Did I make a bad decision?

[B_Boomer_54]

In a nutshell, no , you did not make the right decision. Taking off knowing there is an issue is not very intelligent.

Glad to see that people are treating it with remote respect instead of hammering you with inexperience talk!

[Beefitarian]

I'm trying to figure out the math. $60 x 7, more or less expensive than replacing the cooked stuff and recharging a fire extinguisher?

[fleet16b]

Niss
I'll ask the most obvious question that nobody has asked

What does it say in the Ops manual under pre flight check ?

I think thats where you will find the answer you need.
Myself, I would not have taken off.
Your gut instinct was that something was wrong and you would be taking off in an unsure , risk situation.
Trust your gut instinct, treat that instinct like an advanced warning system
A calculated risk to be sure but hey a risk is a risk. Nobody can predict where the situation may have gone.
I don't think any flight is important enough that one needs "to risk it"

[5x5]

Two things, Niss. First, having the battery go dead in and of itself isn't a huge issue, many aircraft have been and are being flown without electrical power at all. However, they don't have a system that generates electrical current and the possibility of starting a fire. And as mentioned earlier, the possibility of a fire has to be a major concern to a prudent pilot. With an indication your system wasn't working correctly, you shouldn't have gone.

More importantly though is the distinction you make about making a more safe decision if you'd had passengers. Be very careful about making that kind of statement as in many cases, the exact opposite is true. You were already concerned about the money, now add the fact that you have passengers (friends or family) that see you as a special person who went and got a pilot's licence and bought a plane. You're viewed as capable and in your own mind you feel really good about this unique position you hold. They've gone out of their way and arranged their time to go with you on this fun and exciting experience, you have the aircraft started, and now you have to tell them "Sorry, we can't go, I might have a problem." It can really feel like you're letting them down and admitting you're not this skilled, competent pilot they think you are.

I'm not saying that is how you would react, but just cautioning you so you will be aware when the time comes. It's very, very easy to say all the right things sitting in front of your computer or over a coffee, just make sure you do the right things in the heat of the moment.

[Big Pistons Forever]

With perfect 20 /20 hindsight it is obvious you should not have taken off. However Shyte happens and you dealt with it so no harm no foul. Maybe a couple of things to thing about though

On start I noticed that the ammeter was pegged at 0. Ever since I bought the plane it always bounced off the stop, and this annual I pulled the alternator to get tested and it was fine.

I figured that it might be the instrument itself and and everything electrical was working fine I continued with the flight.
.

I read this as an indication that the ammeter has never worked in your airplane. I would suggest this is not an especially good state of affairs. The ammeter in your average bug smasher is the only direct indication of electrical health and therefore IMO should be functional.

First though you did not say what type of ammeter you had. There are 2 types

1) Typically found on Cessna's the ammeter has a needle with a zero in the middle and a plus sign of 60 amps on the far right side of the gauge and a minus 60 of the far left. A normal indication on this type of gauge is the needle will be slightly in the positive side of the scale indicating that a small charge is being applied to the battery. If a large load is applied to the electrical system the positive charge will increase indicating that the battery is being replenished as it supplies the high load and if the needle is ever in the negative side it indicates that more power is going out of the battery then is being replaced. A prolonged indication of negative usually means the charging system has failed and all power is now being supplied by the battery

2) Typical on Pipers and higher performance Cessna's is a ammeter which has a zero to 60 scale with the zero being on the far left. This gauge indicates alternator output. A zero indication indicates that the alternator is not producing any power so the ammeter indication should be proportional to load. There will always be a couple of amp load to keep the battery charged and when higher load items are turned on the ammeter will rise to indicate the extra demand.


With either type watching what the ammeter is doing, will give you quite a bit of information about the aircraft electrical services including:

1) You should look at the ammeter as soon as the engine starts. A hung starter (ie a starter that did not disengage when the engine started and so the starter motor is trying to turn an already running engine) is a very bad thing. Expensive damage will quickly ensue unless the engine is immediately shut down. If you get a hung starter the ammeter will be pegged at max load due to the massive draw from the starter so the problem will be obvious.

2) The ammeter will give you a good indication of battery health. Right after start there will be a brief high charging rate as the juice you used for the start is replenished but it should quickly diminish. A continued high rate of charging should be investigated. Either the battery is not accepting the charge or the charging system is not set up correctly and the battery is being overcharged which will cause premature battery failure.

3) The ammeter indication should be proportional to load. So as you turn on high draw items like landing lights and pitot heat the ammeter amps should go up. If it does not then it means the battery is taking the load. which will mean the battery will eventually be exhausted. Note in this case the charging system is still working it just can't keep up.

4) Like the case in point one, a sudden very high in flight charging indication is in the Uh OH category of things you do not want to see. Something is very wrong and figuring out what system is causing the draw and turning it off is very important, and if in doubt turning off the master should be considered. The worse case scenario is the situation progresses to an in flight electrical fire.

I would also suggest you might have been a bit slow dealing with your loss of power. In the event of a loss of charging and a situation where the battery is supplying all the power, as the battery supply is depleted its voltage will drop. Transponders are quite sensitive to voltage so they are usually the first thing to drop off line. Since you all ready suspected a charging problem I would suggest you should have taken action at this time. In particular you should have turned off everything electrical including pulling the turn coordinator fuse/CB if able. If you are only running one Comm radio the battery will keep going for quite a long time, certainly over an hour, so in this case you could have had plenty of battery power to run your comm and aux fuel pump when you arrived at your destination.

Finally I want to emphasize that at the end of the day you managed your problem and I hope you do not take anything I said as personal criticism, it is only meant as another point of view to give you a few things to think about and I commend you in sharing your situation so that others might learn.

[iflyforpie]

All good advice. I have 'been there, done that' as far as ramp fees and perhaps let my wanting to get home affect my better judgement.


Me personally, I've never seen an ammeter fail. With the Cessna ones (the - 0 + ones) sometimes parallax makes more of a difference than the state of the alternator, but Pipers have one of the best OEM ammeters of old light aircraft. You knew, and I always knew instantly whether it was reading properly or not whereas on a Cessna you usually have to hit a landing light or a flap switch to make it do anything. As has been mentioned earlier, an ammeter is a valuable tool to determine the health of your electrical system, and more hazardous than no charge is over charge, something only your ammeter can tell you if you don't have an overvolt light or voltmeter.

One thing I've always found in my experience as well that most alternator failures occur after it has been removed and reinstalled and usually after a couple flights. Loose hardware, incorrect routing (causing insulation to wear or terminals to short), or a loose belt.

One thing I found very helpful was a simple Garmin yoke mounted GPS plugged into the cigarette lighter. They all have voltmeters built in, they all have alarms that go off when external power is lost, and they are something we are always looking at.

[co-joe]

Load meter at zero not so bad...ammeter at zero, sounds bad. You always gotta load it up and look for a change, ie turn on everything you have and then turn it all off and look for a needle that moves, if it doesn't move it needs WD40...

[RenegadeAV8R]

...ammeter at zero, sounds bad. You always gotta load it up and look for a change, ie turn on everything you have and then turn it all off and look for a needle that moves, if it doesn't move it needs WD40...

I do not agree with the above statement.

Typically, the ammeter is between the alternator and the battery - and the ammeter shows the state of charge/discharge of the battery. Once the battery is charged, the ammeter shows Zero.

When loading the electrical system, the ammeter still show Zero if the alternator is functioning correctly. But if the alternator is not providing enough "power" (current/voltage), the battery will be discharging and the ammeter will show a negative value.

[High and Behind]

I would say that you knowingly flew an airplane with a defect without a redundant system that would allow you to carry out the flight with the minimal equipment required by your Aircraft Flight Manual and therefore opened yourself up to voiding your aircraft insurance, C of A and life insurance. Got to think worse case scenario here. If something happened and you had a fatal accident, your benefactors would probably be left with nothing.

You left the ground based on the Normalization of Deviance principal that you knew what the problem was from previous experience and that it was fixed and just an issue of the gauge not giving you what you thought the condition was of the electrical system.

Since the gauge was not wrong and you were wrong, I have to say that you fell for the age old blunder of it does that all the time, what could go wrong?

So here's the question you have to ask yourself; If you didn't own the airplane, and had no financial responsibility other than putting gas in it, and had no awareness of previous issues with the electrical system, would you have departed?

I would suggest that you should treat every flight like it's the first time ever in that airplane.

[FL500]

Hi everyone

This is a little bit off topic but it something that always bothers me. So whenever I'm renting aircraft from a flight school they always give you the line that "The fuel gauges are only reliable when they read 100% FULL or 100% EMPTY" This is not to say that I am suggesting not dipping the tanks or doing something that may be unsafe. However when I am taking an airplane on a five hour trip which is going to use up the majority of the fuel in all tanks. I think those tanks need to be reliable enough so that I can tell if I have a fuel leak in flight, if I am burning more fuel then what I have planned for due to an error on my part while flight planning, or due to another anomaly with the aircraft. I remember doing a flight to Florida not long ago and coming back I was really considering diverting to a closer airport because I simply did not know if the fuel gauges were telling me the truth or not.

Long story short I trusted what the owners had been saying that the gauges are not reliable, I figured I had did my flight planning carefully and I had given myself more of a reserve then what is the bare legal min. I guess you can imagine my surprise when I landed the aircraft and there was much less fuel in the tanks. So I would like to ask you all here if there is a good reason to teach pilots to distrust instruments where in every other part of aviation especially flying IFR or more complex aircraft we are trained to distrust ourselves and trust the instruments unless there is an obvious reason not to trust a particular instrument.

Forgive the rant but this is something that really bothers me. What does everyone else think? Am I over thinking? Should we just assume that fuel gauges are not to be trust? Love to hear every ones opinions. Thanks. FlySafe

[azimuthaviation]

If you want a reliable fuel indication get a shadin and use it properly (ie: make sure you enter the correct amount of fuel at the beginning of your flight). it does a pretty good job of letting you now how much youve used and how much is left and it can display it on your GPS.

[FL500]

If you want a reliable fuel indication get a shadin and use it properly (ie: make sure you enter the correct amount of fuel at the beginning of your flight). it does a pretty good job of letting you now how much youve used and how much is left and it can display it on your GPS.

shadin the aircraft I was flying sadly did not even have a panel mounted gps I was my handheld which sadly does not have this option but still made the trip down to Florida and back incredibly easy, and let me concentrate on things like calculating in route fuel, and making sure the engine was good, plus leaning out the mixtures. Must admit the view was beautiful

[Beefitarian]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=74278&hilit=Fuel+gauge

There's one discussion from the training forum. I don't want to sound mean but, didn't you notice if the gauges moved and approximately how much on the way down?

[magic wand]

If you want a reliable fuel indication get a shadin and use it properly (ie: make sure you enter the correct amount of fuel at the beginning of your flight). it does a pretty good job of letting you now how much youve used and how much is left and it can display it on your GPS.

Hmmm... garbage in garbage out!
Does the shadin system know if you have a fuel venting from a leaky cap?

[FL500]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=74278&hilit=Fuel+gauge

There's one discussion from the training forum. I don't want to sound mean but, didn't you notice if the gauges moved and approximately how much on the way down?

No it does not sound mean at all I was watching the gauges on all legs but the route to Florida was different then the Route back north to Canada and if I had not been told numerous times to distrust them I would have diverted to a closer airport and topped off the tanks. Fuel is just one of those things I never want to run out of mid flight.

I would like to know why this is how it is taught? if the aircraft is fitted with fuel gauges should they not be serviceable and accurate like any other instrument mounted in our aircraft

[niss]

Thanks for the feedback everyone!

I didn't really get the responses I was hoping for but I have been getting something infinitely more valuable so I thank you all for that.

I accept that I did make a bad decision that could have ended up very badly and thankfully did not.

I understand that given the issues of a possible short, or burnt wiring or something that this could have caused a fire being primary concern (assuming clear VFR weather, day).

Under similar circumstances, could this have been a safe and acceptable alternative (assuming I really did not want to leave the plane for potentially a week or so of tie downs):

- Recognize the situation
- Call tower by phone and inform them of my situation, ask for permission to depart direct to Barrie Nordo and no xpdr c/w light gun
- If I get permission to depart pull c/b for alternator and fly back on battery alone.

Would this mitigate the risk of having the alternator produce electrons and short out causing a fire? If the ammeter is dead could this be related to a fault down stream of the battery where pulling the alt cb would not protect me?

Thanks guys!

[CFR]

I would like to know why this is how it is taught? if the aircraft is fitted with fuel gauges should they not be serviceable and accurate like any other instrument mounted in our aircraft

The CARS state

"605.14 No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft for the purpose of day VFR flight unless it is equipped with ...

(j) a means for the flight crew, when seated at the flight controls to determine

(i) the fuel quantity in each main fuel tank, ..."

So as far as the rules are concerned it should be accurate enough to "determine the fuel quantity".

I have had the same discussion with our CFI and we both wonder why with todays technology, someone has not come up with an accurate retrofit for all the Cessna's and Pipers still out there! My current flying is done with full tanks and a stop every 3 1/2 hours (bladder break) so I always make sure I have enough fuel for 4 + hours at worst burn rate. I have recently started flying the FTU's Seneca where dipping the tanks is of no value below around 3/4 full and there is a max takeoff and landing weight. This makes fueling somewhat more complex with a near full load and makes accurate guages helpful (for what it's worth I have done some rudimentary testing and the guages seem to be accurate).

[Colonel Sanders]

someone has not come up with an accurate retrofit for all the Cessna's and Pipers still out there!

They did. It's called a fuel totalizer. Costs $600. It will tell you
precisely how much fuel the engine has consumed, with accuracy
of less than one gallon.

A fuel totalizer is like a GPS, or ANR headset. Once you use it,
you will never want to fly without it again.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/i ... essure.php

IMHO, every commercially-registered aircraft should have one.

[CFR]

The specs on the device don't clearly state it, but I assume that you must enter the starting fuel state, it does not measure the fuel on board. My GPS has a similar function (although it does not measure flow rate automatically, it has to be entered). While I think they are both great ways to manage fuel there is still the basic question of what's in there now! For the Seneca flight I did, the weather was iffy (only in the sense that we may have to turn back, not a case of pressing on) and so while the total was less than gross (4200), it was more than allowable landing (4000), so if I had to return, I wanted to be below 4000. Luckily (sort of) the tanks were full, so using the portable tank (35 gallons), we removed around 16 from each side getting me near enough to 4000 that we would burn the difference quickly. The problem would have been with less than full tanks, lets say around 1/2 on the guages. Can't dip the tanks so what options are there. Either accept the guages or fill and remove fuel. Even though the guages matched the quantity after we removed the fuel, I am still not certain I would trust them.

[CFR]

Under similar circumstances, could this have been a safe and acceptable alternative (assuming I really did not want to leave the plane for potentially a week or so of tie downs):

- Recognize the situation
- Call tower by phone and inform them of my situation, ask for permission to depart direct to Barrie Nordo and no xpdr c/w light gun
- If I get permission to depart pull c/b for alternator and fly back on battery alone.

Would this mitigate the risk of having the alternator produce electrons and short out causing a fire? If the ammeter is dead could this be related to a fault down stream of the battery where pulling the alt cb would not protect me?

Thanks guys!

As a rental pilot, if I wasn't sure I would have phoned back to the FTU I rent from and asked the question of their CFI and Maintenance staff. I'm pretty sure they would have been able to provide a clear answer with rationale. Having said that I try and know as much as I can about the systems on the aircraft I fly to make sure I understand them as well as I can. As an owner you do not have the same luxury of phoning the FTU's maintenance staff, so there is more onus on you to understand the systems completely. As I am considering purchasing an aircraft I have been advised to get a good relationship going with the AME working on my aircraft and get his phone number! Did you consider pulling out the POH to see if there was an expanded procedure? At the very least a look at the wiring diagram may have helped you trouble shoot the issue and perhaps identify other things to consider in your plan (pitot heat?).

With respect to making decisions, have a look at the various websites on risk assessment. Most will take you to a risk assessment matrix which can help you figure out the risks associated with the course of action you are considering. Put simply Risk = Probability x Consequence. If the potential outcome of an action is serious (a fire in flight) but the likelihood of occurring is unlikely, then you can assess that risk as probably low to moderate BUT then you still have to decide if you are willing to accept that risk. What would I do in your situation? I can't say for sure, beyond the phone call back to the owner, but I can tell you that I have cancelled flights for things like oil leaks and such. Unfortunately I do have one that bothers me, not because I made a poor decision, but because I'm not certain I would have made the right one under the circumstances without a "nudge".

I was on my multi-rating flight test and after the extensive pre-flight test, and a detailed walk around with review of some of the systems, we taxi’d out for the flight. The winds were such that the runway in use was a long taxi away so by the time I am ready for the run-up, around ½ an hour has gone by. Going through the checklist I get to the mag check and on the right mag on the right hand engine when I am looking for “MAGS - MAXIMUM 175 DROP 50 DIFFERENTIAL” I get no drop. I started the next checklist item, but then went “wait a minute”, and went back and did it again with the same result. Now I am completely de-railed – I am on a flight test, the examiner in the right seat looking at me, ½ hour of rental time burned up and I get this. So my mind is racing through the possibilities “so it is probably a mag ground wire broken, this won’t affect the flight, we can still use mixture cut-off to shut down the engine, if I don’t go we will have to re-schedule, etc, etc” While I am still going through this thought process the instructor asks if I noticed anything during the mag check. I fessed up to the issue and he asked if there was anything I could do to confirm my suspicion. Well that point in the check list doesn’t say what to do if you don’t get a mag drop, but of course the shut down check has a live mag procedure, so I suggested I could shut off both mags and see if the engine kept running which I did and it did. Then he asked what I was going to do. My answer was the aircraft has a snag, we are going back to get it looked at (then I had to go through the snag procedure for him, a different story). The upshot is I never finished my own risk assessment to the point where I would have made the decision to fly or park it. I am a little disturbed by the fact that I think I was leaning towards launching under the circumstances. So like you I have had to re-assess how I manage snags and risk. By the way it was indeed the mag ground wire, the nut had fallen off.

cheers