NO fix for Prius Gas Tank Filling Up Issues

[FreddieVee]

Originally Posted by jayman

You know, there is a very old saying about leading a horse to water ....

Originally Posted by qbee42

There is another one that says "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It only wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Tom

There are lots of old sayings:

"To understand a man, you've got to walk a mile in his shoes, whether they fit or not."

"Judge not lest ye be judged."

Before you insinuate that I am a horse or a pig, there is one more:

"An elephant never forgets."

I may be a lot weightier than either a horse or pig.

Maybe you think that the Prius manual is inspired text. But maybe because you have never walked a mile in my shoes, you have never seen that manuals many times are made for legal denial and many laws and warnings are there with little reasoning. I have worked on some of the most sophisticated machinery in the world and I can tell you that many published caveats are only there to satisfy governmental agencies and/or to satisfy the company's legal department's paranoia and many warnings are there for the same reason.

Many gas pumps say that it is illegal to smoke while refueling. They also say "Turn off engine before fueling". Many say "Cell Phone Usage Prohibited". I have seen police vehicles refueling while the police officer talks with dispatch using either a hand held walkie-talkie or the vehicle's on-board radio. Both have power outputs many times that of a cell-phone and no gasoline pump fire has ever been caused by cell phone usage. So which of the warnings should I follow? Smoking while fueling is illegal? OK. Plainly stated (and many stations even quote the legal statute paragraph number). Turn off engine before fueling? Does that really pertain to a Prius? Since the gas engine is not running and therefor there is neither exhaust fumes nor a constantly heated catalytic converter to cause a fire, I would venture to say that the Prius might be exempt from the reasoning for the "Turn Off Engine" warning posted on the pumps. Technically the engine is off. No cell phone usage? Why? The pump postings do not say that refueling while the engine on is illegal, nor does it say that cell-phone usage is illegal. And even if it did say fueling while the engine is running is illegal, would a Prius be in violation?

I saw a South Park episode called "Smug Alert" about three years ago and while it was a satirical harpooning of the smugness of some Prius owners, I did not expect to find it here at this forum. Call me naive, but I assumed that "Green People" had more empathy and compassion.

I was an aircraft mechanic for 35 years and I know of many plane crashes (thank God nothing I was involved with) in which the pilot or mechanic who was most directly responsible for the crash had done everything by "The Book". After the NTSB finished the investigation, "The Book" was revised. Many times in my last five years before retirement, pilots who had a problem just after take-off or just prior to approach would call our maintenance office's VHF radio and ask advice. Some asked for me by name, some by my title. Whenever I gave advice, I always preceded any instructions with, "Before following any of my instructions, make sure it does not violate anything in your pilot's flight handbook". Sometimes they would say that it didn't, so they would follow my instructions and sometimes they would say it would be a violation, but occasionally, after they landed, they would tell me that they had to say that they could not follow my instructions, but they did follow my instructions anyway. Did I know more than pilots? Of course I did when it came to how the plane worked. And the more modern the plane, the less the pilots know about it. There was a plane crash in which the computer overrode the pilot and flew the plane right into the trees.

The FAA even instituted a program in which the pilots no longer write-up their problems in the log book as they see it. Instead they have to get out a manual, follow some diagrammed steps and then call in a code. And then the mechanic on the ground is supposed to look up that code and follow the diagrams to determine how to fix the problem and he must carry the photocopy of the repair/checkout procedure while working on the plane and sign off the log book with fixed as per Maintenance Manual 34-24-18 page 601-623. And then the photocopied paperwork must be thrown away, in case the next time you have that problem, an update to the manual had occurred. That would mean that a mechanic with 6 months experience is as good as one with 30 years. Do you think that is true?

Yes, I made a mistake. I didn't read the part of the Prius manual about refueling. Does that give fellow forum members the right to say:

Originally Posted by qbee42

Now might be a good time to mend your ways.

Tom

plus the horse and pig references?

How about acting civilly?

[ETP]

Originally Posted by FreddieVee

There are lots of old sayings:

"To understand a man, you've got to walk a mile in his shoes, whether they fit or not."

"Judge not lest ye be judged."

Before you insinuate that I am a horse or a pig, there is one more:

"An elephant never forgets."

I may be a lot weightier than either a horse or pig.

Maybe you think that the Prius manual is inspired text. But maybe because you have never walked a mile in my shoes, you have never seen that manuals many times are made for legal denial and many laws and warnings are there with little reasoning. I have worked on some of the most sophisticated machinery in the world and I can tell you that many published caveats are only there to satisfy governmental agencies and/or to satisfy the company's legal department's paranoia and many warnings are there for the same reason.

Many gas pumps say that it is illegal to smoke while refueling. They also say "Turn off engine before fueling". Many say "Cell Phone Usage Prohibited". I have seen police vehicles refueling while the police officer talks with dispatch using either a hand held walkie-talkie or the vehicle's on-board radio. Both have power outputs many times that of a cell-phone and no gasoline pump fire has ever been caused by cell phone usage. So which of the warnings should I follow? Smoking while fueling is illegal? OK. Plainly stated (and many stations even quote the legal statute paragraph number). Turn off engine before fueling? Does that really pertain to a Prius? Since the gas engine is not running and therefor there is neither exhaust fumes nor a constantly heated catalytic converter to cause a fire, I would venture to say that the Prius might be exempt from the reasoning for the "Turn Off Engine" warning posted on the pumps. Technically the engine is off. No cell phone usage? Why? The pump postings do not say that refueling while the engine on is illegal, nor does it say that cell-phone usage is illegal. And even if it did say fueling while the engine is running is illegal, would a Prius be in violation?

I saw a South Park episode called "Smug Alert" about three years ago and while it was a satirical harpooning of the smugness of some Prius owners, I did not expect to find it here at this forum. Call me naive, but I assumed that "Green People" had more empathy and compassion.

I was an aircraft mechanic for 35 years and I know of many plane crashes (thank God nothing I was involved with) in which the pilot or mechanic who was most directly responsible for the crash had done everything by "The Book". After the NTSB finished the investigation, "The Book" was revised. Many times in my last five years before retirement, pilots who had a problem just after take-off or just prior to approach would call our maintenance office's VHF radio and ask advice. Some asked for me by name, some by my title. Whenever I gave advice, I always preceded any instructions with, "Before following any of my instructions, make sure it does not violate anything in your pilot's flight handbook". Sometimes they would say that it didn't, so they would follow my instructions and sometimes they would say it would be a violation, but occasionally, after they landed, they would tell me that they had to say that they could not follow my instructions, but they did follow my instructions anyway. Did I know more than pilots? Of course I did when it came to how the plane worked. And the more modern the plane, the less the pilots know about it. There was a plane crash in which the computer overrode the pilot and flew the plane right into the trees.

The FAA even instituted a program in which the pilots no longer write-up their problems in the log book as they see it. Instead they have to get out a manual, follow some diagrammed steps and then call in a code. And then the mechanic on the ground is supposed to look up that code and follow the diagrams to determine how to fix the problem and he must carry the photocopy of the repair/checkout procedure while working on the plane and sign off the log book with fixed as per Maintenance Manual 34-24-18 page 601-623. And then the photocopied paperwork must be thrown away, in case the next time you have that problem, an update to the manual had occurred. That would mean that a mechanic with 6 months experience is as good as one with 30 years. Do you think that is true?

Yes, I made a mistake. I didn't read the part of the Prius manual about refueling. Does that give fellow forum members the right to say:

plus the horse and pig references?

How about acting civilly?

I have a 2009 touring also and as of yet have not had the refueling problems that others have had. Keep us posted on what you get with the car off. Interesting thread to say the least.

[qbee42]

You can't guarantee that the Prius ICE will not start when the car is in Ready mode. It will start whenever it sees fit. A low SOC or low temperature will cause it to start uncommanded. As for the risk of fire or explosion, it is very small with any modern automobile. The laws exist because there is a finite increase in risk and it is very easy to turn off a car. The small inconvenience of stopping and starting an engine is easily outweighed by even a small risk of catastrophe. A bigger risk is entering and exiting a vehicle while refueling. That should be illegal as well.

It doesn't bother me that you didn't read your manual. That's your prerogative. It also doesn't bother me if you wish to put your life at risk. I do it all the time rock climbing and sailing offshore. People should be allowed to set their own level of risk. What I don't like is when someone chooses to risk the lives of others without their consent. Choosing to hot refuel falls into this category. If you refuel on your own property away from others, you can do it however you see fit. When you refuel in public you should respect the lives and property of others and the law of the land.

As for pig comments, I didn't mean any offense. Pigs are delightful and kind animals, and I wouldn't besmirch them in any way.

Tom

[john_dough]

FREDDIE VEE--as you have now noticed, this forum can be a mostly helpful place to visit. It does, however, have a couple of "Behavior Nazis" and "Prius Defenders". You have encountered one of the best and most prolific.

[jayman]

Originally Posted by FreddieVee

I was an aircraft mechanic for 35 years and I know of many plane crashes

Around 15 years ago, I had fractional ownership of a club 172. We thought it was really cute how after the mandated major inspection, none of the instument lights worked, and when checking the controls, pulling back on the yoke it jammed

Originally Posted by FreddieVee

There was a plane crash in which the computer overrode the pilot and flew the plane right into the trees.

You must be referring to that demonstrator flight of Air France's first Airbus A320. The pilot wanted to do a low, slow flyby to impress the crowd.

High bypass ratio turbofans are dangerous to operate in such a mode, they take a very long time to spool up if you need TOGA power. The software will work as follows if you attempt to manually configure an Airbus to fly into a situation the radar altimeter and/or EGPWS considers too low/slow for the aircraft:

1. Flaps in, gear up: Depending on vertical speed, speed and altitude: "CONFIG" in display, master warning wailer, TOGA thrust applied, Alpha Floor protection applied. Or, "STALL" in display, the previous, plus "STALL! STALL! STALL!" aural warnings

2. Flaps2, gear up: Almost the same warnings, but TOGA and Alpha Floor applied a bit later. Depends on altitude, vertical speed, and aircraft speed

3. Flaps3, gear up: Ditto

4. Flaps full, gear up: Additional wailer and aural "too low terrain pull up" warning

So what that pilot did was dump the primary flight computer. Easy enough to do, reach up and switch it off. Contrary to popular belief, you CAN fly an Airbus fly-by-wire in Direct Law

By putting the aircraft into Direct Law, automatic TOGA and Alpha Floor protection are disabled. Since a large, efficient, modern airliner is difficult to slow down, once you reach the stall boundary, some very bad things can happen

Once the aircraft struggled at the edge of the stall boundary, it settled into a graceful stall. Slamming the throttles forward on an Airbus commands TOGA thrust, as the FADEC operates separately from the control computer.

However, a large high bypass turbofan takes a long time to spool up. If you only have 5 or so seconds to avert disaster, you're screwed

Naturally, there are all sort of interesting conspiracy theories about that flight. The pilot was charged with manslaughter, and given how socialist and coddling most EU countries are, it's rare to see such a conviction

On the topic of that dreaded computer "over riding" the pilot and causing a crash. The Air Inter Airbus that crashed in France. In preparation for landing, the flight crew had incorrectly selected v/s instead of fpa, so instead of selecting what they thought was -3.3 degrees nose down - a common approach for an airliner - they had selected 3,300 feet per second descent. They crashed into a mountainous region

I've been involved in a few Human Factors Engineering studies. There are rare examples of outright failure, but common causes of pilot error

[qbee42]

Originally Posted by jayman

<snip>
so instead of selecting what they thought was -3.3 degrees nose down - a common approach for an airliner - they had selected 3,300 feet per second descent.
<snip>

Doh!

[FreddieVee]

That airbus was supposed to be impossible to crash.

But I am sure either of us could Google until we find something to make us feel superior. But that is my point. Book learning is wonderful, but it needs to be tempered by "hands on" experience.

Anyone can read a Prius handbook, I didn't and I admit my mistake. But some people need to feel superior so they belittle others. I will call no one on this forum (or any other forum) a horse, pig, "Behavior Nazis" or "Prius Defenders" or even megalomaniacs. We are all human and subject to human failings. What annoys me the most is that after the first sarcastic response to my earnest question, I took the trouble to approach the respondent with a private message. I wrote:
**************************
Thank you for your response to my question about my refueling problem.

Regarding your comment about fueling while power is on, I must admit that I missed that section of the Prius manual, but as far as being illegal, you may be correct technically, but since the gas engine is not running and therefor there is neither exhaust fumes nor a constantly heated catalytic converter to cause a fire, I would venture to say that they Prius might be exempt from the reasoning for the Shut Engine posted on the pumps. Technically the engine is off.

My wife suffers from medical conditions which is beyond the scope of this letter, so in Florida's heat, turning the AC off is a problem and opening the windows causes her to gag on the fumes. When I am alone, I turn off all power and I will try to schedule refueling in the future for when I can be alone.

My point is there was no need for your "Now might be a good time to mend your ways" comment. It sounded (to me) like preaching and sanctimonious. Maybe I am wrong. I hope so.

Again, thank you for your information.

FreddieVee
*****************************

The private message reply was, "Put this post in the forum. That way others can benefit from the discussion" and I answered that "I don't think that my personal situation is of any benefit to the other members."

So the next full forum response from that member was: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It only wastes your time and annoys the pig." and after I asked for more civility: "As for pig comments, I didn't mean any offense. Pigs are delightful and kind animals, and I wouldn't besmirch them in any way."

Very cute.

Did someone miss? "I will try to schedule refueling in the future for when I can be alone." Isn't an admission of a mistake and a pledge to do better in the future enough?

I guess at every forum there is someone and usually a clique of supporters that has to make life miserable for other members. And very often, the people who make life miserable are knowledgeable, so others will sell their souls for advice. That is why I never join forum groups or accept friendship invitations.

As far as me putting other people's lives in danger, the engine has never started once during the 5 or 6 times that I have refueled as low temperature is not a problem here in Florida and I always have plenty of blue bars showing on my battery prior to refueling. And as I said before that comment was posted, I will try to do better in the future. But I wonder if you are as quick to criticize Prius owners who try for maximum fuel economy. Constantly watching the instant MPG readings on the display panel has been shown to increase mileage, but constantly looking at the instant MPG readings on the display panel can be a distraction which I would bet dollars to doughnuts has a higher probability of putting (other) people's lives at risk than refueling a Prius with power on. And does every body who worries about hot refueling stop on red before making a right turn and stop fully at every stop sign? Please don't answer yes. I have been driving for 46 years.

Going back to airplanes for one moment. We could lower the number of deaths from fire after an impact survivable plane crash by putting sprinklers on all the planes. There was an estimate that it would cut the death rate per crash by 75%. The reason would be that the extra weight of the sprinklers and water would lower the available passenger weight capacity by so much that the price per ticket would need to quadruple and the amount of people per plane would drop. Very little of the life saving would be because of the water sprinklers. Most of the savings of life would be because it would become too expensive to fly.

[ETP]

Originally Posted by qbee42

You can't guarantee that the Prius ICE will not start when the car is in Ready mode. It will start whenever it sees fit. A low SOC or low temperature will cause it to start uncommanded. As for the risk of fire or explosion, it is very small with any modern automobile. The laws exist because there is a finite increase in risk and it is very easy to turn off a car. The small inconvenience of stopping and starting an engine is easily outweighed by even a small risk of catastrophe. A bigger risk is entering and exiting a vehicle while refueling. That should be illegal as well.

It doesn't bother me that you didn't read your manual. That's your prerogative. It also doesn't bother me if you wish to put your life at risk. I do it all the time rock climbing and sailing offshore. People should be allowed to set their own level of risk. What I don't like is when someone chooses to risk the lives of others without their consent. Choosing to hot refuel falls into this category. If you refuel on your own property away from others, you can do it however you see fit. When you refuel in public you should respect the lives and property of others and the law of the land.

As for pig comments, I didn't mean any offense. Pigs are delightful and kind animals, and I wouldn't besmirch them in any way.

Tom

This happened to me this morning! I hit the start button and it would not go into reverse. I turned the system off and back on and everything was normal.

[jayman]

Originally Posted by FreddieVee

That airbus was supposed to be impossible to crash.

The Airbus fly-by-wire series was designed to be safer, but nothing on this planet is "impossible" to crash. I've done enough Human Factors engineering to know one cannot attach "impossible" to anything

There is a reason why first Airbus, then Boeing (The 777 series) went fly-by-wire: weight savings, redundancy, increased efficiency, etc. On large airliners, there is no direct connection between the yoke and the flight control surface, everything is servo assist

So whether a fly-by-wire control system fails after a major incident, or the hydraulic system loses all fluid, the end result is usually the same.

You may recall the crash of a United DC-10 at Sioux City, IA, as the result of the center engine having a catastrophic failure. The entire front hub departed the aircraft, and was eventually found in a farmers field

The DC-10 has 3 separate hydraulic systems, but all 3 were routed in close proximity to the center engine. When the front hub failed, the violent separation tore through all 3 hydraulic lines. The only way to control the DC-10 was by modulating thrust on the two remaining engines. The crash was inevitable

YouTube - United 232 Crash Sioux City

YouTube - United 232 Crash Sioux City

A lot of folks automatically assume the computer is to blame. Such as the Canadian charter airline Air Transat Airbus A330 emergency landing at a military field in the Azores, after running out of fuel and gliding about 20 minutes over the Atlantic

The pilot and co-pilot refused to believe the computer telling them there was a fuel imbalance, they even opened the crossfeed manually to balance the levels.

What actually happened, the mechanics replaced one of the the engines before the flight. A fuel pipe was improperly routed, the normal vibration during flight chaffed a hole in the pipe, and fuel gushed out

Once both engines shut down due to fuel exhaustion, the APU couldn't be started, as there wasn't any useable fuel on board. In that situation, the ram air turbine deploys to provide just enough electrical and hydraulic power to keep critical systems up.

On landing, all the tires were destroyed due to having no spoilers and no anti-skid. All survived

An earlier example is the Air Canada Boeing 767 that ran out of fuel over Red Lake, Ontario, and managed to glide to Gimli, Manitoba. Improper maintenance and procedures allowed the Boeing to depart with no working fuel gauges

Comical errors were made in fuel load conversion factors. However, the plane was able to successfully land

As a practising engineer, sometimes I've had to do forensic investigation of incidents and outright failures. A disturbing number of such failures are traced back to improper/sloppy procedures, especially those involving repair

[qbee42]

Originally Posted by jayman

<snip>
As a practising engineer, sometimes I've had to do forensic investigation of incidents and outright failures. A disturbing number of such failures are traced back to improper/sloppy procedures, especially those involving repair

Remember the DC-10 that crashed on takeoff in Chicago? That one lost an engine. The problem was traced back to a bad maintenance procedure where AA removed and installed engines using a fork truck. Their procedure stressed the mounting flanges and induced cracking. One of them finally failed. Human factors once again.

Tom