Liquid Natural Gas (Cargo)
01-14-2019, 09:11 AM
#11
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,255
Originally Posted by a squared
i'm curious, what turbojet do you have in mind which is capable of loading a semi-trailer , and landing at remote alaska communities? I can't think of any that could do both.
.........
01-14-2019, 09:41 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by rickair7777
c-17?
.........
.........
It would be tough to shoe-horn a C-17 into many remote Alaska Communities. Mind you, I say this as someone who has flown bulk fuel into remote Alaska communities. Not to mention that I'm skeptical that the OP has a line on an airworthy C-17 for lease.
01-14-2019, 11:41 AM
#13
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,008
C17 Cschmeventeen.
What's most important is that he recruits a quality private pilot to head up this show, and that we all get popcorn while it plays out.
I'll take extra butter. I have a future coronary to support.
What's most important is that he recruits a quality private pilot to head up this show, and that we all get popcorn while it plays out.
I'll take extra butter. I have a future coronary to support.
01-14-2019, 03:20 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by A Squared
It would be tough to shoe-horn a C-17 into many remote Alaska Communities. Mind you, I say this as someone who has flown bulk fuel into remote Alaska communities. Not to mention that I'm skeptical that the OP has a line on an airworthy C-17 for lease.
01-14-2019, 03:41 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 304
The other flaw in his plan is that no remote communities I know of (and many communities on the road system) have the infrastructure for bulk natural gas. Remember, we're talking about places where a lot of folks use a "honey bucket" because there is no plumbing. The fuels which run these communities are Diesel fuel for electrical generation and heating oil for heat. You will find some propane being used in the villages, but it's transported in 100 lb cylinders, which is a completely different proposition than bulk natural gas and requires no infrastructure.
I have to confess to a certain level of skepticism that the OP truly does "help remote communities throughout Alaska receive the energy sources they need"
I have to confess to a certain level of skepticism that the OP truly does "help remote communities throughout Alaska receive the energy sources they need"
Last edited by A Squared; 01-14-2019 at 04:21 PM.
01-14-2019, 03:54 PM
#17
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
There are strange things done in the midnight sun
By the men who moil for gold;
The Arctic trails have their secret tales
That would make your blood run cold;
By the men who moil for gold;
The Arctic trails have their secret tales
That would make your blood run cold;
01-14-2019, 04:08 PM
#18
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 5
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
This regulation is for transportation of fuel under Part 91. This is the only regulation that I'm aware of that allows you to transport hazmat like this under 91. If you can't do it here, it would have to be done under 135, 121, 125, etc.
It doesn't appear that this would be legal based on the regulations I'm seeing.
In general, if you want to transport fuel in the associated packing groups under part 91, there are a few ways.
The (b) cut-out is for Alaska and for something like taking fuel out to a cabin...not your cabin according to the reg, unless you have a passenger, only packing groups II and III.
The (c) cut-out requires you to have packaging approved for the material (hazmat) is is going to carry. It gives you some options, but the bottom line is the packaging must meet those definitions, or you must get the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to approve it. This usually means submitting your tank-plans to PHMSA, who will then issue you a permit for the tank saying it is safe for the material you intend to carry. Some tanks that are bought commercially are already PHMSA-approved. If you want to carry more than 118.9 gallons, it requires FSDO approval, which means the FSDO is going to require the PHMSA permit and if your fuel tanks require "installation", as in they are not cargo, it will require farming out to the Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) to get concurrence for the installation. This section can generally be used by people that want to take their fuel out somewhere and sell it under part 91, which is possible, but also has a bunch of legal pitfalls to ensure it's really and truly a "private" operation.
The only relief I see is the (c)(1)(iv) section:
But liquefied natural gas was not in Packing Group 1, it has no packing group assigned. That part is at least a maybe. This would be a question for FAA Hazmat/Security (ASH) or PHMSA. In any case though, propane tanks you can just strap down are not "installed aircraft tanks". The regulation specifically says installed aircraft tanks. if it was possible, it would require getting the permit with PHMSA to approve the packaging (installed tanks).
Packing group is based on the degree of hazard associated with the material. Materials and their associated packing groups are listed in 49 CFR 172.101.
Packaging is the tank or bladder you use to transport the material. In general, it must be approved within these regulations or by PHMSA for the material it is intended to carry. As an example, there are some STCs out there for fuel tanks that are bladders, pods that attach to the external portion of the aircraft, and so on. These have to state within the STC that they are approved for the material they intend to carry.
Cargo is something you lash down to transport.
Tanks can be cargo, but if they require installation into the aircraft, they are no longer cargo, but an installation. An aircraft installation usually requires approval from the Aircraft Certification Office (ACO).
As stated above, this is often the mission of Everts Air Fuels and similar commercial operators, who deliver fuel and other hazmat to remote communities in Alaska. Again, on the surface, what was stated so far doesn't appear to be legal, but I welcome conversation on this. These regulations are very "tight" for reasons. An aircraft falling out of the sky isn't supposed to present an undue hazard to those on the ground.
It doesn't appear that this would be legal based on the regulations I'm seeing.
In general, if you want to transport fuel in the associated packing groups under part 91, there are a few ways.
The (b) cut-out is for Alaska and for something like taking fuel out to a cabin...not your cabin according to the reg, unless you have a passenger, only packing groups II and III.
The (c) cut-out requires you to have packaging approved for the material (hazmat) is is going to carry. It gives you some options, but the bottom line is the packaging must meet those definitions, or you must get the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to approve it. This usually means submitting your tank-plans to PHMSA, who will then issue you a permit for the tank saying it is safe for the material you intend to carry. Some tanks that are bought commercially are already PHMSA-approved. If you want to carry more than 118.9 gallons, it requires FSDO approval, which means the FSDO is going to require the PHMSA permit and if your fuel tanks require "installation", as in they are not cargo, it will require farming out to the Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) to get concurrence for the installation. This section can generally be used by people that want to take their fuel out somewhere and sell it under part 91, which is possible, but also has a bunch of legal pitfalls to ensure it's really and truly a "private" operation.
The only relief I see is the (c)(1)(iv) section:
But liquefied natural gas was not in Packing Group 1, it has no packing group assigned. That part is at least a maybe. This would be a question for FAA Hazmat/Security (ASH) or PHMSA. In any case though, propane tanks you can just strap down are not "installed aircraft tanks". The regulation specifically says installed aircraft tanks. if it was possible, it would require getting the permit with PHMSA to approve the packaging (installed tanks).
Packing group is based on the degree of hazard associated with the material. Materials and their associated packing groups are listed in 49 CFR 172.101.
Packaging is the tank or bladder you use to transport the material. In general, it must be approved within these regulations or by PHMSA for the material it is intended to carry. As an example, there are some STCs out there for fuel tanks that are bladders, pods that attach to the external portion of the aircraft, and so on. These have to state within the STC that they are approved for the material they intend to carry.
Cargo is something you lash down to transport.
Tanks can be cargo, but if they require installation into the aircraft, they are no longer cargo, but an installation. An aircraft installation usually requires approval from the Aircraft Certification Office (ACO).
As stated above, this is often the mission of Everts Air Fuels and similar commercial operators, who deliver fuel and other hazmat to remote communities in Alaska. Again, on the surface, what was stated so far doesn't appear to be legal, but I welcome conversation on this. These regulations are very "tight" for reasons. An aircraft falling out of the sky isn't supposed to present an undue hazard to those on the ground.
To the small amount of folks speculating on the plane (and my financial resources)... find something else to do! Many great places to learn and contribute on this forum.
01-14-2019, 04:44 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by AboveGround
To the small amount of folks speculating on the plane (and my financial resources)... find something else to do!
I don't think you quite realize how glaringly obvious it is that you are not who you claim to be, nor doing what you claim to be doing.
I know the people who are supplying remote Alaska communities with fuel. It's a small group. You aren't one of them. None of them would have made the ridiculous mistakes you have made in your posts. I'll be explicit:
A private pilot could not conduct the operations you are proposing
A turbojet aircraft is completely unsuited for those villages in Alaska which need to have fuel flown in.
The smallest jet airplane which is capable of loading the trailer you've linked, would in fact be the C-17 mentioned. Aside from the fact that it would be too large to operate to the village airstrips, no C-17's are available for civil operations.
Except for a few villages in the Northwest which have their own natural gas wells, Natural gas is not a fuel which is used in the villages.
Go back to your "virtual airline" forum.
Last edited by A Squared; 01-14-2019 at 04:55 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
