Are carrier planes stowed fueled?
WarrenRing
One of the most "awesome" photos I have ever seen was in Life
Magazine, taken after the fire on the USS Forrestal. It showed a
bunch of sailors looking through a hole that had been punched in the
flight deck by an exploded bomb. The hole was 10 or 15 feet in
diameter, and the metal comprising the deck must have been a foot
thick. It looked like a hole that a pencil makes when you poke it
through a piece of paper, except that there had clearly been some
amount of melting.
It seems to me that if the hangar deck is below the flight deck,
there would have been lit fuel sloshing all over the hangar deck as
the ship rolled, catching additional planes on fire, unless there
were drains in the floor. It would have been a real inferno.
Are there doors that can be closed to seal off sections of the
hangar deck in an emergency?
The http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/navy/carriers.html web page info
indicates that the fire gutted 6 decks, and took 13 hours to
extinguish. With all the shrapnel that must have blown around,
how is it that "only" 21 planes were destroyed? A sad event.
Warren Ring
Columbus, Ohio
Mark W. Schaeffer
(Dave Barak) wrote:
> The Navy has an awsome training film about the Forrestal fire, called
> Trial by Fire. The film included PLAT camera footage of the initial
> explosion, as well as subsequent flight deck explosions. In one shot taken
> from one of the cameras imbedded in the flight deck, a CPO is seen running
> towards the first fire with a small handheld fire extinguisher. A bomb
> cooks off, filling the screen with flame and smoke, and when it clears, no
> more Chief.
>
I remember seeing that film around 1984, when I worked at NAS Point Mugu,
in electronic warfare. Talk about a sobering experience. Not only no more
CPO, no more of many (142?) sailors.
> Dave
>
> --
> Dave Barak
> Line of Sight Entertainment
> "I leek for myself - my onions are my own."
Mark
--
Mark W. Schaeffer
mark...@ucla.edu or
scha...@chem.ucla.edu
John Weiss
I don't know what sort of fueling procedures there are, but the hanger
deck does have huge, thick doors that close to seal off sections (I think
there are four or so such doors on a Nimitz class).
In typical gallows humor, the Forrestal was known as the Forest Fire, the
Ranger was known as the Danger Ranger, and the Saratoga was known as the
Sinking Sara (I think mainly because of it's age). The Enterprise also
suffered major fire damage, but I don't know if a similar nickname was
bestowed upon her.
Airplanes are stowed in the hangar deck with some fuel in them. They even do
fuel cell changes and tank purges down there.
The hangar bay is divided into 3 sections with 2 sets of barrier doors. There
is also an AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam) sprinkler system.
"Sinkin' Sara" sank twice at the dock, each time after a yard overhaul...
----
John Weiss -- jrw...@seanet.com
Andrew Toppan
: It seems to me that if the hangar deck is below the flight deck,
: there would have been lit fuel sloshing all over the hangar deck as
: the ship rolled, catching additional planes on fire, unless there
: were drains in the floor. It would have been a real inferno.
It was just that. The entire aft section of the ship was gutted
out. Fuel, bombs and what-have-you were rolling and sloshing about
all over the place. As for fuel getting out of the hangar--
remember the elevators? The armored doors for the elevator
openings are designed to blow outwards in case of explosion,
to vent the force. Aircraft, munitions, fuel, debris, etc.
can then be jettisoned through the openings.
: Are there doors that can be closed to seal off sections of the
: hangar deck in an emergency?
Yes. The hangar can be broken into three sealed sections in the
event of fire. I'm sure this was done, and it may well have saved
the ship.
: The http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/navy/carriers.html web page info
: indicates that the fire gutted 6 decks, and took 13 hours to
: extinguish. With all the shrapnel that must have blown around,
: how is it that "only" 21 planes were destroyed? A sad event.
Presumably because
(a) the aircraft were forward
(b) the aircraft weren't aboard
(c) they flew the aircraft off to save them
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage, Tom Clancy FAQ Archive
"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."
Richard Caldwell
> Are carrier planes stowed fully fueled?
I don't know what Navy procedure is, but in my aviation ground school I was
taught that aircraft should always be stored with the tanks full of fuel.
This minimizes the problem of water vapor condensation inside the tanks.
> One of the most "awesome" photos I have ever seen was in Life
> Magazine, taken after the fire on the USS Forrestal. It showed a
> bunch of sailors looking through a hole that had been punched in the
> flight deck by an exploded bomb. The hole was 10 or 15 feet in
> diameter, and the metal comprising the deck must have been a foot
> thick. It looked like a hole that a pencil makes when you poke it
> through a piece of paper, except that there had clearly been some
> amount of melting.
>
> It seems to me that if the hangar deck is below the flight deck,
> there would have been lit fuel sloshing all over the hangar deck as
> the ship rolled, catching additional planes on fire, unless there
> were drains in the floor. It would have been a real inferno.
I once read that an empty gas tank is actually more dangerous than a full one.
The empty one contains fuel vapor that is pre-mixed with air (oxygen) and
ready to explode at the slightest provocation. The full tank, on the other
hand, will burn and spill, but will not go off like a bomb.
Of course, this was dealing with gasoline. There may be a big difference for
jet fuel.
Richard
CJ Smut Martin
Usually, unless the aircraft has some soft of fuel system problem and is
undergoing maintenance.
>One of the most "awesome" photos I have ever seen was in Life
>Magazine, taken after the fire on the USS Forrestal. It showed a
[snip]
The "Forrest Fire" was a horrible tragedy, many good men died. Film taken
onboard during the fire was later used to make the training film "Trial by
Fire". Mistakes were made fighting that fire, and one of the lessons learned was
to send sailors through periodic fire fighting refresher training. Underway, you
practice a LOT. When we had a H-46 crash on deck and burst into flames just aft
of my workcenter, we assisted the rest of the deck crew in fighting the
fire...and it was out very quickly. Because of our training, we did not have the
slightest doubt as to what to do. Lesson learned...in spades.
>It seems to me that if the hangar deck is below the flight deck,
>there would have been lit fuel sloshing all over the hangar deck as
>the ship rolled, catching additional planes on fire, unless there
>were drains in the floor. It would have been a real inferno.
Most of the fuel on deck was consumed by the fire.
>Are there doors that can be closed to seal off sections of the
>hangar deck in an emergency?
Yes...BIG doors, that can cut an airplane in half if need be, though planes are
never spotted so as to 'foul' the hanger bay doors.
>The http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/navy/carriers.html web page info
>indicates that the fire gutted 6 decks, and took 13 hours to
>extinguish. With all the shrapnel that must have blown around,
>how is it that "only" 21 planes were destroyed? A sad event.
Most of the damage was back aft. I would imagine that many of the remaining
aircraft were damaged by debris...That H-46 really hosed up some Tomcats (mostly
our sister squadrons jets, but we had several hits on ours).
CJ
----------
CJ Martin, ex-AT2 USN | Callsign Smut on CK
Former Tomcat Tweaker | XO, <Flying Pigs> squadron
Ex-Starfighter (VF-33) | "Oink! Oink! To War!"
Visit Smuts CK page at http://atc.ameritel.net/lusers/smut/index.html
Rick Zwiebel
Immediately during recovery, when they are tied down on the bow, and
elsewhere, Purple Shirts immediately drag the refueling hoses to
them, and fully fuel them. Refueling stations ring the flight deck
so that all aircraft are accessible. There is no more fire hazard
from a fully fueled plane than a partially fueled one. And with
space & movement being at a premium aboard carriers, there is no
other way to do it, and you must have all aircraft ready for launch
during the respot.
Of course if there are fuel cell gripes, then special instructions
will be issued by squadron maintenance to flight deck control, NOT to
refuel a specific aircraft. Otherwise it must be defueled.
As to hanger bay doors – to contain a conflagration – Yes, all
carriers have huge, full height "doors" that roll on tracks (like
shoreside hanger doors-but much more solid) that will completely
isolate a section of the hanger deck. Forrestal Class had two such
sets of doors, thus could isolate the Hanger Deck into three
sections. Of course, there are also four elevator doors that can be
closed too, but usually remained open. Elevator 2 (at end of angle
deck) was never used at sea, thus its Hanger door was most always
closed. Each hanger deck section had its own "Conflag Station", and
its own duty watch in a lookout booth high above the deck, near the
overhead, for control and activation of the firefighting gear (fog
foam stations could be operated automatically from these points).
Idea was to naturally nip any problem in the bud, and prevent its
spread.
Don’t know for sure, but I doubt that there are any ‘floor’ drains.
Plus carriers don’t ‘roll’ much. They may list a little in a turn,
but it’s not ‘rolling.’ Sure in heavy seas and broadside to the
swells in mid ocean transits, you’ll get a little bit of action, but
would never be a real firefighting problem.
Rick Zwiebel
Zw...@msn.com
Brad F. Bass
>Yes, all carrier aircraft are stored fully fueled ... There is no more
>fire hazard rom a fully fueled plane than a partially fueled one.
Indeed, you'd think that a partially-fueled plane would be more
flammable than a fully fueled one, due to the high concentration of
fuel vapor in the air spaces in the tanks.
--
Brad Bass (ba...@convex.com) | The media is just another special-interest
Senior CAD Wrangler | group trying to tell you how to vote.
Convex Computer Corporation | -- Brett Kottmann (aka Stupendous Man)
Dallas, Texas |
Paul Jonathan Adam
> do they do that? where do they land if things dont go so well back on the
> ship? do they just send them up and say circle around, if we get the fire
> out you can land, otherwise punch out before you ditch, and maybe someone
> will find you?
Exactly. Remember, the carrier is in the middle of a group of escorts,
most of which have helicopters. Remember the Catapult Armed Merchantman?
World War II? An old Hurricane on a rocket sled, to be launched at any
Fw.200 Condor: once the Condor was shot down or driven off, the pilot would
orbit until out of fuel, then bail out and come down as near a friendly
ship as he could. A somewhat desperate expedient, but it worked.
If you get the planes off, they may be able to land back on deck. More
likely they will land somewhere friendly (or at least not totally unfriendly,
so they get interned for the duration of the conflict rather than lost
completely). Or, if all else fails, and there is nowhere in range and
no tanker support, orbit in the hope that the birdfarm will clear the deck:
and if all else fails, ditch or eject and get picked up.
Planes are lots and lots of dollars. People and skills are a lot harder to
replace: cheaper, but slower. You can stockpile airframes at AMARC, you
can't keep a big reserve of pilots with current combat experience (especially
not when the experience is of the current theatre).
--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Blad4068
on ships are fueled is to prevent condensation of water in the tanks to
maintain fuel purity not to avoid any fuel vapor problems.
If you're wooried about fires and fuel vapors on a secured aircraft on a
ship it's just a little too late.
Semper Fi
Tom Lindblad
Andy Millon
Wa> Are carrier planes stowed fully fueled?
Normally... yes.
Wa> It seems to me that if the hangar deck is below the flight deck,
There are a number of decks (sub-decks) between flight and hanger decks.
Wa> there would have been lit fuel sloshing all over the hangar deck
Wa> as the ship rolled,
Normally doesn't "roll" all that much. "List", yes. Roll, no.
Wa> ...catching additional planes on fire,
Difficult to do. Requires intense and continual heat.
Wa> ... unless there were drains in the floor.
Throughout the ship.
Wa> It would have been a real inferno.
It was.
Wa> Are there doors that can be closed to seal off sections of the
Wa> hangar deck in an emergency?
Yes. Most current CV/CVN have a single set of blast doors that divide
the hanger into two bays. Older CV's had two sets of doors that seal
the hanger deck into three compartments. Each compartment has a
conflagration station where hanger fires can be fought using remotely
controlled firefighting equipment.
Wa> indicates that the fire gutted 6 decks, and took 13 hours to
Wa> extinguish. With all the shrapnel that must have blown around,
Wa> how is it that "only" 21 planes were destroyed? A sad event.
A lot of luck and a lot of heroics. The poor firefighting technique
by the remaining crew is what caused the requirement for ALL personnel
with flight/hanger deck duties to receive Flight Deck Fire Fighting
training. Every 4 years for squadron personnel. Every turnaround period
(annually) for ship's company.
Andy Millon
x-E2A/B/C/C+/C++
... Navy Wings are made of Gold.
--- Blue Wave/RA v2.21
* Origin: Ready Room [KSAN] 619-673-4016 v32b/v42b/Fax (1:202/519)
Andy Millon
DB> I don't know what sort of fueling procedures there are, but the hanger
DB> deck does have huge, thick doors that close to seal off sections (I
DB> think there are four or so such doors on a Nimitz class).
One "set" of doors (I believe 4 door "panels") that seal off the hanger
deck into two compartments. Each compartment has self-contained
conflagration station where fire can be remotely fought using installed
fire fighting systems.
DB> The Navy has an awsome training film about the Forrestal fire,
DB> called Trial by Fire.
Required viewing and critiquing is part of recurrent FDFF course.
DB> The Enterprise also suffered major fire damage, but I don't know
DB> if a similar nickname was bestowed upon her.
Nope. Always known as just "Big-E."
Andy Millon
CVN-65 1982-1985
... *NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
Jonathan Perkins
It may have already been mentioned, but I would like to add a
comment or two to the thread.
As others have mentioned, yes, carrier aircraft are stored fueled
for a variety of reasons (some tactical, others related to maintenance and
fuel impurities, etc.). However, there are some situations where fueled
aircraft are restricted from being placed in the hanger deck.
Usually, this involves a Navy aircraft which has been fueled from an
Air Force tanker, or from land-based USAF fuel stocks. The JP-4 used by the
Air Force has a lower flash point than the JP-5 used in Navy aircraft, and
it is extremely hard to extinguish a JP-4 running fuel fire (particularly so
aboard a carrier). Even a relatively small percentage of JP-4 mixed with
JP-5 can significantly lower the flash point of the JP-5 fuel, so the Navy
takes special precautions with any aircraft known or suspected to have JP-4
in its system (the JP-4 contamination can usually be flushed out after
several re-fuelings with JP-5).
JP-4 fueled aircraft are usually kept on deck (away from catapult
tracks wherever possible), and are normally marked with an "X" taped on the
nose. In order to be stored below, special permission must be obtained
from the ship's safety officers, etc. This was the general procedure in
place a few years back, and I'm fairly certain it still applies (would
appreciate feedback if things have since been modified). As other previous
posts nicely illustrate, these are sensible precautions given the problems
that can arise from careless handling or just sheer bad luck.
As to the general thread of damage control and fire-fighter training
for Navy carrier crews, it amazes me to see lapses in such training given
the USN's extensive experience with such issues in the Pacific War. The
tragedies suffered by ships such as the _Franklin_, where hundreds of crew
members died as a result of uncontainable fuel fires (set off by *kamikazes*,
but the death blow came from the unsuccessful damage control efforts), are
something which should have been ingrained in each and every crew member.
Just my two cent's worth...
--
----------
Jon Perkins--Ottawa, Canada
jper...@ccs.carleton.ca
fa...@minn.net
I was stationed aboard the Forrestall 75-78 there is/was a plaqe is
side the port hangerbay door listing all the sailors who died in that
fire. Many were in VF-11 & VF-74 because that ordinance went off
right over they're berthing compartments (where they lived).
John Farley
AT3 VF-11 74-78
fa...@minn.net
fa...@minn.net
>Are carrier planes stowed fully fueled?
>
>One of the most "awesome" photos I have ever seen was in Life
>Magazine, taken after the fire on the USS Forrestal. It showed a
>bunch of sailors looking through a hole that had been punched in the
>flight deck by an exploded bomb. The hole was 10 or 15 feet in
>diameter, and the metal comprising the deck must have been a foot
>thick. It looked like a hole that a pencil makes when you poke it
>through a piece of paper, except that there had clearly been some
>amount of melting.
>
>It seems to me that if the hangar deck is below the flight deck,
>there would have been lit fuel sloshing all over the hangar deck as
>the ship rolled, catching additional planes on fire, unless there
>were drains in the floor. It would have been a real inferno.
>Are there doors that can be closed to seal off sections of the
>hangar deck in an emergency?
>
>The http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/navy/carriers.html web page info
>indicates that the fire gutted 6 decks, and took 13 hours to
>extinguish. With all the shrapnel that must have blown around,
>how is it that "only" 21 planes were destroyed? A sad event.
>
>Warren Ring
>Columbus, Ohio
A large part of the area directly beneth the flight deck is living
space for the airwing. that hole you mentioned was right above the
living quarters for VF-11 & VF-74 the flight deck is the 03 level (3
levels above the hanger deck) and the hanger deck 1st level .
John Farley
AT3 VF-11/USS Forrestall 74-78
Jonathan Perkins
> Jon,
> If you perceived that there are lapses in damage control training or
> firefighting training aboard aircraft carriers (or any other naval
> vessels) you are wrong. All crewmembers, officer and enlisted, must
> undergo damage control and firefighting training. Additionally, every
> crewmember must undergo refresher training every 2 to 4 years (depending
> on rating/specialty). This training is specific to the type of ship you
> are on, and is very thorough. It is also for those sailors that are not
> fire-fighters by specialty. The navy crash and salvage teams go through
> a rigorous school prior to even reporting aboard their ship. Then they
> must train for the specific equipment and peculiarities of the ship they
> will serve on.
Tom:
I don't know if you viewed the earlier messages in the thread, but
my remarks should be placed in context. I was responding to earlier
messages which indicated that there were some lapses in such training --
or, perhaps more accurately, the application of such training -- with
regard to the incidents on the _Forrestal_, _Oriskany_, etc. Not
being an expert on the state of USN shipboard firefighter/damage control
training during that period, nor being more than passingly familiar with
the details of these two specific incidents, I took the comments
made by previous posters pretty much at face value. Hence my remark
about being amazed about *apparent* lapses in the application of the doctine,
given previous historical experiences such as the _Franklin_.
Please rest assured that I did not -- and would not -- presume to
categorize such problems as systemic within the Navy. Indeed, I am quite
aware that, historically, the USN has been one of the most progressive and
consistently concientious navies in the world with respect to damage control
doctrine. The value of such training has been borne out time and
again by the fact that US ships have survived incidents which the ships of
other navies haven't. That this is due to a strong emphasis on damage
control training -- as well as the skills and heroism of some of the
individuals involved in these incidents -- is beyond doubt.
> The Navy has learned well from its history. Both from the
> standpoint of the Kamakaze attackes in the 2nd World War, to the
> ferocious fires aboard Franklin, Forrestal and Nimitz. Don't think for a
> moment that readiness is ever minimized. The vrews that serve are the
> best in the world. There are many,many instances of fire abord ship that
> the public never hears about, because of the swift and effective measures
> by the crew. A fire at sea is a sailors worst nightmare - it can lead to
> the loss of the ship and crew. So, many hours are spent at sea training
> and drilling - all with the end point of extinguishing a fire.
> LCDR Tom Magno, USN
> ma...@jtasc.acom.mil
Andrew Toppan
[big snip]
: Plus carriers don't roll much.
Unless it's Midway.
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage, Tom Clancy FAQ Archive
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
John Weiss
: Plus carriers don't roll much.
Unless it's Midway.
Paul Tomblin
>Jon,
> If you perceived that there are lapses in damage control training or
>firefighting training aboard aircraft carriers (or any other naval
>vessels) you are wrong. All crewmembers, officer and enlisted, must
If there hadn't been lapses of readiness and crew training between the lessons
learned in WWII and the Vietnam War, would the "Forrest Fire" ever have
happened?
By your own admission, standards for training and readiness were upped after
Forrestal and Nimitz. If standards had remained at WWII levels, this wouldn't
have been needed.
Hundreds of people died because the USN forgot the lessons of WWII. Let's
hope they never forget them again.
--
Paul Tomblin, Contract Programmer.
I don't speak for Kodak, they don't speak for me.
(Email that is not work related should go to: ptom...@canoe.com)
"You are in a twisty maze of Motif Widget resources, all inconsistent."
bho...@tab.com
>
[deleted]
>fuel impurities, etc.). However, there are some situations where fueled
>aircraft are restricted from being placed in the hanger deck.
>
> Usually, this involves a Navy aircraft which has been fueled from an
>Air Force tanker, or from land-based USAF fuel stocks. The JP-4 used by the
>Air Force has a lower flash point than the JP-5 used in Navy aircraft, and
>it is extremely hard to extinguish a JP-4 running fuel fire (particularly so
>aboard a carrier). Even a relatively small percentage of JP-4 mixed with
>JP-5 can significantly lower the flash point of the JP-5 fuel, so the Navy
>takes special precautions with any aircraft known or suspected to have JP-4
>in its system (the JP-4 contamination can usually be flushed out after
>several re-fuelings with JP-5).
>
> JP-4 fueled aircraft are usually kept on deck (away from catapult
>tracks wherever possible), and are normally marked with an "X" taped on the
>nose. In order to be stored below, special permission must be obtained
>from the ship's safety officers, etc. This was the general procedure in
I will not say that you are wrong, because truth may depend on the context of
time and place.
However, in 1970, when deployed on Oriskany, it was reasonable to assume that
practically every aircraft in the air wing contained fuel contaminated with JP-4.
The reason was that the A-3 tankers in the air wing routinely operated from
Da Nang AB, carrying a full load of JP-4. Every fighter (Crusaders), and many
bombers (Corsair II's) were refueled inflight with this fuel. In addition, the practice
of "fuel consolidation" which meant that off-going tankers passed spare fuel to
relief tankers allowed the chance of JP-4 being passed to the JP-5 fueled A-7
buddy tankers operating from the ship. I don't recall ever hearing any remarks
about special handling required due to the routine use and mixing of JP-4 with
JP-5 in the airwing aircraft.
Bill Horne
LCDR, USN (Ret)
EKA-3D Pilot
Andrew Toppan
: Unless it's Midway.
: She doesn't roll much any more, either... ;-)
She'll probably roll a good bit when she's towed to a musuem somewhere
in a few years...
John Alger
point out that one of the primary "lessons learned" by the
Forrestal and Enterprise fires during VietNam was that while
ship's company went through fire-fighting school, few of the
airwing personnel did. Since the embarked airwing comprises nerly
50% of the total crew, this was changed - a "lapse in training"
was identified and quickly corrected.
This fact was pointed out to me in 1979 when I attended the
firefighting school at NAS Mayport during my transition training
to the A-7.
John Alger
CDR USNR
--
John W. Alger
KPIT/USAir
Three Rivers IPMS - 10906
Jonathan Perkins
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
References: <di1sf...@nntpa.cb.att.com> <48d6hg$m...@bigboote.wpi.edu> <48gub3$1f...@usenetz1.news.prodigy.com> <DIF3L...@cunews.carleton.ca> <49ec8g$q...@villa.fc.net>
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution:
Subject: Re: Are carrier planes stowed fueled?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
References:
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution:
Jon Perkins originally wrote [excerpt]:
> > JP-4 fueled aircraft are usually kept on deck (away from catapult
> >tracks wherever possible), and are normally marked with an "X" taped on the
> >nose. In order to be stored below, special permission must be obtained
> >from the ship's safety officers, etc. This was the general procedure in
> [more deleted]
Bob Horne (bho...@tab.com) replied:
> I will not say that you are wrong, because truth may depend on the context of
> time and place.
> However, in 1970, when deployed on Oriskany, it was reasonable to assume that
> practically every aircraft in the air wing contained fuel contaminated with JP-4.
> The reason was that the A-3 tankers in the air wing routinely operated from
> Da Nang AB, carrying a full load of JP-4. Every fighter (Crusaders), and many
> bombers (Corsair II's) were refueled inflight with this fuel. In addition, the practice
> of "fuel consolidation" which meant that off-going tankers passed spare fuel to
> relief tankers allowed the chance of JP-4 being passed to the JP-5 fueled A-7
> buddy tankers operating from the ship. I don't recall ever hearing any remarks
> about special handling required due to the routine use and mixing of JP-4 with
> JP-5 in the airwing aircraft.
> Bill Horne
> LCDR, USN (Ret)
> EKA-3D Pilot
Bill:
Thanks for your follow-up. I defer to your first-hand experience
with the _Oriskany_ and the situation in the 1970's. As you note, my
original remarks were indeed contextual--they are based upon an article
I read in the late 1980's regarding fuel safety practices aboard USN
carriers, published in one of the naval aviation community's own safety
journals (sorry, can't remember the exact title--it might even have been a
safety-oriented article within _The Hook_).
It is obvious that the evolution of aircraft fuels -- from avgas to
the early jet fuels, through JP-4/JP-5 and into the current generation of
fuels -- has required a similar evolution in fuel safety practices. The
volatility of Avgas was a nightmare in terms of fire prevention and fire-
fighting, as could be JP-4 (which has a flash point low enough that it
can be ignited by dripping onto a hot runway or catapult track). The idea
of the JP-5 fuel was to raise these flashpoint levels and create a fuel
that was more easily dealt with aboard ship. This said, I don't know if
the JP-5 fuel was in common use during the 70's (can you or anybody else
respond to this?)--consequently, the JP-4/JP-5 issue might not have been
an issue when you were flying off _Oriskany_, as the fuels would have
been common (i.e., JP-4) between the USAF and USN. Also, the fuel safety
procedures I described were *peacetime* measures--understandably, combat
operations can result in different measures, though the principles behind
fuel safety remain in effect no matter what the situation.
As a follow-up to my original post, Mary Shafer (shafer@ferhino.
dfrc.nasa.gov) has informed me that the JP-4 of the USAF and the
JP-5 of the USN have since been replaced by a common JP-8 fuel that
eliminates these fuel contamination problems *within* the US armed
services. However, I do not know if the JP-8 is common among all NATO
countries, and I suspect that the non-NATO countries are still using
JP-4 fuels. This raises the question of how to react to situations
involving allied joint operations, where one might have to tank from an
allied aircraft, or refuel at an allied base.
Thanks again, and best regards....