Stealing Jet fuel ffs !

323

Wtf ? wrote: »

I am sure they can afford to heat their homes, Silly way to lose your job !
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/gardai-investigating-theft-of-aviation-fuel-from-dublin-airport-982294.html

Betting if they dig a bit deeper, will find it was not just for their own home heating use. Been going on for years.



Few years ago arrived home late cold evening mid-winter to heating off/tank empty. On recommendation got delivery from a startup/one man show delivery business. Chancer, got 1100 litres of what turned out to be AvGas.
If had been Jet-A, would have been fine and probably wouldn't have noticed. But got up next morning to everything in the back yard black and boiler clogged full with fine soot.


Should have reported it, too much going on at the time.



Adjust/increase airflow and burned fine. Very clean.

Nijmegen

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I'd say go back and have a look at your scratch maths again. I don't know where you are going with your €157 for a gallon of Jet A kerosene - not going very far at that rate.

242 litres is about a barrel and a quarter. It is nothing.

Haha, cents cents! How embarrassing, the child had me up several times last night is my excuse

donkey balls

Strumms wrote: »

Prob for the company would be if say if in ok, in very unlucky situation an employee was in a crash on the way home with 10 liters of jet a1, highly, highly flammable liquid, from a legal standpoint are they ADR qualified to carry it ? Highly unlikely... will they have the required accompanying MSDS (material safety data sheet) in case of accident, not likely, so the company would be correct in their willingness to see the fuel destroyed properly over handing out buckets of the stuff to employees.

Jet A1 while a flammable liquid has a HIN nbr of 30 Hazard identification number petrol has a HiN nbr of 33, If you look at the orange plates on a tanker the top nbr is the class so 3 is a flammable liquid 33 means that it is highly flammable.
As for being ADR trained as long as the container is not over 5 liters they are classed as accepted qty.

Nekarsulm

plodder wrote: »

True. Petrol is highly volatile and highly flammable which is why it has to be transported in special containers, whereas Kero doesn't. You can buy it at filling stations (that sell it) in ordinary containers.

Sitting between a two pair of pumps at our local station...

plodder

A dog wash... I've seen it all now.

That's what I call a "service station" ^

Stovepipe

When airlines drain large quantities of fuel for a maintenance check that involves access to the inside of the tanks, that fuel will not go back into the aircraft as it may have water or other contaminants in it,so the fuel company drains it and takes it away for recycling and gives the airline a credit of a few cents per litre of the waste fuel. It is then filtered to clear it of contaminants and dyed and sold as home heating oil. I confirmed that with both the refuellers I meet every day in work and the oil delivery guy at home.
Now, if you are prepared to risk putting it in a car engine, it wont work on modern fuel injectors as, it has been said, the engine computer is programmed to refuse anything that is not road diesel. Older larger diesel injectors will happily drink it, but the critical difference is that, unlike road diesel, it has no sulphur,so therefore it will not lubricate the diesel injection pump and you risk ruining an expensive pump, so, allegedly,you mix two-stroke with the Avtur and it'll run just fine. Revenue and Customs take a dim view of this, of course and if you are dipped, you will get caught as they are able to detect the presence of kero in your fuel tank. They have also been known to test the fuel pump to see if kero has passed through it.

donkey balls

Are you sure about the refueling company defueling and then disposing it themselves, From memory if just say the company defueled just say either an FR or EI aircraft.
That fuel can only go back into the same aircraft/fleet and not another carrier.

Stovepipe

When I last was involved in a full defueling, the fuel company tanker drained the aircraft and left and did not put the stuff back into an aircraft, as there was a suspicion of microbiological contamination, so there was no way it was ever going into an aircraft again.

donkey balls

Yep I know about the possibility of bacteria build up that's why if an EI aircraft was defueled the fuel could only go back into an EI aircraft.

smurfjed

I have watched excess fuel getting pumped straight back into the top of the fuel truck.

donkey balls

Again I've never seen it happen as the 2 fuel companies would each have a tanker just for defueling.

smurfjed

I seen it done for 100 kgs off a small jet and 100,000 kgs off a 747.

Hotblack Desiato

323 wrote: »

Few years ago arrived home late cold evening mid-winter to heating off/tank empty. On recommendation got delivery from a startup/one man show delivery business. Chancer, got 1100 litres of what turned out to be AvGas.

Avgas, the cheaper alternative to home heating oil... heard it all now! :rolleyes:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070222003036AAaVU1i&guccounter=1

Hotblack Desiato

Tenger wrote: »

Could this be a situation where drained fuel being “disposed of”by staff has been ignored by mgmt for years. But perhaps is now being used as an excuse to get rid of 2 specific staff?

Sure and then they win their unfair dismissal case when others doing the same thing were not disciplined. There was a case very similar to that in Bank of Ireland some years back over smutty emails which were circulating around.

Man fired over ‘inappropriate’ emails must be reinstated

Despite uncontradicted evidence of a widespread practice within the bank of sending inappropriate emails, the bank hierarchy decided early in 2009 to “make an example” of Mr Reilly to deter others from similar behaviour, the judge found.

While “lip service” was paid to observance of procedures, it was “clear there was only going to be one outcome”. The manner in which the bank predetermined this matter and “manipulated” the entire process from the outset reflected little credit on it and visited a “very grave injustice” on Mr Reilly.

The “only appropriate remedy” was reinstatement, the judge told Roughan Banim SC, with Johanna Ronan–Mehigan BL, for Mr Reilly.

donkey balls

smurfjed wrote: »

I seen it done for 100 kgs off a small jet and 100,000 kgs off a 747.

100.000kgs off a 747 ? I find that hard to believe that's over 3 tanker loads not a hope that either refueling companies could handle that.
And dispose of it.