Page 1 of 1
Ramp Rat
Posted:
Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:07 pmby patchz
Not sure if this is the proper place for this, but here goes.
When I was in college, I worked a summer as a ramp rat for a local flying service. Late one afternoon, a local came in and parked on the far side of the ramp in his Push Pull (337). He came in the office and asked me to top him off. I guess he was in a hurry or just did not want to get caught in the weather that was moving in fast from the northwest. I got in the tender and drove across to where he parked. I did not want to get caught in the weather either so I was in a hurry and made a really bad mistake. I failed to hook the static line to the nose gear. I was up on the wing with the nozzle locked wide open when lightning struck off the end of the runway. I felt some static in the nozzle and almost fell off the wing. Fortunately, the nozzle did not come out and I did not spill a drop. More fortunately, there was no ignition/fire/explosion/death. I grabbed the rubber part of the hose and finished as quickly as I could, got down and put the tender up. I vowed never to fuel another aircraft without the static line attached and to try to avoid using the tender at all costs. Guess someone was looking out for me that day.
Re: Ramp Rat
Posted:
Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:41 pmby Brett_Henderson
Wow.. Thanks for sharing the confession. When people are big enough, and selfless enough to own up to stuff like that, it goes a long way to helping someone else be more careful..
I'm gonna let you off the hook though (a little). Hooking the static line to an airplane serves to eliminate any electrical potential between the truck, it's long, static-creating, rubber hose, and the airframe, so that there is no spark when the filler-nozzle nears the tank opening. Any electrical potential created by nearby lightning would be "seen" equally by both the airframe, and the truck (and you). There would be no spark at the nozzle. If, for some reason the lightning did cause an ignition, it wouldn't have mattered if the static line were connected, or not.
Re: Ramp Rat
Posted:
Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:53 pmby patchz
Wow.. Thanks for sharing the confession. When people are big enough, and selfless enough to own up to stuff like that, it goes a long way to helping someone else be more careful..
I'm gonna let you off the hook though (a little). Hooking the static line to an airplane serves to eliminate any electrical potential between the truck, it's long, static-creating, rubber hose, and the airframe, so that there is no spark when the filler-nozzle nears the tank opening. Any electrical potential created by nearby lightning would be "seen" equally by both the airframe, and the truck (and you). There would be no spark at the nozzle. If, for some reason the lightning did cause an ignition, it wouldn't have mattered if the static line were connected, or not.
Yes, I am aware of this. I just meant that the lightning emphasized to me how stupid I was for failing to hook the static line. But thanks. I hope this make others more safety conscious.
I also had a part time job doing janitorial work to the inside of a Martin 404 for Southern Airways. It was a terminal flight here and had to be cleaned before departing the next morning. I had to do it between 10:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. It did not take long as it only involved emptying the trash, vaccuming, putting up pillows and straightening the magazine rack. And it was six nights, Sunday through Friday. But I was also playing in a band and we had jobs on the weekends. Plus I was teaching guitar one night a week. I was a little bit busy that summer. But oh the money for a nineteen year old.
Re: Ramp Rat
Posted:
Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:29 pmby The Ruptured Duck
Nevermind the bonding cable, WHY THE HECK WERE YOU FUELING WHEN THERE WAS LIGHTNING THAT CLOSE? I've gotten into plenty of arguments with supervisors/customers about fueling around lightning and for good reason.
Re: Ramp Rat
Posted:
Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:42 amby patchz
[quote]Nevermind the bonding cable, WHY THE HECK WERE YOU FUELING WHEN THERE WAS LIGHTNING THAT CLOSE? I've gotten into plenty of arguments with supervisors/customers about fueling around lightning and for good reason.
Re: Ramp Rat
Posted:
Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:57 amby DaveSims
Just so you know, the FAA does not allow fueling if there are thunderstorms within 20 miles of the airport, for this very reason. I am an airport operations coordinator and airport firefighter, and find myself frequently having to enforce this rule to avoid any catastrophes from happening. As mentioned before, the static line from the truck merely elimates the difference in electrical charge between the truck and aircraft to prevent any sparks from the nozzle touching the filler hole. The static line would not have prevented a lighting accident.
Re: Ramp Rat
Posted:
Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:17 pmby patchz
Just so you know, the FAA does not allow fueling if there are thunderstorms within 20 miles of the airport, for this very reason.
Would this have been true in the summer of 1968? [quote]I am an airport operations coordinator and airport firefighter, and find myself frequently having to enforce this rule to avoid any catastrophes from happening.
Re: Ramp Rat
Posted:
Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:18 pmby The Ruptured Duck
[quote]Just so you know, the FAA does not allow fueling if there are thunderstorms within 20 miles of the airport, for this very reason.
Re: Ramp Rat
Posted:
Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:51 amby expat
[quote][quote]Just so you know, the FAA does not allow fueling if there are thunderstorms within 20 miles of the airport, for this very reason.
Re: Ramp Rat
Posted:
Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:35 amby DaveSims
[quote][quote]Just so you know, the FAA does not allow fueling if there are thunderstorms within 20 miles of the airport, for this very reason.