Replacement Fuel Hose Problems
« Thread Started Today at 10:02am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All,
Please see the below message from Pete White (Aeronca) -
Subject: FYI - Fuel Hose problem
> Peter, Pete W
>
> I have just been sent this by one of my former colleagues in the
> Australian aviation regulatory body. My Auster was fitted with Pirtek hose
> (though I am unsure if it was the specification of the Multi MPH involved
> here until I can remove and check it).
>
> I have only used AVGAS 100LL in my aircraft since getting it flying 2
> years ago, and have only flown about 20 hours. In November I had some
> rough running and after changing plugs left for right (to check plugs vs.
> magneto) the engine ran well when starting up until the priming charge was
> used up, then stopped and appeared to be suffering from fuel exhaustion to
> the carburettor.
>
> I have not been able to do any more work to trouble-shoot my problem, but
> will be having a serious look at the fuel system as soon as I can. (I am
> currently in the UK, until the end of this week, attending to family
> matters. Unfortunately time does not permit me to catch up with either of
> you in person.)
>
> However, I feel it is important to pass on this warning to you for the
> benefit of anyone operating on a PFA Permit in the UK who may have made a
> similar fuel hose substitution. Please use it any way you feel useful,
> including making contact with Mick English in CASA, who received this
> report and forwarded this to me, and whom I commend to you as a good bloke
> and Auster enthusiast.
>
> Regards, and Happy New Year
>
> Mike Cleaver
>
> START QUOTE
> I am a Surveyor Loss Adjustor currently handling a claim on an RAA
> registered aircraft that was issued a "CASA Special Certificate of
> Airworthiness (LSA)" after it was built up from a Kit by a Dealer the
> previous week.
>
> The aircraft suffered a high end engine surge shortly after take off on
> its delivery flight and crash landed just of runway on attempted emergency
> landing. Both occupants escaped with minor bruising even tho the aircraft
> inverted after initial impact.
>
> Aircraft had a fresh load of BP Unleaded fuel which is okay for the Rotax
> 912UL engine.
>
> During curse of our post crash checks we noted there was some 8-10 litres
> of fuel still in tank. This was check - clean and free of contaminants.
> The gascolator bowl had fuel with a small amount of fine grit and a couple
> of bits of red sealant common with that used on plumbing joints in the
> aircraft. No big deal there. However the fuel was tea colored whereas fuel
> in tank was still clear unleaded colour.
>
> We then decided to take fuel sample downstream of the engine gearbox
> driven pump and it was even darker tea colour. (rechecked tank - still
> normal colour) It then took about 6-8 litres of fuel drained at full bore
> flow before the fuel cleared to same colour as tank.
>
> I became suspicious that the hose lining may be affected by fuel as the
> amount drained before it became clear was far more than what the fuel
> lines held statically.
>
> The fuel and vent lines used throughout the aircraft were "Pirtek Multi
> MPH-4 hoses - black in colour. The hoses were marked "3Q09 and 1 Q10" so
> are fairly new.
>
> I took photos of hoses and - along with fuel samples, took them to the
> Pirtek SE Qld distributor at Rocklea and explained the situation.
>
> The man there immediately said "MPH hose is not for use with Petrol and it
> is worse if there is ethanol in fuel". He then showed me a roll of Red
> hose marked "Redflex Multi Purpose - Non Conducting -IRRF-8 Class A (Oil
> Fuel)" and advised that was the spec hose to use for petrol.
>
> I later checked Pirtek website and - under Multi MPH hose the applications
> are listed as "Low pressure hose for fluids such as - Mineral and
> vegetable oils, aqueous emulsions,water, air and inert gases." Nothing
> about fuel (petrol).
> Unfortunately the Pirtek website does not appear to cover the IRRIF hose
> applications - just the sizes.
>
> Pirtek HQ has not responded to request for clarification.
>
> We will be sending the engine QEC to Bert Flood [Rotax distributor in
> Australia - MC] for a full bulk strip and inspection of all the fuel
> system components and parts.
>
> My main concern is that there is confusion out there on the use of this
> Multi MPH spec hose. People see the words "Multi Purpose" in its
> description and assume that means it is okay for fuel. Pirtek told me
> verbally - definitely not.
>
> RAA's response is that they already have bulletins out there "warning
> people to make sure they have right hose for application at hand.
>
> Is it possible for you to have a look at this scenario and advise if the
> Pirtek black colored Multi MPH Spec hose can be used with petrol (
> especially in aircraft. Pirtek might be more co-operative with a CASA
> enquiry).
>
>
> If the MPH hose is no good - then It would seem that our industry needs
> another AWB advisory to clarify the situation. The seller of this aircraft
> still thinks MPH is okay to use and there is a lot of other "black hose"
> out there.
>
> Our investigations are not litigious in any way - Insurers are settling
> the claim without pause. It is just a safety of flight issue we would like
> to clarify.
>
POTENTIAL FUEL HOSE SAFETY ISSUE
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
POTENTIAL FUEL HOSE SAFETY ISSUE
Just read this on the Rollason Condor website:
Gary Coleman
031196
031196
-
stickandrudderman
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:22 am