Boeing down in India

Possible but very highly unlikely…every truck load in and out of every storage tank is tested, and it may have changed but when I was flying almost every load on the plane has a small sample pulled to check for contaminants.

There is a sump drain on the lowest point of each fuel tank. After refueling, the ground crew is supposed to do a sump check.

Typically, using a quart bottle on the drain tool, you'll get only a couple of tablespoons of water.
Actual contaminated fuel is super unlikely due to all of the pre-filtering in the distribution system.

Small amounts of water will just burn right off. The reason to remove any H2O is actually to prevent mold growth in the fuel tanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Eunozs
Can actually increase thrust in some cases.. I’m old enough to have 750 hours on the KC-135A with water injection for takeoff! LoL

I have probably that many hours fixing that fucked up system.

I did love watching them take off. You could see exactly when the water ran out. The plane would drop a visible amount and then the engine exhaust would be visible.

I was sitting up front with the crew on a departure from Fallon NAS.
White top, tail number 0262, fully loaded. Water tank topped off to overflow, and an outside temp near 100°.
We used every bit of that runway getting off the ground.

I guess all of our R models were busy doing R model things that day.


I never understood why certain crews would start the pumps before making the turn.
Made a lot more sense to get the engines into spool up to get the most out of that 670 gallons.

Edti: changed 370 to 670 gallons.
370 is for a fighter external fuel tank.
Sue me. It's been a couple decades. 😁
 
Last edited:
There is a sump drain on the lowest point of each fuel tank. After refueling, the ground crew is supposed to do a sump check.

Typically, using a quart bottle on the drain tool, you'll get only a couple of tablespoons of water.
Actual contaminated fuel is super unlikely due to all of the pre-filtering in the distribution system.

Small amounts of water will just burn right off. The reason to remove any H2O is actually to prevent mold growth in the fuel tanks.
Not sure if your referring to military or civilian procedures but we do not do this after every refuel.
 
Military.
Probably due to the limited amount of ground time, your aircraft most likely don't sweat up inside the tanks.
You don’t do it straight after refuel as you need to leave time for the water to settle in the bottom of the tanks.
Boeing say you need to wait 4hrs after refuelling, or running the fuel pumps before doing fuel drains.

However large amounts of water isn’t usually an issue these days as all the newer aircraft have jet pumps that pull fuel out of the lowest part of the tank. I can’t remember how much unusable fuel is usually in each tank, but without these pumps (not really a pump, just a Venturi from the normal pumps) water does definitely collect and need the sump drains done daily.
 
You don’t do it straight after refuel as you need to leave time for the water to settle in the bottom of the tanks.
Boeing say you need to wait 4hrs after refuelling, or running the fuel pumps before doing fuel drains.

However large amounts of water isn’t usually an issue these days as all the newer aircraft have jet pumps that pull fuel out of the lowest part of the tank. I can’t remember how much unusable fuel is usually in each tank, but without these pumps (not really a pump, just a Venturi from the normal pumps) water does definitely collect and need the sump drains done daily.

The C-130 used jet pumps (venturi pumps) from the main boost pumps to pick up low areas and keep the sump box as full as possible.
F-16 uses little turbine pumps in the wings. They are powered by the boost pumps.
The F-15 didn't use any.
The 707/C-135 didn't use any extra scavenge type pumps.
The B-1B had a smaller scavenge pump at each wing tip and one in the Weapons bay tank. Transfer pumps were mounted at the aft end of each fuel tank since it flies slightly nose up
None on the H-53.


All of the aircraft were designed to allow suction feed in case of any primary boost pump failure. Then there's the crossfeed/crossover system which allows feeding any/all engines from the crossfeed manifold.



I don't doubt the civilian aircraft are much like this since the fuel systems operate on a lot of similar principles
 
The C-130 used jet pumps (venturi pumps) from the main boost pumps to pick up low areas and keep the sump box as full as possible.
F-16 uses little turbine pumps in the wings. They are powered by the boost pumps.
The F-15 didn't use any.
The 707/C-135 didn't use any extra scavenge type pumps.
The B-1B had a smaller scavenge pump at each wing tip and one in the Weapons bay tank. Transfer pumps were mounted at the aft end of each fuel tank since it flies slightly nose up
None on the H-53.


All of the aircraft were designed to allow suction feed in case of any primary boost pump failure. Then there's the crossfeed/crossover system which allows feeding any/all engines from the crossfeed manifold.



I don't doubt the civilian aircraft are much like this since the fuel systems operate on a lot of similar principles
Gravity feed is required for certification as the engines must be able to continue operating if a total electrical failure occurs.
 
I'm guessing the Indian's asked the NTSB to take the lead. Boeing is a party to the investigation. Boeing cant say shit as a party to the investigation lest they be kicked off the investigation...

So you wont hear a peep from Boeing on this...
And whatever they would say could only be critical of the crew, or negatively affect Boeing share price.
 
thats a very bold statement seeing as how nobody knows what happened...
If it was an aircraft fault, Boeing stands to lose a lot. If it was a crew/maintenance fault, India ends up looking like a 3rd world shit hole. Sure, it could have been some incredibly rare occurrence that no one could possibly have predicted, but as a guy doing this job, you know for a fact it is almost always an error by operators or an equipment fault.