Sump after fueling

gprellwitz

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
12,762
Location
Romeoville, IL
Display Name

Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
An accident report in another thread had a statement ("The lineman finished fueling the airplane at 2055, and observed that the pilots did not "sump" the fuel tanks prior to departure.") that got me wondering. Is there any use in sumping immediately after fueling? It's my understanding that the fuel is so disturbed by the fueling process that one would need to wait 30 minutes or so for it to settle and separate before it would help. Or is it that you would need to wait 30 minutes before you could be sure of getting all the water out?:dunno:
 
Someplace I recall reading 15 minutes time for every 6 inches of tank depth, but I could be wrong. That was what I used in the Cessna's typically. Would this ensure I got the water out,.. not exactly. Water still has to drain to the low point and be able to accumulate there. 15 minutes to get it to the bottom of the tank surface,... rock wings,... maybe another 10 minutes to get to a low point,... your 30 minutes is better than nothing at all, but it may not get ALL the water out as you mentioned.
 
I always sump the tanks prior to my 1st flight. Like you, do not see how sumping immediately after taking on fuel does any good wrt water. About the only thing I you could detect is the wrong fuel; Jet A. But if you're standing there watching the guy fill the plane .....
 
Many other factors as well. Airplane sitting out or hangared? Recent rain or other factors to cause water in tanks? Sumped previously? The total amount of water I've drained from hangared airplanes over 50 years of flying wouldn't fill a shot-glass.
 
An accident report in another thread had a statement ("The lineman finished fueling the airplane at 2055, and observed that the pilots did not "sump" the fuel tanks prior to departure.") that got me wondering. Is there any use in sumping immediately after fueling? It's my understanding that the fuel is so disturbed by the fueling process that one would need to wait 30 minutes or so for it to settle and separate before it would help. Or is it that you would need to wait 30 minutes before you could be sure of getting all the water out?:dunno:


Sounds like the 'lineman' was feeling a little guilty about the quality of the fuel he put in the guys plane and made the comment to investigators to ease his mind and shift blame on the PIC. The lineman probably forgot to sump his truck/tanks that day. :dunno:

I do agree with the other poster who mentioned 15 minutes per 6" of tank depth though.

IMHO.
 
When a plane crashes, the last fuel souce is supposed to be quarrentined for inspection. If there was nothing in that source, the lineman's statement is irrelevant to the crash. OTOH, "pilot took off without sumping the tanks after fueling" is another one of those embarassing things you'd hate to have the rest of the world read in an accident report where you are the "accident pilot," whether it's relevant or not. Choose wisely.
 
Put a cup of water in a gallon jug of gas, shake it up, set it down, and watch.

Total segregation takes place in 30 seconds, max.

Based on what I've seen doing various ethanol tests and just playing around I'd estimate that by the time the hose is reeled back up at least 90% of the water has settled out.

Fuel, drain the dragon, sump & fly away.
 
Put a cup of water in a gallon jug of gas, shake it up, set it down, and watch.

I'll second this.
Although - how it all plays out in the volumes we're talking about in a small plane's fuel tanks... I can't say.

(Maybe I'm crazy or stupid, but... I don't worry about time to settle, but I do sump after fueling.)
 
Last edited:
When I fuel the tanks, or have them fueled enroute, after they are full I will take my bio-break and then sump before I depart. If that's not enough time to let it rest I guess I'm in trouble. If there is a lot of water in the fuel I'm sure some would settle by then, if there's just a little I'm thinking I'd get a hit when the bubble goes through the intake manifold.
 
. About the only thing I you could detect is the wrong fuel; Jet A. .....

Never a bad thing...it has been known to happen to the best pilots and the most well intentioned line crews.
 
Put a cup of water in a gallon jug of gas, shake it up, set it down, and watch.

Total segregation takes place in 30 seconds, max.

Based on what I've seen doing various ethanol tests and just playing around I'd estimate that by the time the hose is reeled back up at least 90% of the water has settled out.

Fuel, drain the dragon, sump & fly away.

Most of it, but if the fuel is warm enough it can have some water dissolved in it that won't fall out for some time. Water in fuel is found in three forms: Dissolved, which is found to some degree in all gasoline; Entrained, which is tiny droplets that may not be visible, and Free water, which is the stuff we sump out.

But I still sump right after fuelling anyway. Never know what other contaminants you might find.

Dan
 
I always sump the tanks prior to my 1st flight. Like you, do not see how sumping immediately after taking on fuel does any good wrt water. About the only thing I you could detect is the wrong fuel; Jet A. But if you're standing there watching the guy fill the plane .....
Actually, and this is often overlooked, you most likely couldn't detect Jet A in your tanks. If you mix 80% Jet A and 20% 100LL, the resulting fluid will look and smell very much like 100LL. Since almost nobody runs both tanks dry and then refills them, it's very rare that you'll find Jet A contamination.

Most engines could probably survive on that mixture for a few minutes. If you have an engine monitor or fairly reliable temperature instrumentation, you might notice that something is wrong before taking off.

-Felix
 
Actually, and this is often overlooked, you most likely couldn't detect Jet A in your tanks. If you mix 80% Jet A and 20% 100LL, the resulting fluid will look and smell very much like 100LL. Since almost nobody runs both tanks dry and then refills them, it's very rare that you'll find Jet A contamination.

Most engines could probably survive on that mixture for a few minutes. If you have an engine monitor or fairly reliable temperature instrumentation, you might notice that something is wrong before taking off.

-Felix

I think your percentages are reversed.

20% 100LL and 80 % Jet A will be quite obvious during the smell and feel test and any good pilot should be able to detect that cocktail. Also that percentage will quickly destroy a piston engine, probably alot faster then in"a few minutes".

Now a 80% 100LL and 20 % Jet A will be harder to detect during a sump test but will show up promptly though higher CHT numbers on the takeoff roll. YMMV. :fcross:

Ben.
 
Approx 6 gallons of Jet A to top off a 25 gallon tank made it very easy for me to visually detect wrong fuel was used to top of my tank. If I had not sumped after fueling I would have been the first to arrive at the accident. It was one of the rare times I do not supervise fueling.

Given all the risks of aviating, I cannot fathom a substantial reason to not seek to minimize those risks. In this case, sumping after fueling is a way to minimize the risk.
 
Say you are to fly my plane a 182T. You sumped everything in the hangar with 1/2 tanks. You then pull up to the self serve pump, top off both tanks, while another plane pulled up and is waiting behind you. Do you sump all 13 of the sumps right there before moving, or do you start and move the plane elsewhere, shut down, get out and sump them, or do you go on out to the run-up and go?
 
20% 100LL and 80 % Jet A will be quite obvious during the smell and feel test
So are you and I the only ones who actually dip a finger in the fuel and checks its friction and evaporation rate, then smell the residual odor after evaporation?
I can detect very small quantities of kerosene that way, after he highly volatile 100LL has evaporated off.
 
Say you are to fly my plane a 182T. You sumped everything in the hangar with 1/2 tanks. You then pull up to the self serve pump, top off both tanks, while another plane pulled up and is waiting behind you. Do you sump all 13 of the sumps right there before moving, or do you start and move the plane elsewhere, shut down, get out and sump them, or do you go on out to the run-up and go?

FWIW, that's what I normally fly. Of course, after sumping you need to either pour it back in the tank or in a refuse container if there's one available. Oh, that's another thread! :)
 
Say you are to fly my plane a 182T. You sumped everything in the hangar with 1/2 tanks. You then pull up to the self serve pump, top off both tanks, while another plane pulled up and is waiting behind you. Do you sump all 13 of the sumps right there before moving, or do you start and move the plane elsewhere, shut down, get out and sump them, or do you go on out to the run-up and go?
If the engine quits between the pump and the spot 50 feet away, you probably got pure water, and the next guy probably doesn't want to take fuel from that pump anyway. Move, and then sump.
 
If the engine quits between the pump and the spot 50 feet away, you probably got pure water, and the next guy probably doesn't want to take fuel from that pump anyway. Move, and then sump.

Can't push the airplane 50 feet away? Does it have to be taxied under power? These are light airplanes, after all.

Dan
 
Many other factors as well. Airplane sitting out or hangared? Recent rain or other factors to cause water in tanks? Sumped previously? The total amount of water I've drained from hangared airplanes over 50 years of flying wouldn't fill a shot-glass.

I have gotten about two quarts, in eight years - but all save a thimble-full was the answer to the simple question, "How much water will enter a C172 fuel tank, in a heavy rain, if the line guy leaves the fuel cap completely off?"
 
Can't push the airplane 50 feet away? Does it have to be taxied under power? These are light airplanes, after all.

Dan

Doh! Good point. I really didn't think of that. I suppose it is light. I can push it. But, it is not that easy pushing alone, while at 2600 lbs.
 
Doh! Good point. I really didn't think of that. I suppose it is light. I can push it. But, it is not that easy pushing alone, while at 2600 lbs.
Then start it up. If it runs, there ain't that much water in it, and you can sump it after you move it.
 
When a plane crashes, the last fuel souce is supposed to be quarrentined for inspection. If there was nothing in that source, the lineman's statement is irrelevant to the crash. OTOH, "pilot took off without sumping the tanks after fueling" is another one of those embarassing things you'd hate to have the rest of the world read in an accident report where you are the "accident pilot," whether it's relevant or not. Choose wisely.
+1000
I've been a lineman and if I had said that, it would be because it was true, not to cover my end...
I'm personally really surprised that the accident pilot(s) didn't sump, but I'm wondering what other factors were involved. It also makes me wonder if they did a mag check, which I also would have expected from at least one of the pilots. Very strange and sad.

Ryan
 
Then start it up. If it runs, there ain't that much water in it, and you can sump it after you move it.
Personally, I'd push it. Either the lineman or the other pilot should be happy to help. If it reduces the number of starts on the engine, this is a good thing! :)
 
Personally, I'd push it. Either the lineman or the other pilot should be happy to help. If it reduces the number of starts on the engine, this is a good thing! :)
Couldn't starting it also suck a bit of that water on down into the lines where you wouldn't catch it if you did sump it? I'd push it, or at least rock the wings a bit, then check it. I forgot to sump one winter morning and was saved by the fact that I had to do a significantly longer warm-up / runup for the oil temperatures to come up. The engine sputtered for about 15 seconds before coming back to healthy. I'm pretty sure I actually told that story to one of the pilots on board the plane in the OP... in relation to doing good pre-flights.

Ryan
 
Personally, I'd push it.
That works for some planes and some pilots, but not all planes and all pilots. I was merely responding to skidoo's apparent statement that sometimes the combination of fueled weight and ramp slope is too much to do by hand. And at self-fuel sites, there often isn't anyone to help.
 
That works for some planes and some pilots, but not all planes and all pilots. I was merely responding to skidoo's apparent statement that sometimes the combination of fueled weight and ramp slope is too much to do by hand. And at self-fuel sites, there often isn't anyone to help.
Understood. But if at a either a full-service or a self-fuel site, either you don't have to move it because no one is waiting, or there's another pilot waiting who can help you! :)
 
After filling up at the self-serve pumps around here for the past five years, I'm not really all that concerned about kerosene.

So are you and I the only ones who actually dip a finger in the fuel and checks its friction and evaporation rate, then smell the residual odor after evaporation?
I can detect very small quantities of kerosene that way, after he highly volatile 100LL has evaporated off.
 
Can't push the airplane 50 feet away? Does it have to be taxied under power? These are light airplanes, after all.

Dan

Doh! Good point. I really didn't think of that. I suppose it is light. I can push it. But, it is not that easy pushing alone, while at 2600 lbs.

Personally, I'd push it. Either the lineman or the other pilot should be happy to help. If it reduces the number of starts on the engine, this is a good thing! :)

That works for some planes and some pilots, but not all planes and all pilots. I was merely responding to skidoo's apparent statement that sometimes the combination of fueled weight and ramp slope is too much to do by hand. And at self-fuel sites, there often isn't anyone to help.

A 172 or the Arrow, I could push (pull) myself. The 182? That take two people to move on anything other than flat, level pavement. I'm not getting any younger. :D
 
+1000
I've been a lineman and if I had said that, it would be because it was true, not to cover my end...
I'm personally really surprised that the accident pilot(s) didn't sump, but I'm wondering what other factors were involved. It also makes me wonder if they did a mag check, which I also would have expected from at least one of the pilots. Very strange and sad.

Ryan

Can someone please post the link to this incident ...

Thanks in advance.

Ben.
www.haaspowerair.com
 
Sometimes I wonder if we should sump before fueling - a customer's plane. Recently, we had a customer have a fuel problem after shifting tanks in flight in a twin. The tank had a lot of water in it. Naturally, he thought it came from us. However, before fueling that tank, we had fueled a single - no problem - and had fueled his tip tanks - no problem - before fueling the tank that had a problem.

He had filled up on his previous flight at a location known for its low fuel prices. Obviously, he didn't sump before flight - twice.
 

Strange crash indeed. Line guy claims it sounded like the motor was making good power, witnesses claim it was popping and humming, All happening in just 1.2 miles before it crashed.

I wonder if the fuel truck/tanks were quarentined and examined?


Ben.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The lineman watched the airplane depart ORE about 2110. He stated that the takeoff seemed "smooth" and "normal," and the engine "sounded like it was getting full power." The lineman observed the airplane make a right turn towards the north after takeoff.

A witness, who was at his home near the departure end of runway 32, heard the accident airplane fly overhead as it took off. He stated that the engine was "spitting and sputtering" and producing popping noises, which seemed to "smooth out" as the airplane turned away. He stated that the airplane appeared to be climbing, but "not as fast" as other airplanes.

Several other individuals witnessed the airplane flying over the town of Orange. They stated that the engine was "sputtering" and "popping." One witness heard the engine "hum" and "get louder and softer" prior to impact. Another witness, located less than a quarter-mile from the accident site, stated that he heard an engine "humming," and thought it was a car speeding down the road. After hearing the sounds of impact, he realized that it was an airplane. He stated that the engine noise prior to impact was "quieter than a normal airplane."

Review of preliminary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) radar data revealed that, at 2110:10, a radar target correlated to be the accident airplane was observed northwest of ORE at 1,200 feet mean sea level (msl). The target tracked roughly northeast and climbed to 1,400 feet msl over the next 30 seconds, then tracked northwest and descended to 1,300 feet msl before radar contact was lost at 2110:57. The accident airplane had not contacted any air traffic control or flight service facilities during the accident flight.

The first pilot held a private pilot certificate with a rating for airplane single engine land. On his most recent application for an FAA third-class medical certificate, which was issued in November 2009, he reported 2,788 total hours of flight experience.
The second pilot held a private pilot certificate with a rating for airplane single engine land. His most recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued in September 2009.

According to FAA records, the airplane was manufactured in 1974, and was equipped with a Lycoming O-320-E2D engine. The airplane's maintenance records were not immediately available for review. The tachometer reading at the accident site was 3256.0 hours.

The wreckage was located at 42 degrees, 35.72 minutes north latitude, 72 degrees, 17.89 minutes west longitude, and approximately 1.2 nautical miles north of the departure end of
 
Sump everytime. It's like putting on a seatbelt.

It's very simple, really. If your drains are so old or so contaminated, are going to leak, and you can't change a drain on the spot, stop flying. Your gear is not fit to fly.
 
What I'm taking from this, IF it proves to be water in the tanks, or even if not, is that among other things, training does not guarantee retention or safety...
One other thing I'm very interested in is what the GPS units will show about the track after they dropped off of radar coverage.

Ryan
 
Last edited:
I've asked for that when I've been there after a rain or first in the AM -- at serviced fuel points, they always oblige.

I haven't figured out how to pre-test at a self-serve pump.

:dunno:
I wasn't talking about sumping the truck. We always sump the trucks first thing in the AM before pumping any fuel. I was talking about confirming that the customers plane had no water in it before we pump into it.
 
I wasn't talking about sumping the truck. We always sump the trucks first thing in the AM before pumping any fuel. I was talking about confirming that the customers plane had no water in it before we pump into it.
That would likely serve very little purpose except if the plane had been sitting for a significant amount of time, which this aircraft had not. Especially if, as in this case, the plane just made a 2-3 hour trip. If the water didn't get vibrated and settled to the bottom of the tank on that leg, then it wasn't there in my opinion. All that would be likely to prove, would be a perhaps stronger indication that the fuel truck was the water source. It also would NOT make me happy as a pilot, to have the line service guy draining fuel from the plane unless I asked him to.
It does sound like the fuel truck had been out of service for 2 hours or so, and that the line guy had made a special trip to the airport for them. That would have made me want to sump the truck's tanks at the place where I used to work as a line guy.

Ryan
 
Ya know, in over 50 years of banging around in airplanes it never occurred to me to sump after fueling - especially where I just landed, fueled the bird myself, and took off again... But after reading this incident, I am gonna have to rethink this...

denny-o .... you are never too old to learn to sit, rollover, and fetch, if Murphy is using a big enough stick
 
Back
Top