TT1900 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 15, 2018 1:15 pm
photofly wrote: ↑Sun Jul 15, 2018 10:27 am
As I said, I don’t really care what this particular individual pilot did or didn’t do, except that he or she landed with one dry tank.
How do you know it was “dry”? Weren’t you part of a big thing about usable/unusable/measureable fuel? I’ll admit, I know nothing of Cessna fuel systems other than what you posted. Seems like it could have been reading empty with up to 2gal remaining that would still be feeding. So I ask again, how do you know it was dry? (Hint: You don’t).
There are two possible explanations:
Either the fuel selector was not on BOTH at the time of landing, which contravenes the operation procedures in the POH and the mandatory placards in front of the pilot. (Note that the pilot did not report that he or she failed to follow the mandatory procedure, so let’s take them at their word.)
Or, alternatively, one tank was completely dry and the selector valve was set to both so late in the landing procedure that the empty tank didn’t have time to refil from the partially full tank. For sure, with only 5 gallons in the “full” tank, it won’t cross feed very fast.
If there had been the two gallons of “unusable” fuel in the left tank, and 20 litres of usable fuel in the right, the engine would not have quit.
We will never find out exactly the sequence of errors that pooched this flight. Never. Let’s instead learn not to empty a tank, and remind ourselves, if we need to, to make sure the fuel selector valve is set to BOTH as the manufacturer demands.
I’m curious to know what anyone else thinks the root error is. Perhaps the pilot should have had more rest, or not eaten the prawn cocktail for lunch.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.