X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Received: from [68.202.132.19] (account marv@lancaironline.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WEBUSER 5.1.6) with HTTP id 1863796 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:35:44 -0500 From: marv@lancair.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fuel tank camera for inspection of Lancair fuel tanks To: X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.1.6 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:35:44 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html;charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Posted for REHBINC@aol.com:

In a message dated 2/24/2007 7:40:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Craig Blitzer writes:
"""
So is there something we need to make sure the painters do if they are
re-painting.??
I imagine that no painter would paint a wing with fuel in it - right?
or do we want full fuel so there is no vapor - stupid question ??
Other than the front strut, what, where, how, else can you ground??
Is it as simple as no material under then plane and no dust removal
with air?
Craig Blitzer
"""

About once a year I am asked to give advice on fighting a fire on a merchant
shipping vessel. One of the first things I instruct the crew to do is to top
up every tank adjacent to the fire space. This includes ballast, fresh water,
fuel and lubricating oil, every tank. If they can't transfer fuel from
another
tank to top it up, they are told to pump in sea water. With very rare
exception, liquids do not explode and cannot burn. If the vapor space in the
tank is
eliminated, the chance of explosion is minimized.

I can't speak for the painter, but I would generally consider a full wing
tank to be safer than empty. The biggest issue is to keep the flammable vapor
mixture away from the ignition source. i.e.; keep the fuel cap on.

As for blowing the dust off with air, isn't this the same as flying? In
flight configuration, this had better be safe.

Rob