Misfuelling Thread

[pelmet]

I wonder if the pilots fly a mix of Turbine Otter and Piston Beaver aircraft.....

"C-FWAC, a de Havilland DHC-2 aircraft operated by Harbour Air, was being fueled at the dock at
Vancouver International Seaplane Base (CAM9), BC. The pilot quickly realized that they were
inadvertently using Jet A instead of Avgas fuel for the piston engine aircraft (Pratt & Whitney -USA
R-985 Serial Number 22265). The amount of Jet A added to the fuel tank was estimated to be less
than two litres.

The aircraft was removed from service. The defect was recorded and reported to the Aviation
Maintenance Organization (AMO). The AMO drained the fuel from the affected tank and refilled
that tank with Avgas. The fuel drains were subsequently sampled and no evidence of Jet A fuel was
found. The aircraft was returned to service."

[Dry Guy]

Could have been worse. They could have put 100LL in the Electric Beaver.

[Mick G]

I know big city commercial operations and "by the book" type pilots would report and drain, but curious if in a pinch, and just topped up with 100ll to max.....would it really affect performance or cause engine damage it was only 2 liters, if they subsequently diluted up with 100ll ? Kerosene is combustible and piston engines can run on it.......

[lownslow]

would it really affect performance or cause engine damage it was only 2 liters, if they subsequently diluted up with 100ll ? Kerosene is combustible and piston engines can run on it.......

IIRC Jet A doesn’t mix very well with Avgas but it does float on top. I suppose in a pinch you could top that tank with 100LL and hedge your bet by only using it for cruise until you get to a maintenance base. Even then I’d only do it on the company’s recommendation so if fingers ever pointed at me I could point them right back.

['97 Tercel]

Could have been worse. They could have put 100LL in the Electric Beaver.

[47north]

[/quote]
IIRC Jet A doesn’t mix very well with Avgas but it does float on top. I suppose in a pinch you could top that tank with 100LL and hedge your bet by only using it for cruise until you get to a maintenance base. Even then I’d only do it on the company’s recommendation so if fingers ever pointed at me I could point them right back.
[/quote]

That is correct. We were topped up with Jet A one time in a Navajo when we went into the terminal to check weather. Drained all the sumps well and they all showed avgas. Engines ran normal on the ground as I guess they were running on only avgas at that point. Once airborne the cylinder temps went full scale and we quickly returned for landing. When the sumps were checked again, the Jet A had mixed in with the avgas and the colour and smell more like Jet A.

Two tear-downs and a fired fueller was the result. We were lucky.

[challenger_nami]

That is correct. We were topped up with Jet A one time in a Navajo when we went into the terminal to check weather. Drained all the sumps well and they all showed avgas. Engines ran normal on the ground as I guess they were running on only avgas at that point. Once airborne the cylinder temps went full scale and we quickly returned for landing. When the sumps were checked again, the Jet A had mixed in with the avgas and the colour and smell more like Jet A.

Two tear-downs and a fired fueller was the result. We were lucky.

From the comfort of my couch, It looks like it would be much easier and CHEAPER to drain the fuel system than tearing down 2 NAVAJO engines.

I am surprised the PIC did not get fired for taking off with contaminated fuel in the system and making a bad situation much worse.

Thank you for sharing this experience. I am glad nothing worse happened to you guys on board.

[rxl]

IIRC Jet A doesn’t mix very well with Avgas but it does float on top. I suppose in a pinch you could top that tank with 100LL and hedge your bet by only using it for cruise until you get to a maintenance base. Even then I’d only do it on the company’s recommendation so if fingers ever pointed at me I could point them right back.
[/quote]

That is correct. We were topped up with Jet A one time in a Navajo when we went into the terminal to check weather. Drained all the sumps well and they all showed avgas. Engines ran normal on the ground as I guess they were running on only avgas at that point. Once airborne the cylinder temps went full scale and we quickly returned for landing. When the sumps were checked again, the Jet A had mixed in with the avgas and the colour and smell more like Jet A.

Two tear-downs and a fired fueller was the result. We were lucky.
[/quote]

Austin Airways had the same thing happen to a C-402 back in the mid-eighties as the result of a poorly trained and unsupervised new refueler. The pilots were called out in the middle of the night for a medivac and the aircraft had already been topped up when they arrived at the airport, so they had no idea. They got airborne with the same result ... both engines’ cylinder head temperatures went to the pegs. A quick 180 resulted and they managed to get safely back on the ground. The engines were trashed.
Airplane engines designed for AVGAS won’t last very long when fed a diet of jet fuel.

[47north]

That is correct. We were topped up with Jet A one time in a Navajo when we went into the terminal to check weather. Drained all the sumps well and they all showed avgas. Engines ran normal on the ground as I guess they were running on only avgas at that point. Once airborne the cylinder temps went full scale and we quickly returned for landing. When the sumps were checked again, the Jet A had mixed in with the avgas and the colour and smell more like Jet A.

Two tear-downs and a fired fueller was the result. We were lucky.

From the comfort of my couch, It looks like it would be much easier and CHEAPER to drain the fuel system than tearing down 2 NAVAJO engines.

I am surprised the PIC did not get fired for taking off with contaminated fuel in the system and making a bad situation much worse.

Thank you for sharing this experience. I am glad nothing worse happened to you guys on board.

I was the PIC and I wasn't fired. Why would I be? We drained the sumps well and they all came up avgas as the Jet A was floating at the top of the tank. There was no indication that we had contaminated fuel until we got airborne. The company that fueled us was one we had used on a daily basis for quite some time. No reason to suspect that they would fill us up with Jet A.

For the teardowns, they were worried about the cylinders as the temps went full scale. Besides, the fueling company's insurance paid for it.

[pelmet]

That is correct. We were topped up with Jet A one time in a Navajo when we went into the terminal to check weather. Drained all the sumps well and they all showed avgas. Engines ran normal on the ground as I guess they were running on only avgas at that point. Once airborne the cylinder temps went full scale and we quickly returned for landing. When the sumps were checked again, the Jet A had mixed in with the avgas and the colour and smell more like Jet A.

Two tear-downs and a fired fueller was the result. We were lucky.

From the comfort of my couch, It looks like it would be much easier and CHEAPER to drain the fuel system than tearing down 2 NAVAJO engines.

I am surprised the PIC did not get fired for taking off with contaminated fuel in the system and making a bad situation much worse.

Thank you for sharing this experience. I am glad nothing worse happened to you guys on board.

I was the PIC and I wasn't fired. Why would I be? We drained the sumps well and they all came up avgas as the Jet A was floating at the top of the tank. There was no indication that we had contaminated fuel until we got airborne. The company that fueled us was one we had used on a daily basis for quite some time. No reason to suspect that they would fill us up with Jet A.

For the teardowns, they were worried about the cylinders as the temps went full scale. Besides, the fueling company's insurance paid for it.

What did the bill say that you signed(if you did sign one). It can be a good way to catch a misfuelling.

[challenger_nami]

I was the PIC and I wasn't fired. Why would I be? We drained the sumps well and they all came up avgas as the Jet A was floating at the top of the tank. There was no indication that we had contaminated fuel until we got airborne. The company that fueled us was one we had used on a daily basis for quite some time. No reason to suspect that they would fill us up with Jet A.

For the teardowns, they were worried about the cylinders as the temps went full scale. Besides, the fueling company's insurance paid for it.

I did not intend to offend.

Earlier in this forum someone alluded that in a pinch, it was not a big deal to take off with 2 litres of JETA in fuel tanks of an AvGas operated engine.

I actually thought that was your situation, and you had discovered the fact that the JETA was added to your fuel tanks before taking off.

I am glad you safely landed the airplane.

Maybe JETA and AvGas don’t mix and JETA & AvGas stay separated when not disturbed. However, during ground operations, take off and flight phase, fuel slushes around in the fuel tanks and the JETA could be sucked in by the fuel pump and ingested by the engine. When that happens, the results are not fun to deal with.

[photofly]

IIRC Jet A doesn’t mix very well with Avgas but it does float on top. I suppose in a pinch you could top that tank with 100LL and hedge your bet by only using it for cruise until you get to a maintenance base.

One is completely miscible in the other; 100LL is a fabulous solvent for degreasing other oils which means it mixes well with them.

JetA is denser than 100LL (6.7lbs/gallon vs 6.0) so it would sink through a half tank of 100LL and mix from there. In theory 100LL will float on JetA about as well as hot water will float on cold water: due to their different densities only, if very carefully poured to avoid jetting, and for the purposes of an interesting demonstration in a quite still container. Any movement and they’ll mix. If they separated on standing (like water and 100LL) there’d not ever be a problem about contaminated fuel, just contaminated tanks.

I think topping a contaminated tank with 100LL and expecting it to displace another hydrocarbon fluid rather than mix with it is very unwise indeed.

[Sailtime]

Has happened countless times. DC3 from Oshawa years ago crashed after TWO aborted take off attempts.

DC3 Crash Blamed On Use of Wrong Fuel
Investigators said yesterday that an inexperienced teen-ager working in the dark loaded a cargo plane with the wrong fuel, causing the plane to crash 50 feet from homes in a suburban subdivision.

Terry Armentrout, deputy director of the National Transportation Safety Board's office in Washington, said the 18-year-old, whose name was not released, became confused Monday night and mistakenly loaded the nearly 40-year-old DC3 with about 200 gallons of jet fuel.

The twin-engine plane, owned by Skycraft Air Transport of Oshawa, Ont., was powered by piston engines that require highly refined fuel. Armentrout said the plane was unable to operate on the relatively low-grade jet fuel.

Investigators said the teen-ager loaded the plane with jet fuel after a truck carrying the needed high-powered aviation gasoline would not start. "He tried to start one truck and it wouldn't start, so he went to another truck and got it to refuel the plane," Armentrout said. "It was dark, and I guess he got confused. The truck contained jet fuel."

The pilot twice aborted takeoff from Lambert-St. Louis International Airport before the craft lumbered into the air. It barely cleared a group of houses two miles west of the airport and crashed at the edge of Interstate 70. The pilot and copilot were injured seriously in the crash.

[rxl]

IIRC Jet A doesn’t mix very well with Avgas but it does float on top. I suppose in a pinch you could top that tank with 100LL and hedge your bet by only using it for cruise until you get to a maintenance base.

One is completely miscible in the other; 100LL is a fabulous solvent for degreasing other oils which means it mixes well with them.

JetA is denser than 100LL (6.7lbs/gallon vs 6.0) so it would sink through a half tank of 100LL and mix from there. In theory 100LL will float on JetA about as well as hot water will float on cold water: due to their different densities only, if very carefully poured to avoid jetting, and for the purposes of an interesting demonstration in a quite still container. Any movement and they’ll mix. If they separated on standing (like water and 100LL) there’d not ever be a problem about contaminated fuel, just contaminated tanks.

I think topping a contaminated tank with 100LL and expecting it to displace another hydrocarbon fluid rather than mix with it is very unwise indeed.

I didn’t write that. I quoted. I just added the anecdote at the bottom about some old buddies of mine in a C-402.
I agree with you 100%.

[photofly]

So sorry for the misquote. I fixed the post.

[rxl]

NP

[pelmet]

C-GIQG, a Swearingen SA-226-TC aircraft, operated by Perimeter Aviation LP, was being fueled
in Swan River (CZJN), MB. Prior to operating the engines, the flight crew realized that the aircraft
was fueled with incorrect fuel as Avgas 100LL was used versus the required Jet A fuel. A defect
was entered into the journey log book and the operator's maintenance personnel removed the
Avgas 100 LL. The aircraft was subsequently returned to service.


Maybe the Garrets are not approved for avgas.

[pelmet]

From TSB...

C-GQXD, a Piper PA-31-350 operated by 2080061 Ontario Inc. (dba SkyCare Air Ambulance), was
conducting a flight from Pickle Lake Airport (CYPL), ON to Winnipeg/St. Andrews (CYAV), MB.
The aircraft was fuelled by a local fuelling company in CYPL. As the aircraft was departing from
CYPL, the fueller realized that the aircraft was fuelled with Jet A instead of AVGAS and called NAV
CANADA to relay a message to the flight crew of C-GQXD. The engines continued running and
crew diverted to Sioux Lookout Airport (CYXL), ON, where the aircraft landed without incident.

If one does not see the fuel truck and read the type of gas labelled on the truck, they can always look at the fuel bill. I got a bill once that said Jet A when it was supposed to be avgas. They swore up and down that it was an error on the bill and after several checks of fuel, it appears that it was an billing error.

[all_ramped_up]

From TSB...

C-GQXD, a Piper PA-31-350 operated by 2080061 Ontario Inc. (dba SkyCare Air Ambulance), was
conducting a flight from Pickle Lake Airport (CYPL), ON to Winnipeg/St. Andrews (CYAV), MB.
The aircraft was fuelled by a local fuelling company in CYPL. As the aircraft was departing from
CYPL, the fueller realized that the aircraft was fuelled with Jet A instead of AVGAS and called NAV
CANADA to relay a message to the flight crew of C-GQXD. The engines continued running and
crew diverted to Sioux Lookout Airport (CYXL), ON, where the aircraft landed without incident.

If one does see the fuel truck and read the type of gas labelled on the truck, they can always look at the fuel bill. I got a bill once that said Jet A when it was supposed to be avgas. They swore up and down that it was an error on the bill and after several checks of fuel, it appears that it was an billing error.

The other question to be asked is why the Fueller didn't have the flared spout installed on the Jet-A truck?

When I was a Fueller (many years ago now) the only time we had to use the narrow AvGas spout was fuelling Turbo Beavers or the Twotter... and it was SOP to immediately put the flared spout back on.

At least he realized he messed up, but there are a number of things that should have prevented him from actually getting the fuel in.