residue that some here think is apparent. It's not.
I agree the Hotsy is a bad comparison but the fact remains.... A kerosene burning device will pass pollutants out the exhaust... I guess you have never had to scrub the sides of a PC-12, or a TBM, or the wings of a King Air.... The jets you fly have the advantage of blowing the residue straight out and into the airstream so it does not show up like it does on the fuselage of a Pilates or TBM..... I also agree the fuel systems on current turbine stuff is darn efficient and clean burning but the cumulative effect of dozens if not hundreds of kerosene engines taking off and landing daily over LA, or any other high volume airport will deposit residue on the ground... Gravity will see to that..
Ps.. you did a great job on explaining your position to all the guys/ gals on here who are not up to speed on the fine points of how engines /fuel delivery system operate... Congrats..
Mtns2Skies
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2008
- Messages
- 5,618
- Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
I have, many times, and I said as much (remember the part where I said I spent a lot of time caring for the aircraft and cleaning them?).
Pollution is evident in any form of combustion, although the degree to which it is present depends on numerous factors.
I lived under the final approach course at KLAS (have actually lived there four times, now); residue and slicks and jet fuel deposits were never an issue. I lived directly adjacent to Skyharbor in Phoenix for a time. Same thing. Not an issue.
The crap that settles all over Southern California is the smog; it's not the aircraft landing at LAX. Sometimes the sea breeze is present, but depending on the time of day, it also goes the other way or quits completely. I used to do a lot of flying out of SoCal, including San Diego, LAX, Hemet, Santa Barbara, Lancaster, Ontario, Orange County, Van Nuys, Santa Monica, etc. Presently I don't go into much other than LAX.
There's a lot of pollution in LA, but it's not the air traffic.
http://bit.ly/JIKCw1
Yes, that shows the use of a search engine, and yes, it demonstrates that one can't prove a negative. You'll notice the search turned up nothing, but the demonstration isn't necessary, and by definition, one can't prove a negative.
Mtns2Skies
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2008
- Messages
- 5,618
- Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
And a good one. How did you get the link to animate like that?
Mtns2Skies
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2008
- Messages
- 5,618
- Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies