Dempster flame out?

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
Prairie Chicken
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 726
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:12 pm
Location: Gone sailing...

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Prairie Chicken » Tue May 05, 2009 4:29 am

I'd hate for the guy to actually be charged - I think it would start a very bad precedent and I'm sure that fuel management is one thing this Beech 99 guy will not have issues with in the future. At the end of the day the pilot made it home and the plane was still usable, and it really could have been a lot worse. It still makes me wonder in a general way though, what the level of negligence is that gets a person charged vs not charged after an incident.
Um, I'm wondering why would it set a bad precident?

If the company are deemed to be SMS by TC, policy is that there should be no Enforcement investigation of either pilot or company. If that's the case though, you can bet this incident will be thoroughly reviewed.

If the company aren't SMS, there's no doubt it will be investigated. However, I am positive the pilot didn't get up that day and decide to land on the Dempster, so it would be interesting to hear what led to this.

Does the 99 have a min take-off fuel?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Prairie Chicken

Rubberbiscuit
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:02 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Rubberbiscuit » Tue May 05, 2009 6:47 am

I just don't get it! I am dying to understand the reasoning or see the train of thought behind departing with less than sufficient fuel to make it to the destination... never mind reserve fuel or alternate fuel! "The boss says to only take XXXXlbs of fuel, cause baggage, pax and cargo have priority. Hmmm.... that will be ridiculously tight but I will be in trouble if I don't do it"

You have several options, and out of those the above mentioned path is the most likely to end in death and destruction. You can: A: Insist you keep it legal. If you can't fit the entire useful load plus required fuel don't go until the numbers get worked out, even if that means something/someone is left behind. B: If this is not acceptable to your boss....QUIT! C: I do not condone flying overweight but fudging the numbers and taking the required fuel is certainly a better option than running out. Stopping enroute might even be an option...

I suspect is might not be as cut and dry as I suggest above. Maybe they made this trip with this amount of fuel many a time in the past. Maybe the headwinds was stronger than predicted or in the past. Regardless, it is inexcusable.
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Nearly all safety regulations are based upon lessons which have been paid for in blood by those who attempted what you are contemplating" Tony Kern

User avatar
KAG
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3575
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:24 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by KAG » Tue May 05, 2009 7:23 am

My fellow peers, I doubt this guy decided to try to run the tanks dry. But what could be a small miscalculation of fueling due to poor gauges and inattention could over time could have transpired to cause this. So you think you have X in the tank, you really have Y, you did your numbers based on X and it worked – just. Surprise, Y came up short.
If you have a habit of running around lean and always pushing weather, loads, ETC...it is bound to catch up with you.

Granny gas...weren’t we just talking about this?!
Up north I always took it. Planes (gauges) aren't perfect, weather changes, lack of runways - A lot can go wrong. Give yourself an out over and above what is required on paper.
---------- ADS -----------
  
The feet you step on today might be attached to the ass you're kissing tomorrow.
Chase lifestyle not metal.

MUSKEG
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:49 am

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by MUSKEG » Tue May 05, 2009 7:24 am

I don't imagine there is anything in the criminal code that makes it an offense to run out of gas. TC on the other hand will no doubt have a hard look at this and impose personal and perhaps company fines and or suspensions. I can't imagine the RCMP having more than a passing interest in this. Several things jump out at me. Why 4500 feet, when he probably knew fuel was an issue. I'm wondering if the flight path between the towns just happens to parallel the highway or was he perhaps over it for other reasons. Single pilot, weather IFR, no auto pilot, so he needed to stay VFR. I imagine he feels like crap right now. No excuse for what happened but gloating over his misfortune is lacking class.
---------- ADS -----------
  

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by mbav8r » Tue May 05, 2009 8:07 am

Pelmet wrote:
The North-Wright Airways Ltd. Beech 99, C-FKHD, was operated as a single-pilot cargo day-VFR flight from Fort Good Hope, NT to Inuvik, NT. The aircraft departed Fort Good Hope with approximately 760 to 800 pounds of fuel at a flight planned altitude of 4500 feet ASL. 100 nm north of Fort Good Hope the pilot determined that 5 to 10 minutes of the VFR reserve fuel would be required to reach Inuvik.
This seems to have been missed by most of the posters here, it was an error in calculating how much fuel was onboard simple as that. I know for a fact no pilot, I mean absolutely no pilot in their right mind departs without at least thinking they have enough fuel. I wouldn't think they would depart knowing they would be using the reserve fuel ahead of time either. Granny Gas doesn't weigh anything. Always had a couple hundred pounds of it, for gauge error or unforseen things like stronger than forecast winds, lower ceiling vfr, etc.
Liquid charlie wrote:
Until we get like the trucking industry we really have no idea on what we really weigh --
Liquid, you really don't want to be like the trucking industry, 1st of all there is far more oversight on the trucking industry. I drove a truck for 3 years after 9/11 claimed my flying gig. You know all those scales you pass on the hwy, that are full of trucks getting weighed. Guess what they're not for show you know exactly how much you weigh, and further more your axles have to be with-in the limits aswell as the total weight. It's a tricky proposition, when you pull into a yard, you weigh the truck empty(tare wt.) then you load and re-weigh(gross) then you have your payload. Sometime if the loader messed up you would have to go back and shift the load around for your axle weights to be in limit. Always tried to show up with full tanks because if you were near empty and got a full load then fueled up, now you're overweight.
Also those same above mentioned scales from time to time will have inspections set up, they're checking everything, brakes with-in tolerances, lights, air lines for leaks, etc. Then if they find anything, you're done until it can be repaired where you sit. Now there is usually a scale when you enter a province or state and one when you exit, aswell as the ones placed willy nilly. I had one day where I was spot checked 3 time in 3 different states and each of them don't give a crap that you passed one check an hour before in another state. Guess what you're not being paid for all this fu-k--g around either, only when the wheels are moving.
So NO, I don't want aviation to be more like the trucking industry
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"

roger.roger
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:10 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by roger.roger » Tue May 05, 2009 8:22 am

I'm not 100% sure so you 99 guy's are going to have to confirm this but I belive if a jet pump fails you loose 45 mins of useful fuel. now I'm not sure that was the case here but being 5 minutes out of inuvik with 45 minutes of fuel that was suppose to be useful and became unusable, that put's this guy not only legal but not damaging an aircraft after a double engine failure makes him a hell of a pilot.

just make sure you have all the facts before flaming this guy.
---------- ADS -----------
  
I think that if you stick to the dotted lines when making the folds your might have some aviation success.

Fatass
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:50 am

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Fatass » Tue May 05, 2009 8:46 am

Point of interest, if I recall, full nacelles on the 99 is 800 lbs of fuel. Fill them up and your pretty accurate on your load.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Janszoon
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:27 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Janszoon » Tue May 05, 2009 9:44 am

Prairie Chicken wrote:Does the 99 have a min take-off fuel?
Yes, 285 lbs per side.
roger.roger wrote: I'm not 100% sure so you 99 guy's are going to have to confirm this but I belive if a jet pump fails you loose 45 mins of useful fuel. now I'm not sure that was the case here but being 5 minutes out of inuvik with 45 minutes of fuel that was suppose to be useful and became unusable, that put's this guy not only legal but not damaging an aircraft after a double engine failure makes him a hell of a pilot.
If you loose BOTH boost pumps on one side and still have fuel outside of the nacelle tank, you will not be able to use 28 US Gallons, or roughly 190 lbs, or 20 min worth of fuel per side. If you only have the nacelles full you can use all the fuel in those tanks (~800 lbs) by way of the engine-driven fuel pumps. So to not be able to use that 40 min of fuel you'd have to have 4 boost pumps fail and also have 190 lbs of fuel on each side outside of the nacelle tanks before the failure.

It looks like it's a 50 min flight of 167 NM. The 99 burns at 600lbs/hr with TAS ~200 kts. So you'd need 500 lbs to make it there; 800 to be legal VFR. If he had 800 lbs (both nacelles full with the NAC NOT FULL lights coming on just after takeoff) he should have been alright to make it, having just the required legal fuel.

There must be something else to the story here such as a combination of faulty fuel gauges combined with faulty NAC NOT FULL lights, or possibly a strong headwind combined with a higher burn rate while being low. Curious to know what happened.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Strega
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1767
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:44 am
Location: NWO

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Strega » Tue May 05, 2009 10:09 am

There must be something else going on here
Ya I'll say, some dumb shit ran out of gas... Perhaps he can blame the FACT that HE RAN OUT OF GAS on "the pressures of the industry"

This guy is a MORON!!! HE RAN OUT OF GAS PEOPLE!!!

Hes not a good pilot, hes a shitty one, Ask yourself, do good pilots run out of gas?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Rule books are paper - they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
— Ernest K. Gann, 'Fate is the Hunter.

roger.roger
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:10 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by roger.roger » Tue May 05, 2009 10:28 am

I knew there was some way that usable fuel became unusable but wasent sure how that worked, thanks Janszoon for an informative answer
---------- ADS -----------
  
I think that if you stick to the dotted lines when making the folds your might have some aviation success.

'effin hippie
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:44 pm
Location: Further..further...ok, too far...

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by 'effin hippie » Tue May 05, 2009 10:32 am

VFR Direct YGH ->YEV gets you over the Dempster eventually, I can't recall exactly where, but on course 10 minutes back you'd be pretty close to it, and you'd stay close all the way in.

ef
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rubberbiscuit
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:02 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Rubberbiscuit » Tue May 05, 2009 12:18 pm

I did not suggest he ran out of fuel on purpose. On the other hand I cannot think of a scenario where human factors wasn't involved in a fuel starvation incident/accident.
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Nearly all safety regulations are based upon lessons which have been paid for in blood by those who attempted what you are contemplating" Tony Kern

phillyfan
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 898
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by phillyfan » Tue May 05, 2009 1:09 pm

Good job puttin'er down without a scratch. Pride may have taken a hit. But that's a whole lot easier to deal with when the airplane and you don't have a scratch on them.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2144
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Donald » Tue May 05, 2009 1:40 pm

There's a pic of the aircraft on the highway in yesterdays News/North, sorry I don't have the online version.

Another factor could be that the only fuel in YGH is home heating fuel, most places don't want that stuff used unless you absolutely need it. So one would have to look at the flight planning and fuel burn from YVQ --> YGH when they speculate on this incident as well.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Strega
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1767
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:44 am
Location: NWO

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Strega » Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm

Another factor could be that he is a MORON and RAN OUT OF GAS!!!

Just as you CANNOT justify running a Dash 8 off of a 10k foot runway, you CANNOT justify running out of gas in this manner
---------- ADS -----------
  
Rule books are paper - they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
— Ernest K. Gann, 'Fate is the Hunter.

Four1oh
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2448
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:24 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Four1oh » Tue May 05, 2009 3:31 pm

Strega wrote:Another factor could be that he is a MORON and RAN OUT OF GAS!!!

Just as you CANNOT justify running a Dash 8 off of a 10k foot runway, you CANNOT justify running out of gas in this manner
I think we get your point. Congrats, you win the award for being more annoying than Blastor... oh wait... you're the same guy, aren't you? :lol:
---------- ADS -----------
  
Drinking outside the box.

User avatar
Canoehead
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 871
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:08 pm
Location: YEE 220 @ 4

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Canoehead » Tue May 05, 2009 4:06 pm

Strega wrote:Just as you CANNOT justify running a Dash 8 off of a 10k foot runway, you CANNOT justify running out of gas in this manner
Have you read the YYB report yet?
---------- ADS -----------
  

MUSKEG
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:49 am

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by MUSKEG » Tue May 05, 2009 4:16 pm

Why read a report that might shed light on reasons and explanations of what happened. Just flame away and pass judgement and sentencing all in the same post. Getter done. That's par for the course on this forum is it not?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
raven54
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 548
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:14 am
Location: a dumpster

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by raven54 » Tue May 05, 2009 4:19 pm

Strega, quit being such a fuckin' tool man. So you're the perfect pilot eh? We'll all be sure to remember your words if you ever @#$! up..... :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
  

'effin hippie
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:44 pm
Location: Further..further...ok, too far...

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by 'effin hippie » Tue May 05, 2009 4:44 pm

YEV Gossip pool says he got canned.

C'mon TC, if ever you had the opportunity to DO YOUR F***ING JOB, now would be it.

There is no way the company culture was not a factor here. No way. It doesn't excuse the driver, but if N-W can get away with washing their hands of the guy and not facing up to recent history along with this thing then I guess TC really is as useless and incompetent as some folks like to suggest.

ef

/edit/ps. Do they still withhold $350/ month from everyone's pay until the end of the 30 month 'employment agreement'? Sure wouldn't want to get canned at month 28.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18919
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Cat Driver » Tue May 05, 2009 5:17 pm

There is no way the company culture was not a factor here. No way. It doesn't excuse the driver, but if N-W can get away with washing their hands of the guy and not facing up to recent history along with this thing then I guess TC really is as useless and incompetent as some folks like to suggest.
Maybe one of the TC posters or ex TC posters here could comment?
---------- ADS -----------
  
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.

User avatar
Strega
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1767
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:44 am
Location: NWO

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Strega » Tue May 05, 2009 5:24 pm

Raven,

I can assure you I will not run out of gas because some douche company wants me to go with "what I have"
---------- ADS -----------
  
Rule books are paper - they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
— Ernest K. Gann, 'Fate is the Hunter.

User avatar
_dwj_
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:08 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by _dwj_ » Tue May 05, 2009 5:29 pm

I'm with Strega here. Why do people defend the pilot and congratulate him for landing on a highway? I think he was just incredibly lucky that he had a big, long, empty highway right below him. It could have turned out very differently if he had had a full load of passengers and was over slightly more inhospitable terrain.

He "estimated" that he had minimum legal fuel, but possibly had less. Isn't it a good idea to check the actual amount of fuel if you're running on the bare minimum reserve? And if you can't do that and you do need to estimate the amount of fuel, shouldn't you add a bit more than the bare minimum required?

None of us are perfect pilots, but there's a difference between making a mistake (which we all do) and running out of fuel due to poor planning (which is negligent incompetence).
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18919
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Cat Driver » Tue May 05, 2009 5:37 pm

Not defending the pilot, but is there any chance there might be an insidious or overt company culture that encourages or allows these things to happen?
---------- ADS -----------
  
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.

User avatar
raven54
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 548
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:14 am
Location: a dumpster

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by raven54 » Tue May 05, 2009 5:41 pm

Strega wrote:Raven,

I can assure you I will not run out of gas because some douche company wants me to go with "what I have"
Nor will I. But we don't know all the details. Lets not flame the dude till we know if he deserves it. But, someone probably screwed up here.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”