This article was posted 05/20/2009 and is most likely outdated.

Electrical Hazards for Aircraft and the NEC
 

 

Topic - Grounding
Subject - Electrical Hazards for Aircraft and the NEC

May 20, 2009
This newsletter was sent to 22102 newsletter subscribers

Ask a Question |  Weekly Code GraphicQuizzes |  Free Stuff InstructorsOnline Training Products | Seminars | SubscribeUnsubscribe
[ image1 Post Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ] Web Page Version [Printer-Friendly]    

Electrical Hazards for Aircraft and the NEC

 

The National Electric Code, Article 90.2(B)(1)(Scope, Not Covered) specifically excludes electrical installations in aircraft. How then, can there be electrical hazards involving the NEC and aircraft applications? Whenever the aircraft is receiving electrical power from fixed premises wiring, such as when loading passengers or undergoing maintenance at an aviation facility such as an airport.

Such electrical hazards are created by the inherent aircraft electrical design philosophy colliding with specific requirements for electrical safety contained in the NEC.

During ground operations, aircraft may be receiving electrical power, defined by MIL-STD-704 as a three-phase, four-wire, grounded-WYE electrical service of 115/200 volts, 400-Hz. This Military Standard is used for all commercial aircraft using 400-Hz power. This power is derived from the building electrical service and is a permanent installation, connecting to the aircraft via a pendant cord. The NEC, Article 513.10(C)(3) requires that such cord “shall include an equipment grounding conductor.” The cord assemblies available today do not contain the required grounding conductor. See Figure 1.

Image1
Figure 1: Typical Aircraft Cord Connector

In this design, pins A, B, C, and N carry the respective circuit conductors, including the grounded conductor. The two smaller pins are reserved for the 28-VDC Safety circuit; pins E & F. The aircraft mating plug does not provide for an equipment grounding conductor and the grounded conductor is bonded to the aircraft skin. The aircraft structure then serves as a Neutral or Return conductor.

It is common practice in aircraft power distribution design to provide single phase load power via a single conductor, the aircraft structure then providing the missing conductor [1, 2].

Consider then a commercial aircraft at the boarding gate, powered by the premises power system, with fuel in the tanks, people boarding, and power currents flowing through the structure of the aircraft, including the fuel tanks.

By not providing a grounding conductor, it will be difficult to detect a low level single-phase power fault. This is especially true since the skin or fuselage is acting as the grounded conductor.

Author: 
Mike McClelland
Principal Engineer
559-583-7491
mmcclelland43@comcast.net

Bibliography

1. Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, 12th Edition, Donald G. Fink and H. Wayne Beaty © McGraw-Hill 1987, Chapter 23, page 23-4.

2. Aircraft Electromagnetic Compatibility Final Report, Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, Seattle, WA, June 87, published by U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service. DOT/FAA/CT-86/40. Page 77. Download this report from: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870014423_1987014423.pdf

 

Click here to post a comment
[ View More Newsletters ] [ Send to a Friend ] [ Post Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ]

Copyright © Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved.
This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be
displayed or published on the internet without the prior written permission of Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc.

http://www.MikeHolt.com     1-888-NEC-CODE (1-888-632-2633)

Experiencing a Problem? Click Here

 
Comments
  • Good article. But nearly every medium to large commercial aircraft has a male version of the plug shown in the picture. Nearly every airport has 400Hz power supply systems that use this plug. It seems as universal as the two and three prong 120V plugs we use in our homes. The power supply configuration would have to be changed in all aircraft and at every single airport 400Hz power supply point to make the changes mentioned in the article. Since aircraft don't generally explode when attached to ground power at the gate and passengers don't get shocked while boarding there doesn't seem to be a lot of justification to make all those changes.

    Mick Wolford
    Reply to this comment

  • In my experience offloading commercial and military aircraft on the airport parking apron in Antigua, I observed that the FIRST action of the ground crew was to apply a large grounding clip from the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) to the aircraft. This was done initially to dissipate the static electrical charge that the aircraft built up during the flight. (The static charge must be neutralized before refueling operations can begin, lest a static spark ignite the jet fuel, or a spark shock a person touching the aircraft and the ground.) I am not certain if the "static ground" also acts as an electrical ground for the APU, or if it is a high resistance ground. Your info states that the connector has pins A, B, C, and N. - Is pin "N" a neutral pin?

    Michael McKinney
    Reply to this comment

  • In answer to the, as yet unasked, question terrestrial based electricians may wonder about. 400Hz was chosen for aircraft applications due to magnetic considerations. 400Hz transformers and motors require smaller cores and thus are lighter weight. Commercial aircraft use of 400Hz power is not so much driven by commonality with military applications as the shared need for operational efficiency due to a lighter airframe.

    Ken Lillemo
    Reply to this comment

  • I cannot resist.

    This brings new meaning to the phrase "Hop on a plane." Is this the new safety mantra to avoid becoming part of a return path for current from the airframe to ground power?

    Ken Lillemo
    Reply to this comment

  • Interesting topic. Have a question about the aircraft's AC system in regards to the neutral return. Does each load which requires a neutral have this neutral locally connected to the airframe for return? Or are their neutral conductors from a common neutral bus going to these loads?

    Based on the replies to this, I will comment on another aspect of the original article.

    David Rifkin

    David Rifkin
    Reply to this comment

  • The neutral wire (same size as A, B, and C) is bonded to the generator case which is bonded to earth ground. The aircraft neutral buss is connected to the feed plug neutral. This neutral connection to the aircraft is NOT broken by any other means than the pluged connection.

    Aircraft switches over to ground power via load contactors , first the ground power load concator which sends power to the aircraft, then after quality check passes, the aircraft load contactor energizes. The aircraft then monitors the power durring the entire power cycle and holds the generator ON via the smaller E & F 28 vdc signal. The neutral is NOT broken other than the matting plug pictured.

    Micah
    Reply to this comment

  • If the aircraft is grounded before the APU is connected the neutral will act as ground. The output from ground power units will also have their own protection from phase to the neutral (ground). More important is the bonding connection between grounded skybridge and the aircraft ground.

    Frank
    Reply to this comment

  • It seems that it would be a simple step to retrofit a Grounding conductor to the pendant cord, segregate the neutral from the frame to a Jack adjacent to the pendant jack and do a simple training (very simple) to have ground crews connect the ground P/J at the same time that the cord is connected. Why wouldn't the FAA require this alignment with the code in today's safety conscious environment?

    Todd Stevens
    Reply to this comment

  • I was a Crew Chief on a B-52. The first thing required, before connecting external power, refueling, etc. was a ground wire connected to the aircraft and then to the grounding grid.

    Is this not common practice with all aircraft?

    Charles Briner
    Reply to this comment

  • With all due respect Sir.

    As an individual with an airframe and powerplant license, multi-decade experience with avaition, railroad and commercial electricity, please make sure this isn't a tempest in a teapot, an engineer in search of a cause. Because if this was an actual issue, we would be seeing aircraft exploding and people dropping like flies trying to board aircraft all over the world.

    Every multiphase piece of equipment I have ever installed in an aircraft was completly self contained. That's why polyphase is used. No external neutral. This might be the issue, in that while it's called a "neutral", nothing in the airplane actually uses it, so in practice it becomes the bonding conductor.

    Wiring, especially wiring carrying AC, to the sub equipment is usually shielded, with the shield grounded to the frame. The case of the equipment is bonded to the airframe or frame of the railroad car. You don't want current in the frame and shields, because then you have a big antenna, interfering with the navigation and communication equipment. Additionally each piece of equipment has it's own sub-breakers or fuse.

    Another issue is that these peices of equipment, both the whole machine, and discreet appliances, recieves much more regular critical and intense inspection than building or house electrical system would ever recieve post approval. A "low level fault" would show up as something wrong, either with the system itself, or as interference with some other system.

    In all of my experience, the metal frames, both the airframe itself and the individual components NEVER carried current. All equipment was bonded together, yes, but what have you seen inside the airplane to make you think that there is actually current in the airframe? Or are you looking at the plug and assuming that the inside of the airplane is working just like all the ground bound and stationary systems that you have designed?

    The fuel tanks you mentioned as exploding? What reason was given for their explosion. Operator error? Did they explode while they were connected to the airplane? As far as I know it's always sop to ground the airframe to the fuel delivery device, either stationary or mobile. Was it actually the issue of current in the neutral that caused the explosion.

    In conclusion, what I think we have here is something called a "legacy". When the MIL spec was written, it was sop. The industry worked to the spec. Now there are many, many things out there worked to that spec. The NEC moved on, rightfully so, but to change all of the things out there that are configured to the old spec, it is too impractical and too expensive to change.

    Thank You

    Steve
    Reply to this comment

  • One thing that has not been mentioned. The NEC has no jurisdiction on aircraft.

    Bryan
    Reply to this comment


Get notified when new comments are posted here
* Your Email:
 
        
 
Add Your Comments to this Newsletter
* Your Name:
   Your name will appear under your comments.

* Your Email:
   Your email address is not displayed.
* Comments:

Email Notification Options:
Notify me when a reply is posted to this comment
Notify me whenever a comment is posted to this newsletter