Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

PSA - Possible Safety Alert?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
The NTSB report you cited has nothing to do with the APU operation. It would not affect the out come if an APU was/was not running and a fuel truck catches fire. I'm sure the crew in the report you cited had the APU running, most likely for heat/AC if they were sleeping on board. If you are going to cite an NTSB report find one that is relevant.

The APU inlet on the CRJ is on the top, almost no danger of ingesting anything from the ground. The exhust is from the right rear, and the "danger area" is only 15 feet. If you watch the crews do their walk around most guys are within that area, it is not that hot, there is more of a danger of your hat blowing across the ramp.

I don't know what you see as close proximity to aother a/c, but in DCA the aircraft are no closer than any other ramp/gate area.

If you actually know anything about fire science then you would know that the danger from JET-A is not the liquid but the vapors. No vapors with SPR. Plus the SPR is on the front on the wing well clear from the APU exhust. There is more chance of a static discharge causing a fire/explosion then the APU. That is why the fuelers ground the aircraft before they connect.

With my 19 years in aviation,most as an airline pilot and 20 years in the fire service (carrer and volunteer) I feel comfortable everytime I walk away from an a/c with the APU running. Don't over react, and don't try to Monday night quarterback.
 
md83drvr said:
The NTSB report you cited has nothing to do with the APU operation. It would not affect the out come if an APU was/was not running and a fuel truck catches fire. I'm sure the crew in the report you cited had the APU running, most likely for heat/AC if they were sleeping on board. If you are going to cite an NTSB report find one that is relevant.

The APU inlet on the CRJ is on the top, almost no danger of ingesting anything from the ground. The exhust is from the right rear, and the "danger area" is only 15 feet. If you watch the crews do their walk around most guys are within that area, it is not that hot, there is more of a danger of your hat blowing across the ramp.

I don't know what you see as close proximity to aother a/c, but in DCA the aircraft are no closer than any other ramp/gate area.

If you actually know anything about fire science then you would know that the danger from JET-A is not the liquid but the vapors. No vapors with SPR. Plus the SPR is on the front on the wing well clear from the APU exhust. There is more chance of a static discharge causing a fire/explosion then the APU. That is why the fuelers ground the aircraft before they connect.

With my 19 years in aviation,most as an airline pilot and 20 years in the fire service (carrer and volunteer) I feel comfortable everytime I walk away from an a/c with the APU running. Don't over react, and don't try to Monday night quarterback.
Busy being a "carrer" volley huh? I'm only saying that it COULD be dangerous and is unnecessary for 45 mins on a ramp when the a/c is unattended in this situation.

And I know that the "out come" and circumstances of the aforementioned NTSB report is not perfectly similar, but merely highlights what kind of bad situation could make (what I believe to be) a poor decision even worse.

DIRK - no battle here - just my opinion (similar to my a55hole), free, and for me to state when I want.
 
Stick Man said:
DIRK - no battle here - just my opinion (similar to my a55hole), free, and for me to state when I want.

Dude, did you just say your a$$hole was "free"? NAMBLA has it's own website.
 
What's more alarming is Stick thinking he has the right to board other company's aircraft. I find it strange how you can see the Master Caution blinking when you went over to investigate from the ground.

You claim you didn't go inside, I find that hard to believe. Did it ever occur to you that a captain deadheaded in on the inbound flight and remained on board while the FO and FA went inside?
 
Ted Striker said:
Dude, did you just say your a$$hole was "free"? NAMBLA has it's own website.
Ha!!

I love using NAMBLA in certain situations.

Ha! Good form!
 
Once again you show that you cannot cite the appropriate text. I did not say carrer volly....I said career AND volunteer, done both over the last 20 years.


Yo never answered the question, how would an APU that is running affect the out come of a fuel truck on fire under the wing? If the fuel truck blows up, the a/c is gone. If the wing catches fire the a/c is gone. How would an APU change anything about the inccident. "NTSB report is not perfect," how about not even close.

The APU running is not "dangerous and is unnecessary for 45 mins on a ramp when the a/c is unattended." Most a/c will take a substantial time to cool/heat in order to make the cabin comfortable for the passengers (remember the reason we exists).
 
I think so too. Doesn't sound like something PDT or the former ALG boys and girls would do. They have atleast some class
 
so now it's gonna be a Mesa thing again huh? What's so bad with Mesa? IT'S ONLY THE BEST AIRLINE OUT THERE!!!
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top