Low Fuel... Again

arsenal · Post by **arsenal** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:12 pm

Cadors Number: 2007A1278 Reporting Region: Atlantic

Occurrence Information
Occurrence Type: Incident Occurrence Date: 2007/10/19
Occurrence Time: 1815 Z Day Or Night: day-time
Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0

Canadian Aerodrome ID: CCQ3 Aerodrome Name: Debert
Occurrence Location: Debert (CCQ3) Province: Nova Scotia
Country: CANADA World Area: North America

Reported By: Transport Canada AOR Number:
TSB Class Of Investigation: TSB Occurrence No.: A07A0129
Event Information
Engine failure
Fuel - exhaustion
Aircraft Information
Flight #:
Aircraft Category: Aeroplane Country of Registration: CANADA
Make: PIPER Model: PA31
Year Built: 1969 Amateur Built: No
Engine Make: AVCO LYCOMING Engine Model: TIO-540-A2B
Engine Type: Reciprocating Gear Type: Land
Phase of Flight: Approach Damage: No Damage
Owner: MARITIME AIR CHARTER LIMITED Operator: MARITIME AIR CHARTER LIMITED (10413)
Operator Type: Commercial

Detail Information
User Name: MacQuarrie, Jack
Date: 2007/10/30
Further Action Required: Yes
O.P.I.: Aviation Enforcement
Narrative:

A Canadian registered PA-31, enroute IFR from Iles de la Madeleine (CYGR) to Halifax (CYHZ), cancelled IFR and diverted to Debert (CCQ3). On the final approach to Debert, the aircraft experienced engine failure due to fuel exhaustion. The flight crew was able to successfully glide the aircraft to a safe landing on Runway 27 in Debert.

User Name: MacQuarrie, Jack
Date: 2007/11/06
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.: Aviation Enforcement
Narrative:
UPDATE TSB:
A07A0129:

A Piper PA-31 with two pilots and five passengers on board, was en route on an IFR flight plan from Iles-de-la-Madeleine to Halifax. At around 30 nm north northeast of Halifax, the pilot became concerned about the low state of the aircraft fuel supply at which point the flight crew cancelled the IFR flight plan and diverted the aircraft for a landing in Debert, Nova Scotia. Approximately two nm on final approach for Runway 27 at Debert, the left engine stopped and the right engine began surging. The pilot feathered the left engine and landed the aircraft without further incident. The aircraft was refueled, an extensive run-up was carried out, and the aircraft was flown from Debert to Halifax. The operator will be supplying the TSB with further information involving the incident.

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:31 pm

Why? This is the ONE thing you have control over in an aircraft.

Glad to hear nobody paid a big price for this one.

stl

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:05 pm

Boy, I feel for the crew. With 5 passengers, fuel should not be a big factor except if there was a great distance to be flown and winds are against them. How many times have we guessed fuel vs load and shortchanged ourselves only to white knuckle our way home, wondering.
I have done it a few times myself except I was concerned about legal reserves at alternate in VFR weather where you know there will not be a miss.
I flew with a pilot on a Lear who had a neat system where he did honest fuel burn calculations and kept a howgosit log. We/he calculated fuel burn and time to each waypoint in a OFP and everytime we passed a waypoint, we/he read the progress and displayed it as a plus/minus so we could recognise a shortage early and divert short of destination for either a slurp or a big gulp of fuel. One thing that is important is to be aware of the amount of fuel burned and the amount on board. I have, on a few occasions, closed a blind eye to low fuel warnings because I knew I had sufficient fuel and a false warning. I have been proven correct on every occasion. If anyone is familiar with a Metro, you know all about the FUEL XFER light. Should indicate a low fuel level if the boost pumps are operating but I knew we had fuel because I dipped the tanks and watched the fuel go in so I knew we had sufficient fuel, and the gauges indicated we had sufficient fuel so I was able to ignored the warning, which proved false. We landed with exactly the calculated fuel on board. Biggest job was to get the co-pilot to follow through with the systems, indications and decisions so he could learn something from the incident. Now, most of the pilots I fly with can calculate fuel burns quite accuratley and make sound decisions about how long we can continue to convert fuel into noise and thrust.

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:12 pm

Well now that they've run out of gas they can always go work for Transport like at least one inspector I could name.

Alex YCV · Post by **Alex YCV** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:16 pm

I am wondering maybe the high cost of fuel is encouraging some operators to keep the fuel loads as tight as possible?

bob sacamano · Post by **bob sacamano** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:19 pm

I didn't know keystone was teaching groundschool for other companies.

g5 · Post by g5 » Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:54 pm

The Navajo has a pretty poor fuel gauge system, and dipping the tanks is not an option. Phantom fuel is your friend.

raven54 · Post by **raven54** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:59 am

Keeping the fuel loads tight will not affect how much the a/c has to burn.

Speedbird Junior · Post by **Speedbird Junior** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:06 am

Of course the easy solution here is (on a fairly regular run) to work out total burn upon refuel and draw up an average over a few trips - for each a/c that you use. The PA31 fuel burns can vary wildly between a/c - seeing as they are old and quite often worn. We use to do this on a fleet of them on regular bag runs and then used a conservative fuel figure to come up with a gross average fuel requirement for each route. Worked just fine.

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:50 am

Alex YCV wrote:I am wondering maybe the high cost of fuel is encouraging some operators to keep the fuel loads as tight as possible?

Cuz cheaping out on fuel is waaaaaay cheaper than a crash with all the litigation, TC microscoping, insurance rate hikes, loss of rev, etc. Plus you may have dead pilots and/or pax on your hands, all so you could put a few more bucks in your wallet

Plus if you ever plan on flying the airplane again your going to have to put fuel in it. So tankering a couple extra litres around doesn't cost much relatively speaking.

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:51 am

raven54 wrote:Keeping the fuel loads tight will not affect how much the a/c has to burn.

It will on a 340 going from Toronto to New Delhi, but not on a HO from YGR to YHZ.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:46 am

sky's the limit wrote:Why? This is the ONE thing you have control over in an aircraft.

Glad to hear nobody paid a big price for this one.

stl

Ah yes, but WHY did they make this mistake? What culture was to blame?

Or, was the guy just a fucking idiot, like every other pilot who tries to prove that engines can run on air alone?

Pajock · Post by **Pajock** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:28 am

No excuses for running out, but a possible contributing factor in YGR is that there is no AVGAS available at the airport, you have to go into town and buy a drum of fuel from ESSO, lug it back and pump it on. Had the exact same charter in a PA31 to YGR from YHZ. Needed that gas 4sure!!

5x5 · Post by **5x5** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:40 am

Apparently it's not just a few guys making runs in Ho's in the Canadian North. From AVWeb today...

Skimping On Fuel Leads To More "Emergencies"

At busy Newark Liberty International Airport, just outside New York, 73 flights landed after telling controllers they were operating with minimum or low fuel during six months this year, compared to just five flights making the same declaration during a similar period in 2005. An additional 10 flight crews declared an emergency fuel situation, requesting to land immediately, according to WABC News. The WABC report blames cash-strapped airlines for pressuring their crews to carry minimum fuel, saving money by cutting weight on the flights. "They're taking away the margin of safety," former NTSB Chairman James Hall told WABC. "Seeing numbers like that, the FAA administrators should be calling the airlines in on the carpet and find out what's going on." WABC also cites anonymous reports from NASA's aviation safety reporting system in which one pilot says an airline's "fuel saving program takes preference over safety," and another writes, "It's a case of dice rolling at its most dangerous."

Air traffic controller Ray Adams told WABC that in the last two years he's noticed an astounding increase in the number of flights coming into Newark under minimum or emergency fuel conditions.

Speedbird Junior · Post by **Speedbird Junior** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:08 am

This happened at over London on Thursday morning. Aircraft was a B744, Speedbird 088 from Nairobi...transcript from pprune forum..

(For those not familiar - Biggin = VOR south east of London, LTN = London Luton Airport and LAM = VOR NW of London, both VOR's are holding points for EGLL Heathrow))

It was 15 miles south east of Biggin and informed it had its EAT. The pilot mentioned that he was a bit tight on fuel but and that he would need an improvement in the EAT. The EATs were constantly being amended and BAW88 got an improvement of 8 minutes. (They weren't actually real EATs by then, they were around 12 mins delay).

This was still not good enough, the pilot reckoned he had about 5 mins to diversion, so elected to go to LTN (at this stage the Biggin controller informed the pilot that if he declared a PAN, he would get a priority approach to EGLL but was told 'it's not that bad') The diversion was duly arranged and he was vectored towards LTN.

The A/C never actually entered the Biggin hold, it carried straight on through with a bit of vectoring and a 2000' climb (from FL140 to FL160) to make sure it cleared LAM stack.

As he was nearing BKY, he was informed that he would be able to get a straight in if he wanted to go back to EGLL, delays were now less than 5 mins and he would be given priority.

Round about this time he called a PAN.

He elected to try EGLL, and was being positioned for a straight in aproach. As he flew down the ILS (at about 9 miles), he declared a MAYDAY.

Landed at EGLL safely.

Somebody is going to pay a visit to the principal's office I think....

Four1oh · Post by **Four1oh** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:46 am

Minimum fuel situations are something we have all had and may have to deal with at some point in our careers. What sets the professionals apart is they recognize the situation for what it is and takes measures to prevent a 'quiet' airplane.

Alex YCV · Post by **Alex YCV** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:29 pm

Snowgoose wrote:
Alex YCV wrote:I am wondering maybe the high cost of fuel is encouraging some operators to keep the fuel loads as tight as possible?
Cuz cheaping out on fuel is waaaaaay cheaper than a crash with all the litigation, TC microscoping, insurance rate hikes, loss of rev, etc. Plus you may have dead pilots and/or pax on your hands, all so you could put a few more bucks in your wallet

Plus if you ever plan on flying the airplane again your going to have to put fuel in it. So tankering a couple extra litres around doesn't cost much relatively speaking.

I wasn't suggesting it as a SMART thing, just a thing. In theory, if you only need 3/4 of a tank, that extra 1/4 of a tank is dead inventory and extra weight to be hauling all over the place.

Wasn't it American Airlines that was all proud that it had adjusted it's fueling procedures to avoid hauling excess fuel all over the place?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:00 pm

One item that I have found to be very helpful in fuel management is a fuel totalizer.

These instruments are very useful in managing fuel.

In fact it was one of the must have instruments I have added to the new Husky that we bought.

rigpiggy · Post by **rigpiggy** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:41 pm

I think the fuel burn penalty is somewhere in the area of 3.5-5% per extra pound carried per hour. That said, the only time I have too much fuel is when I'm on fire.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:59 pm

When someone applies for a job as an inspector at Transport, what are the qualifications that they look for?

If xxx company were hiring a pilot they may not be able to find out if said pilot had an iffy accident or compliance with the rules record...

...but TC has your file....

Why do they hire so many people who have screwed up in airplanes??

Cap'n P8 · Post by **Cap'n P8** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:27 pm

'Leverage'

Ensures they toe the 'company' line!

flyinphil · Post by **flyinphil** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:36 am

Who knows thieves better than a thief?

Who knows regs better than those who frequently break them?

Who knows the regulatory shortfalls better than those who extort them?

They hire lots of instructors because that is the segment they have most dealings with. The 704/705 guys just lick the nuts of industry.

I know, call me cynical

Liquid Charlie · Post by **Liquid Charlie** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:00 am

Minimum fuel is a fact of life these days - I don't like no alternate IFR but have to deal with it almost everyday - companies do not want to carry too much fuel pure and simple - not only the cost of buying fuel at an airport where it is more expensive but tankering costs money. One tries to "pad" it a little by capping altitudes and requesting approach fuel but 30 minutes of fuel over destination is based on cruise - throw a go-a-round in and we are talking substantially less endurance - also in europe there is no such thing as declaring min fuel and expecting any help - you must declare an emergency --

When you land at a busy airport -- don't dick around on the runway 'cuz the guy behind you might just land anyway -- I know I would declare an emergency and continue.

Interesting experience a few years ago -- we were going to st pete's and it was a clear day -- the winds on the surface suddenly went to 50 kt's putting cross winds above limits at several airports in the area -- all the american carriers were no alternate ifr -- there were several interesting conversations on atc and voices tended to be up an octave or two -- all turned out well but I'm sure there were a couple of whiskeys consumed that night.

tsgas · Post by **tsgas** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:12 pm

This kind of stuff makes the travelling public leary of flying on small airplanes.
Not a very professional image for our industry.

Josh5 · Post by **Josh5** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:46 pm

2 things i learned EARLY, 'Granny gas is your friend' Cause if you don't land with any your Grandmother will kick your ass. And the only time you have to much gas is when your on fire..
Learn from this guys and enjoy your future cause A/C will be a callen shortly to reward you...