Dempster flame out?

[200hr Wonder]

4500' on a PT6? One would think going up to 12500 would have solved a lot of problems with fuel burn unless it was a really short leg... Though honestly from what I know of PT6s on that type of a king air I would not have felt good leaving the ground for a 50min flight with less than 1000# of fuel.

[Liquid Charlie]

Kinda ironic that this incident happens when we are talking about a little extra fuel -- you can see from my tag line where I stand on this -- having said that it's not the same now cuz extra fuel is not putting us overweight except for landing and then the extra fuel is only needed when an approach is required so it gets burned.

But if I was flying in the north back on those turbo props I would not put myself in the situation where I was low on fuel - but that is a personal decision -- I have always asked guys -- "what's more dangerous -- being a little heavy or running out of fuel on short final" -- the whole system has built in errors that will come back to haunt you because you were focusing so hard on being legal you lost sight of the big picture. It always amazed me how airplanes weights always changed after they were re-weighed - we work with figures -- standard weights and everything is subjective. Until we get like the trucking industry we really have no idea on what we really weigh -- In my mind this whole issue of a little extra fuel has nothing to do with safety but more about doing anything to stay with what is perceived to be legal which sometimes crosses the line to being unsafe. Legal is great but common sense and the ability to pick out the traps is better -- and above all don't stooge around vfr when ifr is better -- make them reduce the load so you can fly ifr -- remember cam bay

[Sulako]

Unfortunately, there's no good excuse for running out of gas. Having said that, I was low on fuel once; I didn't like it very much and haven't repeated the experience. I wonder if this pilot will face criminal charges like that Keystone feller? I'm just playing devil's advocate for a second - besides the fact that only the pilot was on board, was there any significant difference between this flight and Keystone guy's flight? If anything, this one is even worse because the guy didn't even make it to the airport let alone shoot an ILS and then go around. Before you get the torches out, I'm kidding, I'm kidding. Mostly.

I mean, 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.

I was also thinking about the insurance company angle on this - if a pilot is convicted of a criminal offence does the insurance company still have to cover them? For example, suppose a pilot runs out of gas and is convicted of negligent operation of a motor vehicle or whatever - I have no idea what the actual charge would be. But anyway could the insurance company then say they won't pay to fix the plane because it was being operated illegally and point to the pilot's conviction as proof? Or maybe that's not how the system operates at all and I'm just being paranoid, which is entirely possible too.

['effin hippie]

I'm trying to think of a reason why it might not be this guys fault, but I can't.

One thing for sure, they SHOULD be taking a long hard look at the whole company. Poor fella in the 337 couple years ago. This shit doesn't happen in isolation.

The wife is taking a seminar on industrial safety. WCB says for every accident there are around 10 near misses. Tip of the iceberg I guess.

ef

[arctic navigator]

And this is the 2nd time known that NWA has had problems knowing how much gas they've had on board in the not too distant past. I'm not sure if the accident report has ever come out on the 207 that crashed just west of Tulita but I understand it was for the same thing, and of much worse consequence (everyone walked out but were banged up and the aircraft was a write-off).

[Prairie Chicken]

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?

[Rubberbiscuit]

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.

[KAG]

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.

[MUSKEG]

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.

[mbav8r]

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

[roger.roger]

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.

[Fatass]

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.

[Janszoon]

Does the 99 have a min take-off fuel?

Yes, 285 lbs per side.

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.

[Strega]

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?

[roger.roger]

I knew there was some way that usable fuel became unusable but wasent sure how that worked, thanks Janszoon for an informative answer

['effin hippie]

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

[Rubberbiscuit]

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.

[phillyfan]

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.

[Donald]

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.

[Strega]

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