flying 'n' fuel bottles
John Summerfield
Anyone have any suggestions for what to do about the restriction of
flying with fuel bottles that have been used? Is there a way to get
around this by some kind of cleaning? Seems nuts to have to buy new
bottles for a trip and throw them away before you board the plane for
the return hop. I appreciate any input.
John
--
*********************************************************************
John Summerfield - Host & Producer;
"THE GREAT OUTDOORSMAN" outdoor adventure TV series
Backpacking/Climbing/Kayaking/Canoeing/Cycling/Spelunking/Camping/etc.
Web Site - http://www.mgl.ca/~johnsumm/index.html
*********************************************************************
Michael Kisor
> Anyone have any suggestions for what to do about the restriction of
> flying with fuel bottles that have been used?
If you're talking about fuel bottles that have been used for white gas,
empty it out and let it dry, then carry it in some luggage other than
your backpack. Alternatively, fill it with lemonade or some other
beverage (but don't drink the beverage, dump it).
--
*************************************************************
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly,
and I did. I said I didn't know." -- Mark Twain
*************************************************************
Joe Petolino
>So wash your bottles out and put something in them to mask the white
>gas smell and pack your pump seperately so you don't have to buy a
>new one of those too.
If there's enough gasoline left that you have to "mask" the smell, I'd
question whether it's really safe to fly with it. I've found an easy way to
clean out the residual fuel: just rinse out the bottle (and its cap) with an
ounce or two of acetone (available at hardware stores) and let it dry open
to the air. Acetone is more volatile than gasoline, so it will quickly
evaporate given a little air circulation, leaving the inside of the bottle
smelling like new. Of course, this leaves you with the problem of finding
some acetone to clean your bottles when you're ready to fly home - please
don't bring any with you on the airplane, since it's just as dangerous and
illegal to fly with as gasoline.
Included below is some info about this subject.
-Joe
---------------
Backpacking by Plane: Transporting Fuel and Stoves
Important information you should know before you go - from the American
Hiking Society
For information contact: Sally Grimes (301) 565-6704
[Image]
For many hikers, an eagerly anticipated trip along a quiet trail does not
begin at the trailhead. It starts at the gate to an airplane. Unfortunately,
thats also where many trips end. While checking in, some hikers are dismayed
to find their camping stove and fuel confiscated by airline personnel.
According to Jennifer Antonielli of the US Department of Transportations
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, the stoves are confiscated because
they use kerosene, butane or propane. [These materials] pose a serious
hazard, especially by air, because theyre under pressure and they are
flammable materials, Antonielli explained. If this is true, then why aren't
all hikers encountering this same barrier to their hiking trips at each of
the various airlines inspection stations?
[PATC Pagemaster Note: It should be noted that confiscations are occuring
for ALL types of backpacking stoves, including those that use "white"
gasoline or Coleman fuel. A.H.]
American Hiking Society has discovered the main reason for the contradiction
is that each airline has its own policy regarding what can and cannot be
carried on an airplane. Some airlines are more hiker-friendly, while others
adhere to stricter rules and policy. To add to the confusion, official
Federal Aviation Association (FAA) regulation contradicts many airline
policies.
The FAA sets the standards for all airlines, but these guidelines reflect
only the minimum requirement that airlines must follow. Individual airlines
can add stricter regulations at their own discretion.
According to Christopher Glasow, a hazardous materials specialist with FAA,
carrying a properly purged camping stove by air is not a problem, and a
hiker can transport it either by cargo or carry-on. Glasow noted, "There is
nothing in the regulations that indicates that a properly purged stove is a
hazardous material--its like an article of clothing."
By purging, you will eliminate the flammable hazard of the camping fuel. To
do this, simply empty and expose the equipment to air and sunlight for
several hours.
However, carrying fuel on an airplane is considered much more hazardous and
faces greater scrutiny. Glasow explained hikers should take steps to ensure
their fuel is transported properly. First, find out what type of fuel is
being transported. Next, call the airline to learn what its regulations are.
If the airline allows fuel to be transported, the fuel must be packaged and
marked according to that airlines regulations, and accompanied by the
appropriate shipping papers. If a hiker misses a single regulation, even if
airline personnel forgets to mention it, the hiker can be liable for up to
$25,000. This penalty also will apply if a hiker packs the fuel in a
suitcase and the fuel is discovered by aircraft personnel.
Although it is not illegal to transport the fuel, Glasow recommended hikers
buy fuel at their destination. Glasow added, The regulations are so complex,
its safer than putting yourself at risk for the large fines. American Hiking
agrees with Glasow, and recommends that hikers wait to purchase fuel until
they get off the plane. If a hiker is determined to transport fuel or wants
to attain more detailed information about the associated regulations, call
the FAA Hazardous Materials office at (202) 267-3130, and refer to Title 49
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The following table summarizes various airlines stove and fuel
transportation policies as of October, 1995. While official FAA policy does
allow fuel to be transported, American Hiking could not find an airline that
permits it. Therefore, American Hiking classified airlines into three groups
based only on their policies concerning the transportation of stoves and
empty fuel containers. When reading the information in the table, note that
transporting by cargo is the same as checking in luggage; sending air
freight involves making a separate reservation for the stove and fuel
container. Based on this criteria and current policies, airlines were
designated into one of three groups: "Pro"-Hiker, "Moderate" Hiker and
"Anti"-Hiker.
Pro-Hiker
DELTA AIRLINES/ VALUJET
Stoves and empty fuel containers properly purged of residual fuels may be
transported via carry-on or in the cargo chamber.
US AIR
Stoves, lanterns and empty fuel containers properly purged of residual fuels
are generally permissible aboard passenger flights, but will travel as
luggage in the belly of aircraft. Equipment is subject to inspection and
assessment at check-in station, and ultimate authority rests with aircraft
personnel.
ALASKA AIRLINES
Properly purged fuel containers and stoves are accommodated on passenger
flights as carry-on luggage or cargo. Ultimate authority rests with
inspection agent.
TRANS-WORLD AIRLINES
Properly purged fuel containers and camping stoves must be transported with
luggage in cargo area. Equipment may also be sent ahead air freight, but the
fare is not cost effective.
Moderate Hiker
UNITED AIRLINES
Stoves properly purged of fuel residue are acceptable carry-on luggage. Used
fuel tanks, without exception, must be shipped separately by freight; those
attached to the stoves must be detached. Shipping empty fuel tanks will run
upwards from $30 depending on size, weight and destination.
Anti-Hiker
CONTINENTAL/ NORTHWEST/ SOUTHWEST
These airlines will fly used stoves and empty fuel containers only by
freight at a minimum cost of $31.88. Northwest will allow new and unused
stoves to be transported via carry-on.
AMERICAN AIRLINES
Stove and fuel containers will both be accommodated if new and unused,
otherwise they must be sent by Express Air. You must call the product
manufacturer to receive packaging instructions and the UN number, which
classifies the equipment and the fuels. Express Air flight costs at a
minimum $30, depending on weight, size and destination.
CANADIAN AIRLINES
This airline will transport new and unused stoves and fuel containers. Used
equipment is transported as dangerous goods. A dangerous goods agent must be
hired to handle paperwork and packaging of materials. Such a process is both
exhaustive and expensive.
Always double-check airline policy and restrictions before committing to an
airline! Keep in mind that the inspection station attendant servicing each
airline has final authority over what goes on the plane, and this may vary
from the airlines official policy.
American Hiking Society will continually update and make available in print
or on-line this and other fact sheets. For more information on American
Hiking projects or memberhship in AHS, call or write: American Hiking
Society, P.O. Box 20160, Washington DC, 20041 (301) 565-6704 or visit AHSs
National Trail Information Center by entering AOL and typing keyword AHS.
[PATC Pagemasters Note: AHS is currently working on an official Web site for
their organization. The AOL information will be posted to the Web when the
page is ready. PATC will add a link to the new "official" AHS site when it
is available. A.H.]
[Image]
[Image] Home Page
Chris Gorzek
Ayse Sercan wrote:
>
> John Summerfield <john...@mgl.ca> wrote:
> >Anyone have any suggestions for what to do about the restriction of
> >around this by some kind of cleaning? Seems nuts to have to buy new
> >bottles for a trip and throw them away before you board the plane for
> >the return hop. I appreciate any input.
>
> sufficient to ensure the safety of the bottles):
>
> Before leaving for the trip, I very thoroughly wash out the bottles before
> packing (ObGadget: a good bottle brush is worth a million sponges),
> rinsing really well, drying thoroughly, and making sure that it doesn't
> smell like fuel at all. With MSR bottles, this is trivially easy,
> provided you have lots of detergent. I pack them open.
>
> I basically do the same thing in the airport bathroom before leaving,
> although the careful and thorough drying has to wait until I get home. I
> make sure the bottles smell somewhat soapy, too, although that's probably
> unnecessary, as I've never had anybody sniff them out. They're packed,
> once again, open.
>
> I've heard varying rumours that I shouldn't be washing the bottles, but
> they've always worked just fine afterwards (as long as they're dry).
> They're aluminum so they don't rust, and I'm sure not intending to drink
> from them, so I don't see the danger.
>
> I've thought of washing them out and packing them filled with water in my
> carry-on, but then I'd have a drying period after getting off the plane,
> which would be fine on the return trip but not so fun on the arrival.
>
> I should note that for my Big Trip this summer (coming up soon - yay!),
> I've bought new bottles, which I will most likely abandon before flying
> back, because I'm flying internationally *and* on a foreign airline, and
> don't see any reason to push it, even if they did approve my packing
> methods.
>
> --
> ****** ay...@netcom.com ******
> "I don't care how well it's built; if you don't have the
> drainage you've got nothing"
I just went though this on my trip. Two years ago on a trip we
stuck our fuel bottle (no fuel) in our backpack and was never asked
about it. A couple weeks ago on our flight out they asked us about
it and we were caught un prepared. They wouldn't let us take our
fuel bottle or pump even though the bottle was dried out they could
still smell the fuel so they wouldn't let it go. They wouldn't let
me wash it out at the airport either. (Had to buy a new
pump and bottle when we got to Jackson.) On our way back I washed
our new bottle out and left some dish soap in it, to mask the white
gas smell, and packed the pump seperately. We weren't even asked
about it.
So wash your bottles out and put something in them to mask the white
gas smell and pack your pump seperately so you don't have to buy a
new one of those too.
Chris
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Christopher T. Gorzek Cray Research Inc.
gor...@cray.com 900 Lowater Rd.
715-726-5337 Chippewa Falls, WI
Fax: 715-726-4345 54729-0078
---------------------------------------------------------
Pete Hickey
In article <31F58F...@mgl.ca>, John Summerfield <john...@mgl.ca> wrote:
>Anyone have any suggestions for what to do about the restriction of
>flying with fuel bottles that have been used? Is there a way to get
>around this by some kind of cleaning? Seems nuts to have to buy new
>bottles for a trip and throw them away before you board the plane for
>the return hop. I appreciate any input.
>
open it and take a good drink. Even if there would
be some residual gas to give it some extra flavour, it would
be no worse than the occational taste you get in the
mouth when starting a syphon.
-Pete
--
Pete Hickey | |
Communication Services | Pe...@mudhead.uottawa.CA | "Take off your shoes....
University of Ottawa | | .... for industry!"
Ottawa,Ont. Canada K1N 6N5| (613) 562-5800x1008 |
Michael Kisor
> On our way back I washed
> our new bottle out and left some dish soap in it,
Um, there should be no white gas smell! All i've EVER done is let my
open bottle stand upside down in the sun for an hour or so. No smell
at all. No washing, no soap. If it has a smell, it's not safe.
Period.
Cathrin Muller
> So wash your bottles out and put something in them to mask the white
> gas smell and pack your pump seperately so you don't have to buy a
> new one of those too.
>
> Chris
>
> --
>
Are you supposed to pretend that your fuel bottles are actually drinking
bottles and the pump has nothing to do with it? Just because they are
not allowed on the planes by definition?
Or could a smelling but empty and dry fuel bottle be a danger?
Cathrin.
David B. Rogers
John Summerfield wrote:
>
> Anyone have any suggestions for what to do about the restriction of
> flying with fuel bottles that have been used? Is there a way to get
> around this by some kind of cleaning? Seems nuts to have to buy new
> bottles for a trip and throw them away before you board the plane for
> the return hop. I appreciate any input.
>
Rock and Ice #72 has a stove review, which also discusses flying
with stoves and fuel. It lists airlines in terms of realism/bullshit
on this topic.
I called Delta (one of the best) before my recent trip and they
said as long as bottles/stove were dry and empty, no problem!
Another bit of advice: never fly with a backpack! Put it in a duffel
bag (I have the Outdoor one). This hides the fact that it's a backpack,
protects the straps, and obviates the need for an examination of your
luggage. I have an internal frame pack; this might be harder with
a frame pack.
Finally, check your stuff at the sidewalk rather than the counter,
and you may be less likely to have things scrutinized.
Most of these tips came from this newsgroup or Backpacker Mag,
which had an article on it in the last year.
--
Banana Slug Home Page:
http://www.iuma.com/slugweb/slug_home_page.html
David Rogers
Ayse Sercan
John Summerfield <john...@mgl.ca> wrote:
>Anyone have any suggestions for what to do about the restriction of
>flying with fuel bottles that have been used? Is there a way to get
>around this by some kind of cleaning? Seems nuts to have to buy new
>bottles for a trip and throw them away before you board the plane for
>the return hop. I appreciate any input.
Here's what I do (which has not yet gotten me in trouble, and should be
Linda Stocks
> In <4t7uj7$1j...@news.doit.wisc.edu> ewh...@ssc.wisc.edu (Eric White)
> writes:
> >
> >Far be it from me to advocate breaking the law, but it's not like your
> >luggage is too likely to be inspected before it's heaved into cargo. Put
> >your stove and fuel in the luggage of your choice and get on with it.
I heard on the news this morning that President Clinton is ordering an
increase in security at all airports...including the x-raying of all
luggage. I wonder what a metal fuel bottle in your suitcase will make
them think of???
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Linda Stocks | My opinions are may own, but I |
| AA6MR | tend to give them away to anyone |
| | who fails to flee fast enough. |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric White
In article <31F6BE...@magicpubs.com>, hik...@magicpubs.com says...
>
>> On our way back I washed
>> our new bottle out and left some dish soap in it,
>> to mask the white gas smell...
>
>Um, there should be no white gas smell! All i've EVER done is let my
>open bottle stand upside down in the sun for an hour or so. No smell
>at all. No washing, no soap. If it has a smell, it's not safe.
>Period.
Ok, maybe this thread doesn't need to continue, but I can't resist.
Can someone please explain just where the imminent danger lies in
flying with an empty fuel bottle (or even a full one for that matter)?
Is it going to spontaneously combust? What about aerosol cans?
Far be it from me to advocate breaking the law, but it's not like your
luggage is too likely to be inspected before it's heaved into cargo. Put
your stove and fuel in the luggage of your choice and get on with it.
>
>--
>
>*************************************************************
> "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly,
> and I did. I said I didn't know." -- Mark Twain
>*************************************************************
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric White ewh...@ssc.wisc.edu
Eugene N. Miya
>>flying with an empty fuel bottle (or even a full one for that matter)?
>>Is it going to spontaneously combust? What about aerosol cans?
>>
>>Far be it from me to advocate breaking the law, but it's not like your
>>luggage is too likely to be inspected before it's heaved into cargo. Put
>>your stove and fuel in the luggage of your choice and get on with it.
The FAA is in fact at this moment considering measures of
complete luggage inspection like other countries which have 2-3 hour
check-in periods.
Are you also the type to joke about hijacking airplane while on board them?
In article <4t8cuf$3...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> ml...@ix.netcom.com
(Martha L. Gay) writes:
>Can you spell V A L U E J E T ???
>
>There shouldn't be any sources of ignition in luggage, but there's
>always things like static electricity. Mixtures of fuel and air (such
>as an empty fuel bottle with some remaining odor) are especially
>dangerous, since they are often (depends on the precise proportions of
>air and fuel) not merely combustible, but explosive.
I never saw a Valuejet until I left Kennedy two months ago. Glad we
don't have them out here.
The story of fuel-air mixing ratios is a very interesting one.
Ben Whorf helped start certain aspects of modern linguistics because of
the assumptions made by certain workers connoting FULL-> danger, EMPTY-> safe.
I wonder what new generations will learn from this failure in reasoning.
You should get Whorf's book (to Dave Mann) at the MIT Press bookstore.
*BOOM*!
Douglas Murray
>flying with an empty fuel bottle (or even a full one for that matter)?
>Is it going to spontaneously combust? What about aerosol cans?
>
>Far be it from me to advocate breaking the law, but it's not like your
>luggage is too likely to be inspected before it's heaved into cargo.
Put
>your stove and fuel in the luggage of your choice and get on with it.
>
is no joke. Luggage can be dropped and containers damaged. Leaks can
lead to fires or explosions. Most aircraft do not have fire
suppression equipment in the cargo holds. For many years I traveled
with a pack of matches in my suitcase until one trip back from Taiwan
when I opened my bag to find the matches had ignited and burned some of
the clothing in transit. Luckily, no aerosol deoderant in the bag. A
fire over the mid-Pacific would have been pretty grim.
Pls. just get fuel when you arrive at your destination and don't take
stupid risks with your life or mine.
Doug M
George R Crawford
In article <Pine.SUN.3.90.96072...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Linda Stocks <li...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> writes:
>I heard on the news this morning that President Clinton is ordering an
>increase in security at all airports...including the x-raying of all
Speaking of Clinton did any one hear about the trees, some up to 200 years
old, he had cut down to improve a 5 min photo op during the 4th of July?
Crawdad
Diana
George R Crawford wrote:
> Speaking of Clinton did any one hear about the trees, some up to 200 years
> old, he had cut down to improve a 5 min photo op during the 4th of July?
he also signed some document to turn roosevelt island into an amusement park.
bastard.
the way to piss me off: cut down trees and build stupid touristy crap!
--
Diana ^(raven)^
http://www.geckoworld.com/~raven
ra...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
David Paul
ewh...@ssc.wisc.edu (Eric White) writes:
>In article <31F6BE...@magicpubs.com>, hik...@magicpubs.com says...
>Ok, maybe this thread doesn't need to continue, but I can't resist.
>Can someone please explain just where the imminent danger lies in
>flying with an empty fuel bottle (or even a full one for that matter)?
>Is it going to spontaneously combust? What about aerosol cans?
There is no danger from a clean, "empty" fuel container. Problem is, some
people don't clean them thoroughly, and the airline doesn't want to deal with
educating the public. Then there's the issue of airport security. Totally
out of the airline's control and staffed, in many cases, by vastly under-paid,
and poorly trained people.
A fuel bottle full of vapor is a potential bomb. Planes are frequently hit by
lightning, and static electricity (St. Elmo's fire) is also a potential
ignition source. A full bottle can also leak if the cap is not on tight, or,
if the o-ring is worn or nicked. It may seal perfectly well on the ground,
then leak as the pressure outside the canister decreases at high altitude.
Aerosol cans are not as dangerous, as there is no oxygen inside of the
cannister. But I suppose if they contained a flamable substance then there
could be a danger if they leaked. This can be minimized by keeping the cap on
the can.
I'm not sure what the airlines policy on aerosol cans containing flamable
stuff is. It's certainly a question worth asking.
Martha L. Gay
>
>
>Ok, maybe this thread doesn't need to continue, but I can't resist.
>Can someone please explain just where the imminent danger lies in
>flying with an empty fuel bottle (or even a full one for that matter)?
>Is it going to spontaneously combust? What about aerosol cans?
>
>Far be it from me to advocate breaking the law, but it's not like your
>luggage is too likely to be inspected before it's heaved into cargo. Put
>your stove and fuel in the luggage of your choice and get on with it.
>
Can you spell V A L U E J E T ???
There shouldn't be any sources of ignition in luggage, but there's
always things like static electricity. Mixtures of fuel and air (such
as an empty fuel bottle with some remaining odor) are especially
dangerous, since they are often (depends on the precise proportions of
air and fuel) not merely combustible, but explosive.
It's just not worth the risk.
Michael E Fye
> >> our new bottle out and left some dish soap in it,
> >> to mask the white gas smell...
> >
> >Um, there should be no white gas smell! All i've EVER done is let my
> >open bottle stand upside down in the sun for an hour or so. No smell
> >at all. No washing, no soap. If it has a smell, it's not safe.
> >Period.
>
> Can someone please explain just where the imminent danger lies in
> flying with an empty fuel bottle (or even a full one for that matter)?
> Is it going to spontaneously combust? What about aerosol cans?
>
> Far be it from me to advocate breaking the law, but it's not like your
> luggage is too likely to be inspected before it's heaved into cargo. Put
> your stove and fuel in the luggage of your choice and get on with it.
>
> >
> >
> >*************************************************************
> > "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly,
> > and I did. I said I didn't know." -- Mark Twain
> >*************************************************************
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Eric White ewh...@ssc.wisc.edu
With the new inspections brought about by the government response to the
bombing of the plane off LI, NY... you go ahead with your full fuel
bottle. You pay the consequences - fines? Just keep off any flights I'm
on. Have a nice day!
Empty makes sense. You can get fuel almost anywhere, I have. If you're
going somewhere where you can't get Coleman (white gas, spirits, etc.),
you have the wrong stove for third world walkabouts.
Frank Wentz
ref. <<< flying fuel bottles >>>>
I told the truth to United on a flight from saint louis to denver three weeks
ago when asked if i had fuel bottles or stoves.
(my baggage looked like backpacking stuff) The guy made me pull them out and
sniffed them!!! the first one smelled like fuel ( i had not let it it air
out enough, only two days, and had not washed it out). I had to leave the
bottles behind.
Here's the good part: when returning and picking them up in st louis, when I
told the guy that i might just not admit that I had such stuff in my luggage
next time, he replied "if they find out that flight 800 was bombed, they
would be going to code 4 ( some such thing) and that you would be recorded
when questioned and that if caught in a lie would never fly again!"
moral, Wash them good and fill them with kool aid, buy bottles that are not
bright red with and say fuel all over them!
the hikin deacin
Paul R Kennedy
John Summerfield <john...@mgl.ca> wrote:
>Anyone have any suggestions for what to do about the restriction of
>flying with fuel bottles that have been used? Is there a way to get
>around this by some kind of cleaning? Seems nuts to have to buy new
>bottles for a trip and throw them away before you board the plane for
>the return hop. I appreciate any input.
>
the authorities may become more strict - however in the past I have
done the following: I have emptied out my fuel bottles the night
before and rinsed them in hot water (no soap). Then I let them air dry
with the cap off. When I packed them in my suitcase I put them in with
the cap removed. This way it is just an empty metal bottle. There is no
way an empty, clean and dry bottle (without the cap) could be (or be
seen) as any danger.
The onlt problem I can see is that the authorities don't know me from
the next guy and the next guy might not be as careful. But thus far I
haven't had a problem.
Cheers
Paul
Dana Dickson
Eric White wrote:
> <snip>
It's just that I've yet to hear a good explanation for the
> "no fuel bottle policy." Ok, ignore the full fuel bottle remark. I can
> accept that that might not be a good idea. But, as far as empty bottles go,
> my confusion is compounded by the different airlines' policies. According to
> the FAA "properly purged" stoves and bottles are perfectly legal to fly, but
> not all airlines have this policy. The American Hiking Society says some
> airlines will allow stoves and bottles to be flown only cargo (at additional
> cost to the customer).
>
> >The story of fuel-air mixing ratios is a very interesting one.<snip>
> So, are you saying that a "properly purged" bottle is not safe?
>
> Is this bad advice?
First, I do not work for an airline or the FAA. However, I do work in
safety engineering. I will try to provide some professional insight into why
the variation in airline rules exists.
First, the FAA regulations define a minimum standard that the airlines must
meet when transporting hazardous materials. The individual carriers and in
fact the individual airplane captains are free to set higher standards as
they see fit.
Second, when a fuel bottle contains vapors within the combustible range it is
hazardous, arguably as or more hazardous than a full fuel bottle.
Third, no where in the regulations does it specify what consititutes a
"properly purged" bottle.
There are, however, other standards of good practice that could be applied to
this situation. One such standard practice is to consider airborne
concentrations of flammable vapors below 1/10 the lower explosive limit (LEL)
to be safe. There are detailed technical definitions of LEL, for purposes of
discussion, just consider it to be the minimum airborne concentration of
vapors that will burn.
If an airline operator were to accept this definition of properly purged the
question becomes how to test for acceptable levels of vapor. Instrumentation
is available, however the cost of purchasing, calibrating and maintaining it
is considerable, especially when the number of locations is considered.
A far less expensive alternative is to refuse to carry fuel bottles that
smell like fuel. The instrumentation is inexpensive, e.g. the agent's nose,
the odor threshold for fuels is below the LEL, and the test is a simple go no
-go test.
For all I know there may be other logic processes going on or the decision be
made on the basis of blind faith. At any rate I can devise a technically
defensible if not politically defensible basis for both an outright ban on
used fuel containers and the variations in policy between the airlines.
I hope this helps
Dana Dickson
Pete Hickey
In article <4t7uj7$1j...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
Eric White <ewh...@ssc.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>Ok, maybe this thread doesn't need to continue, but I can't resist.
>Can someone please explain just where the imminent danger lies in
>flying with an empty fuel bottle (or even a full one for that matter)?
>Is it going to spontaneously combust? What about aerosol cans?
>
OK, it wasn't a fuel bottle, it was an automobile gas tank.
a '65 Nova I think. The tank had a leak. We removed it,
emptied it, and let it sit in the sun a few days. We washed
it out and rinced it with water quite a few times, and let it
sit in the sun to dry. Finally, it was time to solder the hole.
BOOM!!!!
It half burned my eyebrows off.
The next day, I figured that, having blown up once, there
was nothing left to blow. I then started to solder the
(now slightly larger) hole.
BOOM!!!! Again.
Most of the eyebrows I had left were gone then.
I know this is anecdotal, but I for one learned about how
volatile an empty container can be.
I finally did solder it by doing the soldering while the tank
was filled with water. If the container is filled with water,
it doesn't go BOOM.
-Pete
P.S. Yes, I know a gas tank is not the same as an MSR bottle.
Eric White
In article <4t8rbb$5...@onramp.arc.nasa.gov>, eug...@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov
says...
>>>flying with an empty fuel bottle (or even a full one for that matter)?
>>>Is it going to spontaneously combust? What about aerosol cans?
>>>
>>>luggage is too likely to be inspected before it's heaved into cargo. Put
>>>your stove and fuel in the luggage of your choice and get on with it.
>
>complete luggage inspection like other countries which have 2-3 hour
>check-in periods.
>
>Are you also the type to joke about hijacking airplane while on board them?
Not at all. It's just that I've yet to hear a good explanation for the
"no fuel bottle policy." Ok, ignore the full fuel bottle remark. I can
accept that that might not be a good idea. But, as far as empty bottles go,
my confusion is compounded by the different airlines' policies. According to
the FAA "properly purged" stoves and bottles are perfectly legal to fly, but
not all airlines have this policy. The American Hiking Society says some
airlines will allow stoves and bottles to be flown only cargo (at additional
cost to the customer).
>The story of fuel-air mixing ratios is a very interesting one.
>Ben Whorf helped start certain aspects of modern linguistics because of
>the assumptions made by certain workers connoting FULL-> danger, EMPTY->
>safe.
>
>I wonder what new generations will learn from this failure in reasoning.
>You should get Whorf's book (to Dave Mann) at the MIT Press bookstore.
>
>*BOOM*!
So, are you saying that a "properly purged" bottle is not safe?
Is this bad advice? Properly purge your stove and bottles, put your stove and
bottle in the luggage of your choice and get on with it.
I'm not trying to be inflammatory (thank you very much), just looking for
answers.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric White ewh...@ssc.wisc.edu
UW Survey Center phone: 608-265-4066
University of Wisconsin - Madison http://www.wisc.edu/uwsc/
Scott Linn
Joe Petolino (peto...@joe.Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
: Acetone is more volatile than gasoline, so it will quickly
: evaporate given a little air circulation, leaving the inside of the bottle
: smelling like new. Of course, this leaves you with the problem of finding
: some acetone to clean your bottles when you're ready to fly home - please
: don't bring any with you on the airplane, since it's just as dangerous and
: illegal to fly with as gasoline.
Illegal?
Many women carry this as nail polish remover in their luggage. Not to mention
the nail polish itself.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Scott Linn
CMOS IC Design Engineer
Hewlett-Packard Integrated Circuits Business Division - Corvallis, OR
e-mail: sc...@cv.hp.com phone: (541)715-4033 fax: (541)715-2145
________________________________________________________________________
Don Chambers
United recently told me if the bottle had ever had fuel in it, I could
not take it, and there are no acceptable cleaning methods.
Dale Towert
Don Chambers <donc...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>United recently told me if the bottle had ever had fuel in it, I could
>not take it, and there are no acceptable cleaning methods.
I would just love to know how they are going to know....
H Skle
gee, now i'm afraid of carrying aftershave. in glass, no less.
Saruman
On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:52:08 -0400, John Summerfield <john...@mgl.ca>
wrote:
>Anyone have any suggestions for what to do about the restriction of
>flying with fuel bottles that have been used? Is there a way to get
>around this by some kind of cleaning? Seems nuts to have to buy new
>bottles for a trip and throw them away before you board the plane for
>the return hop. I appreciate any input.
>
>John
There's a lot of posts in this thread on what do do or not to do.
The one thing you should glean from all of these posts, is that you'd
better check with the airline you're flying on, far enough in advance so
that they have time to research your request.
And get the name of the person you talked to; the gate agent will very
likely have to verify what you tell them.
What the *law* says (no hazardous material) and how the airline or gate
agent interprets that may be very different things.
R
Shaun Patrick Darragh
vul...@global.co.za (Dale Towert) wrote:
>Don Chambers <donc...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
Ummmm...Xray? They would probably believe that any fuel bottle had
been used before. I certainly would...
Shaun
Dale Towert
Radagast <Rada...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Dale Towert wrote:
>>
>> Don Chambers <donc...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>>
>> >United recently told me if the bottle had ever had fuel in it, I could
>> >not take it, and there are no acceptable cleaning methods.
>>
>> I would just love to know how they are going to know....
>Chances are they won't.
>But if one of the gorillas busts your bag by accident, it's worth 5
>years and $25,000.
>I'd rather buy a new fuel bottle...
Fair enough, but what I meant was how are they going to know if the
bottle has ever had fuel in it? White gas (Benzine) evaporates
completely, leaving no smell whatsoever. Thus, not only is the empty
fuel bottle 100% safe, but only lab testing could reveal if the bottle
had ever had fuel in it before. And even then, you could argue that
the bottle had been cleaned after manufacture with a similar solvent.
Bill Cassady
> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:16:52 -0800
> From: Don Chambers <donc...@mail.idt.net>
Do> United recently told me if the bottle had ever had fuel in it, I could
Do> not take it, and there are no acceptable cleaning methods.
Pigheaded. Takes after Clinton; didn't inhale. If he had he would be
polluted forever.
A couple problems. The big one is how can they tell?
It's full of tomato juice now.
Besides - as the Greek tells us, you can't step in the same river twice.
So it's never the same bottle.
-Bill
* There's no fuel like an old fuel *
---
ş Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ş
Dave Blackmon
In general re: fuel bottles and commercial aircraft, I believe there was
a plane that was forced into making an unscheduled landing due to a
leaking fuel bottle (it could have have been propane) this past week. The
news story said it was a backpacking stove, it was a felony, and they
would seek prosecution.
FWIW,
Dave
--
Dave Blackmon | Climb a tree
P.O. Box 11783 | Reach for the sky
Tahoe Paradise, CA 96150 | Shoot for the moon
da...@sierra.net | -0
Paul R Kennedy
pe...@mudhead.uottawa.ca (Pete Hickey) wrote:
>Snip<
>OK, it wasn't a fuel bottle, it was an automobile gas tank.
>a '65 Nova I think. The tank had a leak. We removed it,
>emptied it, and let it sit in the sun a few days. We washed
>it out and rinced it with water quite a few times, and let it
>sit in the sun to dry. Finally, it was time to solder the hole.
>
>BOOM!!!!
>
>It half burned my eyebrows off.
>
>The next day, I figured that, having blown up once, there
>was nothing left to blow. I then started to solder the
>(now slightly larger) hole.
>
>BOOM!!!! Again.
Pete: Isn't this something they call "Natural Selection"?
Cheers
Paul|
Eugene Miya
In article <4tit81$e...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
Well, why it could be "artificial selection." 8^)
Ernie Patterson
I simply fill my fule bottles with water and put them in my pack when flying.
When I arrive I empty the bottles, wipe them out with tollet paper, and fill
them as soon as I can. I have never had any problems and the one time I was
asked, I said the bottles were filled with water and the airline people said
that was ok.
Ernie Patterson
Eugene N. Miya
As much as the explosive potential is in the news, I think planes carry
far more hazardous things quite legally in their cargo holds.
You practically never hear about them: biologically hazardous agents
(there is this presumption that burning wreckage would kill or contain
such samples), certain radioisotopes (fire doesn't stop those), and so
forth. And they don't all go on hazardous material flights.
Num...@marcb.vip.best.com
>>OK, it wasn't a fuel bottle, it was an automobile gas tank.
>>a '65 Nova I think. The tank had a leak. We removed it,
>>emptied it, and let it sit in the sun a few days. We washed
>>it out and rinced it with water quite a few times, and let it
>>sit in the sun to dry. Finally, it was time to solder the hole.
>Pete: Isn't this something they call "Natural Selection"?
Natural selection normally involves the death of the inadequate mutation. At the least there must be a failure for the mutation to procreate.
Hugh Grierson
In article <4tbblk$1s...@mercury.cc.uottawa.ca>, pe...@mudhead.uottawa.ca (Pete Hickey) wrote:
>P.S. Yes, I know a gas tank is not the same as an MSR bottle.
Close enough.
In any case the lesson is clear: a fuel bottle full of water can't explode.
And if the airline asks, it's a water bottle. Drinking from it should
convince them, and should also convince you to clean it well first!
Unfortunately that doesn't help Coleman (except Apex) nor propane/butane
users.
Bill Cassady
Whitney Potter
I guess things must have gotten tighter. Three or four years ago I
flew around the world (literally) on all kinds of carriers foreign
and domestic with a Whisperlite and fuel bottle (suitably washed) in
my checked pack. Never once was I questioned about it. I was
checked coming into New Zealand for dirt on my tent stakes, and
coming into Fiji because the customs guys were bored.
The thing to remember about airport check-in people is that if
they were the brightest people in the world, well. . . they probably
wouldn't be airport check-in people. I always put a cover on my
pack (more for protection than disguise) and that probably helps.
You could also consider MSR's new Nalgene fuel bottles for your
storage bottles if not your stove bottle.
Dana Dickson
An important statement that was left out of the above is that the items
in question are properly packaged and documented. The shippers of these
items face the same $25000 fine and 5yrs. in prison that the person
sneaking a fuel bottle on board faces.
Jitendra Vaidya
I hope you all know where to empty your fuel bottles before
flying.
If you have Coleman fuel, dump it in any car's gas tank.
If you are in the 3rd world, and are using kerosene, give
it to someone. Many folks have kerosene stoves or lamps.
Please don't dump fuel out.
Alicia Woodrow -jva...@netcom.com
Michael Kisor
Excellent advice Alicia!
Ken Pisichko
Every sheet metal shop that repairs gasoline tanks knows that you FILL
the tank with steam PRIOR to soldering the holes in a gasoline tank.
Something to do with the fuel/air ratio being too lean to support combusion.
Bill Cassady
Bill Cassady
<31F6BE...@magicpubs.com> <4t7uj7$1j...@news.doit.wisc.edu>
<4tbblk$1s...@mercury.cc.uottawa.ca><4tit81$e...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
Kp> <Pine.SUN.3.91.960731...@access.mbnet.mb.ca>
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:08:33 -0500
>From: Kp> Ken Pisichko <kpi...@MBnet.MB.CA>
Kp> Every sheet metal shop that repairs gasoline tanks knows that you FILL
Kp> the tank with steam PRIOR to soldering the holes in a gasoline tank.
My book says that step 3 is to fill the tank with inert gas.
If you don't have argon handy, a little dry ice should do the trick.
-Bill
Scott Linn
Radagast (Rada...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: There's an exception in Hazardous Materials Regulation (HMR) 175 for small quantities of
: "(m)edicinal and toilet articles carried by a crewmember or passenger in his baggage
: (including carry-on baggage)...
: See the current version of HMR 175.10(a)(4) for details; as of 15 Oct 93 the quantities
: were 2 KG or 2 liters (one-half kg for each container other than an aerosol container)
: per crewmember or passenger.
So it appears that multiple small fuel bottles of acetone or alcohol should
be legal, since these are cosmetic items. Up to 2 liters per passenger!
Glad I have an alcohol stove. :-)
Scott Linn
Radagast (Rada...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: >
: > So it appears that multiple small fuel bottles of acetone or alcohol should
: > be legal, since these are cosmetic items. Up to 2 liters per passenger!
: Except that liquid fuel bottles are specifically excluded.
And what is a plastic bottle of alcohol in a makeup kit?
Scott Linn
Radagast (Rada...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: > And what is a plastic bottle of alcohol in a makeup kit?
: >
: If you're going to get nitpicky, you need a lawyer. Really.
Hardly "nitpicky". If I have an over-the-counter plastic bottle of alcohol,
which is exactly the same as what a lot of women carry in their makeup kits,
which is allowed, then I don't see a problem. I'll even make a bet with you
about the "getting arrested" part.
Eugene N. Miya
Eugene N. Miya wrote:
>> far more hazardous things quite legally in their cargo holds.
In article <31FE22...@po7.ea.unisys.com>
Dana Dickson <Dic...@po7.ea.unisys.com> writes:
>An important statement that was left out of the above is that the items
>in question are properly packaged and documented. The shippers of these
>items face the same $25000 fine and 5yrs. in prison that the person
>sneaking a fuel bottle on board faces.
Right same laws.
However, many of the underlying assumptions (due in part to the
flammability of the plane) are questionable at best.
The general public rarely hears about these cargo (e.g. O2 generators).
David W. Olson
:Eugene N. Miya <4tjcjt$4...@onramp.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
:>> far more hazardous things quite legally in their cargo holds.
:In article <31FE22...@po7.ea.unisys.com>
:Dana Dickson <Dic...@po7.ea.unisys.com> writes:
:>An important statement that was left out of the above is that the items
:>in question are properly packaged and documented. The shippers of these
:>items face the same $25000 fine and 5yrs. in prison that the person
:>sneaking a fuel bottle on board faces.
In article <4u8f9i$m...@onramp.arc.nasa.gov> eug...@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
:Right same laws.
:However, many of the underlying assumptions (due in part to the
:flammability of the plane) are questionable at best.
:The general public rarely hears about these cargo (e.g. O2 generators).
The "properly packaged" that the regulations require means that the
hazardous material is safe to transport. For example, the radionuclides
used in cancer therapy are hazardous material. Putting the radionuclides
in a lead container is a first step necessary to safely transport it.
In the wake of the Valujet crash (believed caused by O2 generators being
transported, illegally, as cargo) the FAA and the public process is
rethinking the safe transport of hazardous substances on board flights.
I suspect that the regulations will become more severe and the readers
of rec.backcountry will have a harder time taking their stoves with
them on trips.
David Olson, my posting, my response
Charles Hayden
On 7 Aug 1996 22:33:48 GMT, dol...@den.mmc.com (David W. Olson) wrote:
>I suspect that the regulations will become more severe and the readers
>of rec.backcountry will have a harder time taking their stoves with
>them on trips.
>
It was with some trepidation that I set off for California on a
backpacking trip last month, only a few days after the crash off Long
Island.
My party was carrying two stoves and seven fuel bottles (empty). I
have adopted the strategy of packing everything in duffels to avoid
being questioned. I had seen many web pages and FAQs describing the
policies of airlines, and United in particular, and have had various
policies quoted to me over the years by United employees.
I figured the most likely situation was that fule bottles what had
ever contained fuel would be denied, but that stove parts in the
absence of fuel tanks would be allowed. My most pessimistic worry was
that even stove parts would be disallowed in the wake of two recent
crashes.
Well -- at Newark they asked me if the duffels had camping gear, and
when I said yes asked if I had a stove. They examined the stove (I
did not volunteer the empty fule bottles, which were being carried by
another party member). After taking it behind the wall, they came
back and let it pass. The other party members did not get questioned,
and so the other stove and empty bottles passed.
In Fresno (which gets a much higher proportion of travellers with
camping equipment, I would assume) they asked nothing about our
baggage, and we volunteered nothing. At that point the bottles had
been aired overnight, but still smelled of fuel. They were dry to the
touch, and packed without their caps, and I am quite sure of their
safety (a match held up to one would not light off anything). But
previously I had all my empty fuel bottles confiscated at Fresno, (at
$7.00 apiece, it can be expensive), so I was thankful that I made it
through. In between my departure and return, the bomb had exploded on
Atlanta, the Postal service decided to stop accepting parcels except
in person, and the country in general has gotten much more careful
(paranoid) about terrorism. I recognize this may be the last time I
get away without losing my bottles, my stoves, or both.
Michael McGuire
Scott Linn wrote:
>
> Radagast (Rada...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: >
: > So it appears that multiple small fuel bottles of acetone or alcohol should
: > be legal, since these are cosmetic items. Up to 2 liters per passenger!
: >
>: Except that liquid fuel bottles are specifically excluded.
: >
This of course includes the possibility of 2 liters worth of high proof quite
flammable booze, say 150--180 proof, in very breakable glass. Of course the
airlines do have their priorities in this matter--you can't drink from these
bottles while on board--you can only drink alcohol that the airline sells and
serves to you.
Mike
--
Michael McGuire Hewlett Packard Laboratories
Internet: mcg...@hpl.hp.com P.0. Box 10490 (1501 Page Mill Rd.)
Phone: (415)-857-5491 Palo Alto, CA 94303-0971
***************BE SURE TO DOUBLE CLUTCH WHEN YOU PARADIGM SHIFT.*************
Jeff Wilson
Hey everyone:
The idea on fuel and stoves is to limit the risk of a big bang in the
sky. As I dislike flying (correction, falling out of the sky) I
would appreciate if all you backswoods lawyers would wear patches on
yout flying clothes warning me that you have potential bombs in your
luggage.
I have a simple solution. Buy your fuel after you land. Either
switch to propane stoves when flying or clean out and blow dry your
stove tank.
Think safety first. Falling from 30,0000 makes such a mess on impact!
|Jeff Wilson jrwi...@nccn.net
|
|...... Seek harmony and balance in the mountains, find harmony and balance within.....
Paul M Blais
In message <4ul9mq$s...@news.gv.net> - jrwi...@gv.net (Jeff Wilson)Sun, 11
Aug 1996 18:39:35 GMT writes:
:>
:>Hey everyone:
:>
:>The idea on fuel and stoves is to limit the risk of a big bang in the
:>sky. As I dislike flying (correction, falling out of the sky) I
:>would appreciate if all you backswoods lawyers would wear patches on
:>yout flying clothes warning me that you have potential bombs in your
:>luggage.
Given that it is a FAA regulation NOT to carry fuel on the plane or in your
baggage whats your point.
//=========================================//
Paul M Blais - pbl...@visi.com - St Paul, MN
Jeff Wilson
Paul,
Part of the thread was a legalistic discussion of how to use the
regulations allowing minimal volumns of hydrocarbon based cosmetics to
circumvent the ban on carrying fuel on a plane. My point still is
that safety has to outweigh convenience.