grounding vs. bonding ..... these are separate issues. When fueling is taking place then bonding is required. The exhaust outlet is not a good place to 'bond' . The POH will tell the correct place to bond. The build up of static electricity during a fuelling operation is a very real threat that is not understood by so many in the GA community.
I worked at a top 10 midwest fbo for almost 30 years, Gotta say there were a lot of times i didnt ground due to no lugs in the ramp, that was also fueling big avgas loads like DC6s too. Airport said every time they bored a hole it weakened the ramp.... at any rate, I was thinking that fire aint gonna do it a hellava lotta good either lol... All it takes is that one time. As far as bonding the truck and plane. I always looked for a spot that was rather scuffed up or scratched like where the tow bar hooks as you said, never used the exhaust and when training advised new guys against that. I think the exhaust is titanium and has a tendency to become brittle with age as it hardens.. might be wrong. Great video
Usually there would be a ground but the exhaust flange has a gasket separating the manifold. There are nuts and star lock washers (one time use) on the metal flange side that are torqued onto the studs. There should be electrical connection to ground. Probably just enough resistance so it doesn’t show a short.
I've had this argument with several ground handlers / fuelers - the exhaust isn't a great place to ground. They still insist on using it. At the same time, 100s upon 100s of refuels with a ground handler grounding via the exhaust... and to this point my plane hasn't exploded once.
@@JosephHHHo cars aren’t flying through the air building up static electricity. They are literally grounded non stop. Also by touching the metal nozzle to the metal car fuel filler neck, it discharges any electrical static that might be present.
@@JosephHHHo not enough of us to be relevant to the General Aviation crowd. Those that are are using pretty sophisticated means however that include bonding the aircraft to each other as part of the fueling apparatus.
Using a continuity meter to test the quality of a low resistance ground path is like trying to measure bearing clearances with a plastic ruler. Besides, we don't need a low resistance path to dissipate a static charge. The only thing we care about is having the fuel nozzle and the filler opening on the tank at the same potential when they first meet. If the path we choose has a higher resistance then it simply takes a few microseconds longer to dissipate the charge. I used to dissipate static charges into doorknobs with my finger, which is a terrible conductor.
grounding vs. bonding ..... these are separate issues. When fueling is taking place then bonding is required. The exhaust outlet is not a good place to 'bond' . The POH will tell the correct place to bond. The build up of static electricity during a fuelling operation is a very real threat that is not understood by so many in the GA community.
I worked at a top 10 midwest fbo for almost 30 years, Gotta say there were a lot of times i didnt ground due to no lugs in the ramp, that was also fueling big avgas loads like DC6s too. Airport said every time they bored a hole it weakened the ramp.... at any rate, I was thinking that fire aint gonna do it a hellava lotta good either lol... All it takes is that one time. As far as bonding the truck and plane. I always looked for a spot that was rather scuffed up or scratched like where the tow bar hooks as you said, never used the exhaust and when training advised new guys against that. I think the exhaust is titanium and has a tendency to become brittle with age as it hardens.. might be wrong. Great video
Usually there would be a ground but the exhaust flange has a gasket separating the manifold. There are nuts and star lock washers (one time use) on the metal flange side that are torqued onto the studs. There should be electrical connection to ground. Probably just enough resistance so it doesn’t show a short.
I've had this argument with several ground handlers / fuelers - the exhaust isn't a great place to ground. They still insist on using it.
At the same time, 100s upon 100s of refuels with a ground handler grounding via the exhaust... and to this point my plane hasn't exploded once.
Thanks for sharing Glen. Maybe I should send this to some FBOs I know
Millions of cars refueled every day with no grounding wire in sight and they don't explode either.
@@JosephHHHo cars aren’t flying through the air building up static electricity. They are literally grounded non stop. Also by touching the metal nozzle to the metal car fuel filler neck, it discharges any electrical static that might be present.
@@112_adventures and how many of us are doing airborne refueling???
@@JosephHHHo not enough of us to be relevant to the General Aviation crowd. Those that are are using pretty sophisticated means however that include bonding the aircraft to each other as part of the fueling apparatus.
40 Years of Aviation experience I've never heard of anyone's airplane Catching Fire has anyone else experienced it a fueling fire
Very interesting. That could be a video in itself, albeit a different category altogether.
Make sure it's unpainted too
Absolutely!
Using a continuity meter to test the quality of a low resistance ground path is like trying to measure bearing clearances with a plastic ruler. Besides, we don't need a low resistance path to dissipate a static charge. The only thing we care about is having the fuel nozzle and the filler opening on the tank at the same potential when they first meet. If the path we choose has a higher resistance then it simply takes a few microseconds longer to dissipate the charge. I used to dissipate static charges into doorknobs with my finger, which is a terrible conductor.
I haven't grounded an airplane in 40 years.
That could be a video all in itself. Albeit a completely different topic.