Practice engine failures in SEL

[avbug]

Wuffo is a skydiving term inspired by your comment regarding shutting down a perfectly good airplane. The term comes from non-jumpers, who often say, "wuffo you go an jump outta a perfectly good airplane, wuffo?" The implication is that the speaker is trying to be cute by suggesting that jumping out of the airplane is a waste; after all, it's perfectly good...no reason to jump out. The engine is perfectly good, and therefore shutting it down is a waste? The wing is what makes the airplane fly, not the engine.

Lymanm, you said

I wasn't sure I read that correctly. But I cut & pasted it, so I know you wrote it. Unfathomable. You are going to start a fire in flight. Wonderful. Somehow, the very 91.13 you reference in your post doesn't apply to LIGHTING A FIRE inflight??????

As you thought, you did not read that correctly. Sometimes it's better to keep your trap shut and appear a fool, rather than open it and remove all doubt. Case in point.

A flashpan is a metal retaining pool to which a flamable fluid is added. It is then ignited, and the student is given an opportunity to approach the fire and put it out. You'll note that my comments which you quoted specifically dictate that I use a flashpan for this purpose, and nowhere do I infer or state that it's done in flight. I did, however, state that I have experienced fires in flight, which is true.

I also went on to state that we can teach a student to perform a forced landing or an engine-out safely in flight training, whereas we cannot do so regarding an inflight engine fire...and that the liklihood of an engine failure or forced landing is much greater than that of a fire.

So let's address your litany of additional apples-and-oranges concerns, by each ridiculous irrelevant example, shall we?

By your logic, actually making your fingers turn the transponder to 7700 is the only way to really, truly understand how that would feel.

Cute, but ridiculous. You CANNOT simulate or recreate the feeling of a true power loss, while sitting on the ground. You can easily do this by playing with the transponder on the ground, and you can leave the transponder off while doing it. There is no reason in the world why one would need to "feel" the transponder squawking 7700, but there is every reason in the world why one would need to be competent and capable of safely conducting a landing in an emergency. The transponder is nice to have, but failure to get the airplane safely on the ground can get you killed. Failure to set 7700 has never done that, but most certainly people die every year from failing to complete a successful forced landing. What a terrible example to compare that with a transponder setting, don't you think?

Or, perhaps, an airline captain should in fact shut off his two engines over the Pacific on his 207 ETOPS flight with 291 passengers behind him because doing it in the simulator wouldn't give him the "real life" experience of having to deal with that emergency for real.

Perhaps, but I don't think so. For one thing, we're discussing training operations. We're not talking passenger carrying operations. So modify your ridiculous comparison by removing the passengers, and it's still ridiculous. The captain has the advantage of a Level D simulator that can recreate anything imaginable. The student in the Cessna does not. Additionally, the captain has two engines, both of which have the capability of getting him to the destination, whereas the student in the Cessna has one, and is guaranteed to absolutely not reach his or her destination when the engine quits enroute.

Further, we're talking about building basic flight decision habits; the captain who has spent 20 years of his career in the aviation field had better have had good training along the way. The student deserves no less. To deny the student basic training that will very likely save his or her life is criminal, pure and simple. No if, ands, or buts about it. An instructor who fails to provide the student the training that will save his or her life has failed the student.

The captain has the advantage of constant, recurrent training. He is given everything he needs to deal with each eventuality, and yes, he is given multiple engine failures, as we both know. Dealing with them is second nature, with frequent recurrent training. Are you really trying to make a comparison with a kid learning in a Cessna? What a poor example.

My brother played Romeo in a highschool play. Should I advise him that he should kill himself to best understand the part?

No, I wouldn't convict him simply because he's your brother. He at least needs a chance to prove himself.

What sort of example might that be? I advocate, rightly so, that a student be provided the training necessary to keep him alive, and you compare that to a highschool kid killing himself? Could you possibly find more polar opposites? Doubtful, but try again.

Should I advise him to bankrupt himself and have his assets liquidated so he would know how it feels were it to really happen naturally?

Will that save his life, or enhance his business? Doubtful. Will he listen to you if you so advise? Doubtful. Do you have the authority to make that advice? Doubtful. But a flight student does listen, and an instructor does have the authority to make the advice that the student will follow.

Is it necessary to understand the feeling of bankrupcy in order to run a business? Certainly not. It might be helpful motivation not to let it happen again. But it's not necessary. And if the business does face impending bankrupcy, understanding how it feels won't help a bit.

Conversely, a thorough understanding of how to put an airplane where one desires it in an emergency, the ability to remain calm when one has only minutes to make everything work, to execute checklists, to manage energy, and to get the airplane down and stopped while under control of the situation, communicating, configuring, and completing the descent and landing successfully, is absolutely critical. It's a necessary skill. I have never said that such training must be executed to a landing in a field...just that realistic engine-out training must be conducted. There is no way to compare the necessity and value of this to the stupid, ridiculous idea of learning business through bankrupcy.

Incidentally, expert, have you ever experienced either a true engine failure and a forced landing, or a bankrupcy?

Should I eat Draino in order to recognize the symptoms just in case my crazy roommate decides to poison me?

I do think you should eat draino. Or drink it. I'm trying to picture you at a dinner table, little napkin tucked in your collar, knife and fork at the ready, trying to eat draino, but it's not working. I'd like to see you try. I'd like to be the one to see it because you'll need someone competent and capable there to get you to emergency help after you manage to get a little down your gullet. I want to see that happen, you getting help, because I don't wish to see anyone get hurt. Not you, not a student. So you eat your draino, have a ball. We'll get you help. Just like we'll properly train a student in order to prevent the student from getting hurt. And the student never need touch a glass of draino. Some people learn the first time from competent, thorough instruction, others need to drink a little draino.

Will you at least accept the number to Chemtrec or the Poison Control Center, before you start? Call 1-800-424-8802. Or 911, your choice. Help is only a phone call away. Don't forget the activated charcoal.

Stupid examples to illustrate stupid logic.

Stupid examples and very stupid logic, I'll grant you that. Remember, you said it, not me. However the logic behind providing competent, thorough training for a student is hardly stupid. It's essential, critical, necessary. Perhaps you just never received competent training. Don't worry; help really is just a phone call away.

To be continued...

 

[avbug]

continuing...

The point is, reducing the throttle to idle accomplishes the EXACT same thing as leaning the mixture or shutting the fuel off: you must fly the aircraft in a specific profile. Configuring for best glide speed is nearly identical whether the prop is spinning or not, and the difference is negligeable. .

Wrong. The aircraft glides much differently with the propeller stopped. It feels similiar, but the glide ratio is different, and the ability to place the airplane in the same piece of ground is different because the descent profile is different. However, I never advocated trying to stop the prop, did I? In fact, in many cases, stopping a propeller is counterproductive, in an actual emergency...particularly in a fixed pitch installation.

What is not negligible is the instant concern, the hesitation, the chill that a student feels; the uncertainty. Much like a skydive, this takes place at the start, not at the end. It's that critical time at the start that make makes the change in the outcome that determins success or failure. Must training be executed into a field or onto a road to be realistic? No, but we're not talking about where to put the airplane down. Certainly an introduction to off field landings should be conducted, where ever feasible. But that was never the issue, here.

The issue was (and is) simulating an engine failure. It must be simulated realistically, and there is no way to do that by telling the student that he is about to experience an engine failure, then slowly retarding the power. A student should have the experience of pushing the power lever or throttle up, and getting no response. That can't be done with a retarded throttle.

An instructor should be prepared to occasionally kill the engine with the mixture or fuel selector, condition lever, etc, as appropriate to the aircraft. The instructor who does this must be prepared to execute the evoloution to a full stop, if necessary. I never said that the instructor should do so. He or she must only be prepared to do so. Once the student has the experience of dealing with the failure and knowing that he or she can't get the engine back, the instructor may elect to restore power.

That power may not be restorable is a mute point. Don't pull the power if the landing can't be effected, pure and simple. This harks back to your flagrantly ridiculous point about pulling both engines in a transport category airplane over the ocean. I specifically, and repeatedly advocated only doing this in training over a place where the landing can be executed. That isn't going to be possible during extended ETOPs ops over the ocean, in most cases...certainly not if both engines are shut down.

What I did say, and emphasised repeatedly, is that regardless of how one shuts down an engine, one MUST always be prepared to land without power. Unless one is fully prepared to do so, one should not be pulling power, period. Get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat, so to speak. This applies, and I've said this repeatedly here (so read first, read again, and then make an intelligent reply), weather one is simulating an engine failure with the throttle, mixture, fuel control, feather button, or any other means. Even if you simulate the engine failure with the throttle, you had better be prepared in the event that you can't bring the power back up...that has been my primary point in this thread from the word go, and it's not refutable. Be prepared isn't a bad idea; it's the law.

To conclude your post, you said,

Reducing the power to idle already addresses every component of dealing with an in flight engine failure.

Again, quite incorrect. It does not address every component of dealing with an inflight engine failure. Realistic creation of the engine failure has not been addressed by pulling the throttle, and it must be. Mixture killing is appropriate. Most of the time I do this I then restore the power by pulling the throttle to idle and pushing in the mixture, after the student has properly dealt with the emergency, but not until the student has properly dealt with it. At that point, it is a descent at idle (or zero thrust, as appropriate). However, if I am unsuccessful at restoring power, it's not particularly significant, as I never pull the power unless I have assured that a successful landing can be executed. That may be over a road, field, beach, whatever will make a suitable landing site...even a nice long hard dry runway.

Perhaps if students had the benifits of learning from day one in a level D simulator, you wouldn't have to drink that draino. Or is that logic too stupid for you?

 

[mizzouguy]

Well avbug I have had and engine failure and deadsticked one in with a student on board and i still think it is totally idotic to actually shut an engine down in flight on a single engine airplane and i can guarentee so will the FAA. I know of one individual who had his CFI pulled by the OKC FSDO for doing such a thing. Why turn a simulated emergency into an actual one. Life is too short to do stupid things.

 

[avbug]

Sounds like you got back on the ground in one piece.

Perhaps you, like others, can't read, and haven't read the former posts in their entirety. Otherwise, you'd understand that first and foremost my admonition is this: regardless of how one simulates an engine failure, one should be prepared for that engine to not restart.

You would submit that a simulated engine failure is best accomplished by reducing power, and leaving the engine running. I submit that's fine, but only if you understand that you still may face the possibility of landing without power. In other words, no matter how you simulate that power interruption, under no circumstances do it unless you could complete that evoloution without power. You may or may not elect to kill the engine with the fuel selector, throttle, power lever, thrust lever, condition leverl firewall shutoff, mixture, feather button, or any other means...but no matter how you simulate the emergency, don't ever do it under the skies above God's green earth unless you're fully prepared to live with the potential circumstance that you may not be able to restore power.

No matter how you elect to simulate that emergency, as I have stated over and over (ad nauseum), be prepared to deal with it as an emergency if things don't turn out well. I have seen controls jammed; throttles, propellers, mixtures, etc. I have seen controls pulled back, and be unable to be restored. I have seen reduced power and carburetor ice, and then the carburetor heat cable fail, leading to complete power loss. And so on, and so on. Even when doing it the "smart" way, with the throttle, you may be landing without power. Don't ever pull a throttle unless you're fully able and capable of getting the airplane on the ground safely.

With that in mind, so long as you are always in a position to land that airplane, it's irrelevant if you are performing the evoloution with the throttle, mixture, or any other means.

As I stated before, my preferred method is to mixture kill the engine until the student has done everything he or she needs to do, and then restore power to idle, to a landing. If I am unable to restore power for any reason, it's not particularly disconcerting as I will not pull the power in the first place unless I am prepared to deal with the consequences safely.

If it's over a field and Iintend to land in the field or on a road, I'll have already visited it, walked it, seen it...just as I would do if I were spraying that field, just as I would do after thousands of professional hours and many years of experience have taught.

I too have experienced and dealt with numerous engine failures, power losses, fires, structural failures, hydraulic failures, fuel failures, pneumatic failures, electrical failures, etc. Not once has any one resulted in FAA action. I have landed off-field with students, pulled engines over roads, fields, runways, where ever...my judgement doesn't get questioned in these events because my judgement is just.

A friend of mine performed a checkride inhis personal Bonanza. He was flying with a FAA examiner, an inspector. The inspector was warned beforehand that if the examiner pulled an engine, they would be landing. My friend, a long time ag pilot and mechanic, briefed the inspector that he would not make a prolonged descent and then add power. They would land, warm up the engine, and go again.

The inspector didn't believe him. During the course of the checkride, the examiner killed the engine. My friend set up the airplane to land on a road, just as he does often, professionally. The examiner told him to add power and go around. My friend informed the examiner that it wouldn't behappening. He had been warned; they were landing, and so they did. The examiner had been told that the engine would be considered failed, and so it was. On the ground, it was warmed up properly, and a normal takeoff made.

My friend passed his ride, just as I would expect. Had the examiner have said ought, there would have been trouble in dodge. Believe it.

Don't draw that gun or that knife unless you intend to use it. Don't pull that power unless you're fully prepared for the consequences. Even if it's just with the throttle.

Watch who you're calling "stupid." I really don't believe you have the grounds or the experience to do that. Simply because it's outside your comfort zone or experience level, doesn't make it stupid. You might think flying under a powerline is stupid, but it's not; it's just outside either your training, experience, comfort level, or ability...possibly all four. Describing it as otherwise only dictates your own level of ignorance. Personally, I was trained to do it, I have the experience doing it and to do it, I am comfortable under the proper circumstances doing it, and I have the ability and have demonstrated the ability. And I know it's not stupid, under the proper circumstances. I also have the judgement and experience to know when those circumstances exist.

Do you?

 

[501261]

Avbug,

I like your posts, but seems like every six months you get into one of these discussions.

Look, you’re extremely knowledgeable with the FAR’s and dealing with situations, along with being a very talented writer, but think about how many of those “situations” you have been in that could have been prevented by doing something different?

I like to think there are two parts to an emergency, the events leading up to it and how you deal with it. You are excellent at dealing with emergencies, but how many of those situations that you have been in could have been prevented if you had done something different? Probably close to 100%.

That is what this discussion is about preventing a possibly bad situation. Sure, shutting down an engine makes that person a better pilot (since they can see the actual effects), but at what risk? What does shutting down the engine really do? It simply “communicates” clearly the need for proper procedures, and use of checklists. It’s my opinion that a “good” CFI can “communicate” what happens, WHY it happens and what to do about it, without the unnecessary risk.

 

[avbug]

Actually, very few of those situations could have prevented, except by refusing to fly that day. Let's face it; you fly into the back side of a mountain in low visibility in a small canyon in extreme turbulence in close proximity to other aircraft...something might go wrong. Something might break. And it has.

I've experienced perhaps a disproportionately higher percentage of emergencies, and have had a disproportionately greater amount of experience for the number of years and the total hours I've flown...but that's the environment.

Most of the situations I've been in have not been the result of bad decision making (some certainly have; I like to look on those as expensive learning experiences); they've been the result of a working environment.

None of the engine failures I've experienced over the years have been due to a failure to use a checklist. None have been due to communication failure. And no amount of being talked to by a flight instructor on the ground about the nuances of either checklists or communication would have helped me deal with it.

In fact, having been through simulators time and time again, and having dealt with V1 cuts in a sim, I found that it really didn't hold a candle to having an engine roll back at V1, emergency dumping a load, making a low pattern at tree top level (because we couldn't climb higher), and coming back to land. No amount of talking could have prepared me for that. However, I'd already been through very specific training regarding that scenario, including low returns to landing in performance-limited aircraft, and I already had thousands of hours of low level experience to deal with it. Had I been exposed to such a situation without any of that, I'd probably be dead. Or have had grey hair much sooner.

We are talking about preventing a bad situation, you're right. More about making a bad situation stay bad, and not letting it get worse. That is, after all, why it's called an emergency.

We're not talking about preventing an engine failure. That hapens, and there's often nothing that we can do to prevent it. Having had pistons melt through, explode, left off the barrel, etc, having had compressor stalls due to hydraulic leakage into the intake and subsequent compressor contamination, or acceleration bleed failure due to contamination, FOD ingestion, etc, engine failures due to oil pressure loss after a governor base failure, or a fuel line rupture...these things weren't predictable, nor necessarily preventable. Some on older higher time engines, some on newer engines and components...some with less than 100 hours time in service. Prevention isn't the issue.

Dealing with it in real time is, and there is no substitute for proper exposure and training, in order to be able to do that.

After all, when we go in for recurrent training, we don't just sit in a classroom and talk about it. We go in a simulator and do it realistically. There is no substitute.

 

[flynryan15]

**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**

Guess we should start making gear up landings for the sake of practice might aswell make it gear up landings on interstates and mall parking lots. $hit the insurance companies are going to be pissed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Did I mention I also drive around hitting trees to get used to my airbags

 

[avbug]

The reign of bloody idiotic suggestions keeps continuing. So let's address them all. Once more, proof positive that stupid people shouldn't breed. Stupid people with stupid commentary and far-out ridiculous examples, by fools who can't read the material to which they reply. Did you bother to read any of this, brightspark, or did you just snap off at the mouth like so many others??

Here we talk about how to simulate an engine failure. Do we do it with this control, or that? A simple, straight-forward question.

The bottom line is that no matter how one elects to do it, one must do it safely. One must be assured that one can still conclude the exercise intact, safely. That means that regardless of weather one pulls the throttle or the mixture, one is still going to be able to land safely. One should never count on getting the power back once the engine is pulled, and accordingly, one will always prepare for the worse. The most basic requirement of a pilot; always be playing the what-if game, always be prepared with a contingent plan.

Is this such a hard thing to swallow? Only a fool, a total idiot, a brainless shell of a monumental tribute to stupidity, would argue otherwise, yet the arguements keep coming.

If one assures one' self of a safe landing, regardless of the mode of simulating the engine failure, then it really doesn't matter how the engine failure is simulated. The fact is that a minimum level of competence is required to simulate the engine failure in the first place, and to complete the evoloution to a safe landing. If one cannot do this, it's a competency issue, pure and simple. Can't do it, not competent. End of story. No great skill; we're talking the minimum level of competency here. Cannot do it equates to incompetent. Cannot be assured of making a safe landing, not competent to fly, instruct, perform the maneuver.

After all, at a bare minimum, one is required to be able to perform a maneuver with the outcome never seriously in doubt.

Guess we should start making gear up landings for the sake of practice

Ah, well, that about says it all, doesn't it? Similiar logic says that when the chicken coop burns down, we should dehorn all the cows. Makes perfect sense? No, but so does that example. What you are saying, then, is that if we are going to teach safe, realistic engine drills, then it equates to intentional gear-up landings, is that it?

Experiencing an engine failure and landing the airplane is about taking a bad situation, and salvaging it; it's about improving one's lot. Making a gear-up landing is about taking a good situation, and making it bad.

Sake of practicing what? We face the possibility of an engine failure every second of every flight, but certainly not the prospect of a sudden gear-up landing on every flight. A gear-up landing is entirely preventable, and need not be experienced to be prevented. Conversely, an engine failure may not be preventable at all; one may do everything right, maintenance may do everything right, the engine manufacturer may do everything right, and that engine can still fail. The ability to deal with it is absolutely essential. The need to be properly trained and prepared is absolutely essential.

With respect to landing gear-up, the time may occur during a forced landing when the gear should be left up; a water landing in particular, or one on soft ground. To experience, this, fly a seaplane. But certainly don't compare teaching a basic necessary skill applicable to all aviators, to doing intentional foolish damaging exercises in the airplane.

One can land off-field safely. One cannot intentionally perform a gear-up landing, safely. One can mixture kill an engine safely. The mixture may always be restored, either in flight, or on the ground. The same is not true of a gear-up landing. What an idiotic comparison.

might aswell make it gear up landings on interstates and mall parking lots.

To what end? Why the obcession with making unhyphenated gear-up landings? Would you make a gear-up landing on an interstate, and if so, why would you do that instead of landing with the landing gear down and locked? Is there something about a highway that you feel merits the gear being up for landing? Do you have experience doing this that you feel is valueable enough to pass on to a student? Do you feel perhaps that this will serve the student well in his or her flying, or that it's a valueable skill that will keep the student alive?

Perhaps a parking lot, then? Have you picked one out? Do you find that it's best to land gear-up going lengthwise in a parking lot, or diagonally? Do you prefer full parking lots, or empty ones? Do you ensure that student's bring adequate pocket change to handle parking fees, if any, you dunce? Why a mall?

At least to make a sensical comparison, one might suggest practicing forced landings on interstates or parking lots. To that end, I have no problem so long as practical precautions are taken. During training, one does not simply land willy-nilly where one elects, on a whim. Prior permission, walking of the site for wires, surface suitability, stopping distance, etc, should all be done long before-hand, and the location preapproved. But then that's part of being a responsible flight instructor, isn't it?

You do walk your landing sites and runways, checking for length, obstructions, surface suitability, etc, don't you?

That being the case, what on earth would be the point in landing there, gear-up, unless the gear could not be lowered?

Now I do spend time teaching about how to correctly land an airplane with the landing gear retracted, when instructing in one. If I could safely teach the student to do so in his or her airplane, of course, I would. But to date, I haven't arrived at any great ideas on how to accomplish that, short of teaching in an amphibian or a glider. Have you? Accordingly, it remains only in the realm of discussion. Experiencing an engine failure, however, does not.

$hit the insurance companies are going to be pissed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Perhaps your lack of experience, or the proclivity to suggest intentional gear up landings and running into trees might provoke an insurance company to shy away from you, or experience a level of exasperation akin to being "pissed." My own tendencies, a clean record and adequate experience, lead insurance companies to cover me when I instruct...to include engine failure drills, and all other training doen in the manner that my judgement and experience might deem necessary. That need not concern you. Perhaps you simply lack the judgement to do so. That being the case, you are right not to. One should know one's limitations, shouldn't one?

Did I mention I also drive around hitting trees to get used to my airbags

That really doesn't surprise me, given the tone and content of your post.

 

[CFI'er]

FYI-

A lit cigarette or cigar will not ignite the avgas or car gas for that matter. The flash temperature of the gases is higher than the lit end temperature of both items. Physics 101.

 

[JAFI]

Well I havent been in a physics class in a while so I looked it up. and I hope you will not be offended if I do not soak myself in 100LL and try to see which theory is correct....

JAFI

www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae1.cfm

Question: Do you know where to find information on the temperature at the tip of a lit cigarette, both during drawing on it and when it is not being drawn on? John Grisham in his book the PARTNER contends that he splashed gasoline around his Chevy Blazer, lit a cigarette and threw it on the gasoline, and it exploded. I know that gasoline has an autoignition temperature of 495 F and I do not believe the end of a burning cigarette comes near 495degrees. If you can help I would sure appreciate it, it's one of those things that will drive me crazy if I don't find a way to prove my theory.! Asked by: Mike

Answer Well, Mike here it is:We performed a series of experiments in order to determine the actual temperature of the lit cigarette. Here are the results for the temperature at different locations and under different conditions:

Temperature without drawing:Side of the lit portion: 400 deg C (or 752 deg F)Middle of the lit portion: 580 deg C (or 1112 deg F)Temperature during drawing:Middle of the lit portion: 700 deg C (or 1292 deg F)The above numbers represent the average we obtained by performing several trials and can be considered accurate to within 50 deg C.

A standard Fe-CuNi digital thermocouple thermometer was used in all trials.The Autoignition Temperature of a standard unleaded gasoline can be anywhere from 260 to 460 degrees C (or 500 to 860 deg F) as quoted on the FAQ: Automotive Gasoline Web Page by Bruce Hamilton (this page is also an excellent and accurate resource about the science of gasoline)So as you can see the temperature of the cigarette, even at the side of the lit portion, is more than enough to cause gasoline to autoignite. However, there are many other factors that one should take into account. It matters how the cigarette actually falls onto the surface to the gasoline. There is a lower chance of autoignition if the cigarette falls on it's side where the temperature is lower. Also, the temperature of the gasoline itself matters. If the gasoline is cold to start with then there is again a lower chance of autoignition. One should also consider the amount of the gasoline that you have, namely if you have a large volume of gasoline that would mean that the there is enough surrounding liquid for the heat to go into and therefore the temperature of the gasoline-cigar contact spot would due to heat conduction of the gasoline decrease rapidly, therefore reducing the chance for autoignition. On the contrary, if you have a nice thin film of the gasoline, the chances of the autoignition increase. Also, the evaporation of the gasoline at the point of the contact will also act to reduce the actual contact temperature rapidly.We are aware of at least one experimental trial (conducted by our colleague at the university) where the gasoline did not ignite upon contact with a lit cigar. This just means that all of the above conditions were not in favour of the ignition.However, It is important to realize that the gasoline vapour has a much lower autoignition temperature than the gasoline itself. Namely, if you spill gasoline on a hot road (say in the hot summer day) you will be able to ignite gasoline by contact with a cigarette easily, just because of the gasoline vapour layer that would be produced above the surface of the gasoline. Not to even mention throwing the cigarette into the container with gasoline that has been closed for some time and is therefore full of gasoline vapours.

So for all of you smokers out there that are wondering why you are not allowed to smoke at gas pump stations, these are the real scientific reasons. It is dangerous and science is telling us that the temperature of the cigarette, given the appropriate conditions, is enough to cause gasoline to autoignite (and in case of the gas pump station this would be disastrous.)

So, Mike it looks like John Grisham has done his homework before writing his book.

WARNING: All above mentioned experiments were performed by professionals under controlled conditions and with proper precautions. You are in no way to attempt this on your own. This is dangerous and you can cause serious injuries to yourself and others.

PhysLink and its authors will not be held responsible.PhysLink would like to thank Dr. Michael Ewart for his kind assistance in performing these experiments. Answered by: Michael Ewart, Researcher at the University of Southern California and Anton Skorucak, Creator & Editor of PhysLink