News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

Domestic terrorist

Started by rwarn17588, February 18, 2010, 12:44:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

nathanm

Quote from: Red Arrow on February 21, 2010, 03:37:45 PM
Cessna 150s/152s had a factory option of long range tanks in the wings, just bigger tanks in the same place.  About 38 gal vs 26 total fuel (including unusable). 
I could have sworn I've seen approved temporary auxiliary fuel tanks that sit in the back of the cabin. Maybe I'm thinking of a different plane.
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln

Breadburner

Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2010, 05:40:28 PM
I could have sworn I've seen approved temporary auxiliary fuel tanks that sit in the back of the cabin. Maybe I'm thinking of a different plane.

You could get a fuel  bladder for extra capacity.......
 

Red Arrow

It's entirely possible there are additional aftermarket approved additional fuel tanks.

Approved generally means you don't have to get FAA engineering approval for your particular plane. The installation still has to paperwork filed.  It's not as easy as throwing an overnight bag in the back of the plane, legally.  This all is for Type Certificated planes like the Piper Cherokee, Cessna 150 etc.  Experimental planes (homebuilt usually) have different rules but you still can't do anything you want without some kind of paperwork.
 

nathanm

Quote from: Red Arrow on February 21, 2010, 06:15:38 PM
It's entirely possible there are additional aftermarket approved additional fuel tanks.

Approved generally means you don't have to get FAA engineering approval for your particular plane.
My point is simply that people do use the things, thus seeing someone put some fuel in an auxiliary tank wouldn't be all that unusual, unless you were both nearby and paying close enough attention to see that they were putting it in a drum or something else that obviously wasn't an approved auxiliary tank.
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln

Red Arrow

Putting fuel in an existing aux tank wouldn't gather any attention.  Trying to put a large drum in the plane would probably attract attention if the plane were in sight, not in an enclosed hangar.  There is too much we don't know to determine if he should have been seen.
 

waterboy

What we really need are force fields around government offices. ;) Any one working on that?

Seriously, I am surprised that this guy didn't attract much attention, but then again if he were determined enough, he would have found a way around any security. After 911, I stumbled into one of the local refineries looking for a jump start for a dead battery on my boat. They were quite concerned since they had worked hard to protect their perimeter with fencing and trained guards. They left a gate open.

Hoss

Quote from: waterboy on February 21, 2010, 06:52:39 PM
What we really need are force fields around government offices. ;) Any one working on that?

Seriously, I am surprised that this guy didn't attract much attention, but then again if he were determined enough, he would have found a way around any security. After 911, I stumbled into one of the local refineries looking for a jump start for a dead battery on my boat. They were quite concerned since they had worked hard to protect their perimeter with fencing and trained guards. They left a gate open.

It depends.  It all lies on the fact of several questions:

Did he have a private hangar?

If so, was it enclosed enough for him to be discrete about any nefarious activity?

Anyone who owns just a Piper likely won't be splurging on a private, enclosed hangar.  But, I'm sure investigators are looking into the matter currently.

Red Arrow

Quote from: Hoss on February 21, 2010, 07:31:14 PM
Anyone who owns just a Piper likely won't be splurging on a private, enclosed hangar. 

Think Tee hangars like at Riverside/Jones (by Jenks).  Some are privately owned on land leased from the airport authority like the northwest tees and the east tees.  Some are just rented space like the rows on the west side south of the cross (13-31) runway.  There are a lot of just a Piper/Cessna/Mooney/Beech in those areas.  There are some fancy ones too. Many/most of the rented tees are partitioned internally although the partitions may not go to the roof.

I'll agree though that I don't see a Cherokee as the sole inhabitant of a $250,000+ hangar.

I don't know what the storage space rental was like where ever he was based.
 

Conan71

Here's a link to an international GA ferrying firm.  I'd read an article in Plane & Pilot or one of my aviation mags about 10 years ago about ferrying flights.  For a Piper PA-28 type, according to this web site, they use a 100 gallon ferry tank.

http://www.internationalferryflights.com/

While not overly common, no one would think twice about someone installing a ferry tank or filling one in a GA craft probably other than to ask where the long trip is planned.

To do it by FAA requirements I think this is done as part of a ferrying certificate which has different requirements than a permanent STC modification, as I recall. 

If a lone nut bag is intent on modifying his aircraft in his own privacy, there's nothing to stop it, just as there's nothing to keep people from building fertilizer bombs in rental trucks or the back seat of their cars. An airplane really represents little more hazard than a ground vehicle other than you can't fly a truck into the 30th floor of an office building.
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

dbacks fan

While this isn't a plane crashing, it does give some idea as to what happens when a fuel tank is violently ruptured and the fuel spray is ignited. move forward to approximately 3:22 minutes in to see the segment.



Hoss

Quote from: dbacks fan on February 22, 2010, 10:55:57 AM
While this isn't a plane crashing, it does give some idea as to what happens when a fuel tank is violently ruptured and the fuel spray is ignited. move forward to approximately 3:22 minutes in to see the segment.




Now the question becomes was there the right conditions, including an ignition source away from the engine of the airplane, to induce THAT kind of fire?

Color me a skeptic.  Had to be more accelerant, is my thinking.

Conan71

Quote from: Hoss on February 22, 2010, 12:13:29 PM
Now the question becomes was there the right conditions, including an ignition source away from the engine of the airplane, to induce THAT kind of fire?

Color me a skeptic.  Had to be more accelerant, is my thinking.

"Pull the building"

JK

Post crash fires are very common in GA accidents even when they hit dirt.  Think about how many news reports you've seen mentioning post crash fires.  Assuming it was a 180 with a standard cruise prop, it was probably going 110 kts when he hit, the fire is pretty appropriate hitting a steel, glass, and probably some sort of rock object. 

I used to watch Mythbusters quite a bit, but some of their methodology in re-creating certain conditions is suspect.

Chandler Park, Sept. 2009

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11081324

Glenpool, Oct. 2007

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071018_1_A1_spanc56181

Belleville, Illinois last night

http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=139531
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

dbacks fan

#72
"Fuel is rated according to its level of octane. High amounts of octane allow a powerful piston engine to burn its fuel efficiently, a quality called "anti-knock" because the engine does not misfire, or "knock." At that time, high-octane aviation gas was only a small percentage of the overall petroleum refined in the United States. Most gas had no more than an 87 octane rating. Doolittle pushed hard for the development of 100-octane fuel (commonly called Aviation Gasoline or AvGas) and convinced Shell to begin manufacturing it, to stockpile the chemicals necessary to make more, and to modify its refineries to make mass production of high-octane fuel possible.

A major problem with gasoline is that it has what is known as a low "flashpoint." This is the temperature at which it produces fumes that can be ignited by an open flame. Gasoline has a flashpoint of around 30 degrees Fahrenheit (-1 degree Celsius). Volatility is a measure of a fuel's ability to evaporate under varying conditions.

The temperature range at which fuel vapor concentrations can be explosive (at ground level in an equilibrium state) are approximately:
1. Avgas 10 to 40 degrees Celsius;
2. Kerosene's (Avtur, Jet A-1) +38 to +80 degrees Celsius.
3. Wide-cut fuels (JP-4) 20 to +10 degrees Celsius.

Volatility is a measure of a fuel's ability to evaporate under varying conditions."

From http://www.risingup.com/forums/student-pilot/488-avgas-flashpoint.html

So with a flashpoint of 50 to 104 degrees fahrenheit and a spray of 40 + gallons on to the materials found in a office, it would be like a flame thrower.

dbacks fan

The black smoke, hydrocarbon fuel as some one refered to it, look around your home or office and see how much is plastic, acrylic, vinyl, rubber.

Hoss

Quote from: dbacks fan on February 22, 2010, 01:09:21 PM
The black smoke, hydrocarbon fuel as some one refered to it, look around your home or office and see how much is plastic, acrylic, vinyl, rubber.

I still say not enough for that amount of smoke from such a small aircraft which couldn't paint its footprint that large.  I still say there was extra involved.  It looked to me like that entire floor was involved in the fire.