I recently saw an argument in a forum I frequent that sumping the tanks when the system was below freezing was a bad idea, as you can't drain solid ice from the fuel system, and there is a chance that ice may jam the drain open, causing your entire tank of avgas to empty onto the ramp.
While this is certainly a possibility, is it a reason to skip sumping the fuel system during preflight, or do the reasons for checking the fuel system outweigh the risk of a tank of fuel winding up on the ground?
OK, I sat on my hands for a while, so now I'll stick my head in the lion's mouth.
You should absolutely sump your tanks every time you go flying as part of a routine preflight inspection, whether you've taken on fuel or not, whether the aircraft has been hangared or out on the ramp, and even if it's below freezing.
Water isn't the only thing you're looking for (misfueling happens - also bits of fuel tank sealant, rubber from a rotting bladder, dirt that made it past the fueling truck's filters, etc. - you want to find these things!)
Ideally if it's below freezing you should also pre-heat your aircraft so the engine, instruments, and fuel are above freezing when you're preflighting (which is generally accomplished by sticking the plane in a heated hangar), but sometimes that's not an option and you make do.
Well like I said above, water isn't the only thing we're looking for - and all those concerns still hold valid no matter what the temperature is. Water is the one that people seem to come up with as a reason for not sumping when it's below freezing though, so let's talk about water:
There are five general ways water can manifest itself in your (Avgas) fuel system:
If it's not been below freezing (or it's really sunny and your fuel tanks have acted like an oven) water may be liquid, waiting for you at the sump drain just like on a warm summer day. You'll drain it out and go on about your business.
Slush (ice crystals suspended in the fuel)
If it's below freezing you may have suspended ice crystals or slush in the fuel (particularly if you just took on fuel). This will look "cloudy" when you drain it from the sump and it's a good indication that today is not a good day to fly: you may have a LOT of water in the fuel, and you need to need to deal with it (warm the plane up and drain off the water, and figure out how so much of it got in there in the first place).
(There is a chance that slush could jam your fuel drain open, in which case your fuel tank will empty itself onto the ramp with great rapidity.)
Little bits of ice
Little drops of water can freeze into little bits of ice, which are often just too big to come out of the fuel sump drain, but just small enough to lodge in it and keep it from closing (which, again, will cause your tank to empty itself onto the ramp with great rapidity. This is also an indication that today is not a good day to fly).
BIG bits of ice over the sump drain
Liquid water will flow to the lowest point in the fuel system (the drains). If it's below freezing it will freeze there, potentially blocking the sump drain.
You'll notice this condition because the sump valve may feel stiff, your tank may not drain, or it will drain very slowly, possibly with water in the fuel.
This is a good indication that you shouldn't fly until you figure out what the cause of the problem is (it could be ice, it could be a defective valve, or it could be a bunch of other things, but until you know you want to stay on the ground).
Hidden Ice (big bits of ice away from the sump drain)
This is perhaps the most insidious: Ice that's not near the sump, and doesn't block or jam anything. Hopefully you'll spot this sitting at the bottom of your tank when you look in to check the fuel level (you do visually check your fuel level, right?), but you probably won't notice anything out of the ordinary when you sump the tank.
(There are of course other ways water can hide out in the system besides the fuel tanks, but these are where you're most likely to find it.)
The most likely "bad thing" to happen to you in any of those scenarios is that your fuel sump will be jammed open by ice. This means you'll spill a tank's worth of avgas on the ground, and you'll have to call your airport's spill cleanup/emergency number and let them know.
That emergency is on the ground, and it may be a little embarrassing to have to explain to the spill cleanup folks, but it's better than the other possibilities.
The Bad Things that can happen to you in the air if you go flying with undetected ice/water in the fuel are far worse: The ice could melt and your engine could start trying to burn water, which doesn't ignite very well.
Check out Gene Benson's "Why Did They Do That? - Volume 2" presentation, starting at slide #7 for one example of how things can go catastrophically wrong if you neglect to sump your tanks (or ignore the warning signs when you do).
I recently saw an argument in a forum I frequent that sumping the tanks when the system was below freezing was a bad idea, as you can't drain solid ice from the fuel system, and there is a chance that ice may jam the drain open, causing your entire tank of avgas to empty onto the ramp. While this is certainly a possibility, is it a reason to skip sumping the fuel system during preflight, or do the reasons for checking the fuel system outweigh the risk of a tank of fuel winding up on the ground?
Watching the first episode of Dangerous Flights, a ferry pilot has aftermarket fuel tanks fitted inside the cabin of an old Merlin IIB: What are the regulatory requirements to be able to do this? / How can you get permission to fit extra tanks inside a plane? Is there anything that needs to be specially considered when designing the tanks and valves etc? Is this commonplace when ferry flying long-haul?
I've been taught to always sump the plane's fuel system before going flying to check for water / contamination / proper fuel grade. However, I've yet to go flying in rain. What's the proper procedure to drain fuel during rain? If I took the fuel cap off to dump the fuel back into the plane, I'd be worried about rainwater getting in the tanks.
When I took delivery of a new Cessna 182T last year, I did a test flight for certification purposes. During the test flight we had to perform a power off stall but that didn't go as planned as it was simply impossible to stall. What happened is this: when the airspeed dropped well below the power off stall speed we simply started to sink slowly with a nose-high attitude at about 35 KIAS... anymore. There was a passenger in the back seat, fuel tanks only half full so the CG was more aft than usual, but well within limits Ever since that flight I've wondered: What could cause
We know that most of the plane accidents and deaths result from the explosion of fuel tanks in the planes, like when two planes collide, or when the plane falls on the ground. With the advent of technology, i wonder whether it is possible to prevent the fuel explosion. Can this be done by evaporating the fuel in the planes just before the collision? Or use a solid architecture encapsulating the fuel tanks in the planes, such that the fuel is not set to fire? What research has been done in this field and if so what were the findings?
I know that the F-16 (F-16I and Block 50/52/60 models) have conformal fuel tanks standard now on top of the wing/fuselage area. The Silent Eagle model of the F-15E proposed by Boeing for South Korea, and other F-15E customers had them added. The F-18E (Superhornet) has demoed a set recently. But on older aircraft, how common were conformal fuel tanks? Or have they always been drop tanks before?
When ATC gives you headings to fly, do they consider wind correction? In theory they should because they call it a heading and not a track, but do they? After all, the heading they want you to fly depends on wind direction and airspeed. Or do they actually mean track instead of heading?
Common solutions for aerobatic piston singles is to have either header tanks (for wing tanks, as I understand it) or flop tubes (for fuselage tanks). Do fuel systems in a fighter jet work on the same principles? Or are they somehow smarter to allow more erratic maneuvers?
An aircraft's Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System uses line of sight HF via ground stations or satellites to communicate with its base station. This system allows for three... are used to communicate between the aircraft and its base. Various types of messages are possible, for example, relating to fuel consumption, engine performance data, aircraft position, in addition to free... pinged to track an aircraft's position and heading? Would this require any intervention by the pilots? (posted separately) Is this system standard on commercial airliners? What data do Airlines collect
Provided an aircraft with a fly-by-wire system, there are basically two possible choices when it comes deciding how to let the pilots interface with it: rate control / attitude hold: a deflection of the stick will command a certain rate, releasing it will make the system maintain the current attitude. See the Airbus Normal control law. direct control: a deflection of the yoke will directly translate to a deflection of the surfaces, mimicking the "old" mechanical control setup. It is my understanding that this is the design choice of Boeing in its new aircrafts. I do not wish to discuss