Ran out of Gas/Fuel Mismanagement Thread

[photofly]

That's right.

The report says:

During a coordinated right turn, the usable fuel in the left tank would be expected to feed normally. However, during a skidding right turn, the fuel would have moved outboard, away from one or both fuel supply line pickups in the left tank, leading to a reduction in flow to the accumulator tank. The engine fuel demands exceeded the amount of fuel entering the accumulator tank, reducing the fuel level to the point where there was insufficient fuel feed to keep the engine running.

This bit is interesting....

When the engine lost power, the engine-driven fuel pump would have lost its prime. When the wings were levelled, fuel would have been gradually fed back into the accumulator tank, but, without prime, the engine-driven pump will not pump fuel.

That surprises me... it reads as if to mean that once the engine is starved of fuel it won't regain power on fuel re-application without secondary action. I thought this was contrary to certification requirements, specifically 14 CFR 23.955(e)

I can't find my copy of CAR 3 at the moment - was this a requirement when this plane was certified?

[digits_]

That's right.

The report says:

During a coordinated right turn, the usable fuel in the left tank would be expected to feed normally. However, during a skidding right turn, the fuel would have moved outboard, away from one or both fuel supply line pickups in the left tank, leading to a reduction in flow to the accumulator tank. The engine fuel demands exceeded the amount of fuel entering the accumulator tank, reducing the fuel level to the point where there was insufficient fuel feed to keep the engine running.

This bit is interesting....

When the engine lost power, the engine-driven fuel pump would have lost its prime. When the wings were levelled, fuel would have been gradually fed back into the accumulator tank, but, without prime, the engine-driven pump will not pump fuel.

That surprises me... it reads as if to mean that once the engine is starved of fuel it won't regain power on fuel re-application without secondary action. I thought this was contrary to certification requirements, specifically 14 CFR 23.955(e)

I can't find my copy of CAR 3 at the moment - was this a requirement when this plane was certified?

From another website:

Air start procedures for the Cessna A185F in accordance with the pilot’s operating handbook included:

“To ensure a prompt engine restart after running a fuel tank dry, immediately switch to a tank containing fuel at the first indication of fuel pressure fluctuation and/or power loss. Then place the right half of the auxiliary fuel pump switch in the “ON” position momentarily (3 to 5 seconds) with the throttle at least ½ open. Excessive use of the auxiliary fuel pump at high altitude and full rich mixture can cause flooding of the engine as indicated by a short (1 to 2 seconds) period of power followed by a loss of power. This can later be detected by a fuel flow indication accompanied by a lack of power. If flooding does occur, turn off the auxiliary fuel pump switch, and normal propeller windmilling should start the engine in 1 to 2 seconds.”

Looks like you have to do quite a bit.

[photofly]

Does that mean if you don't do those things the engine takes longer to restart? Or won't restart at all?

[shimmydampner]

Additionally, can you fault a candidate for being unable to perform a task, which the PIC - examiner is unable to perform as well, with probably hundred times as much experience?

Yes. Of course you can. The task is elementary and absolutely critical to the safe completion of the flight. The presence of the examiner and their level of experience and/or incompetence is irrelevant and does not relieve the candidate of the responsibility of monitoring their fuel. If a candidate is incapable of doing so, they should fail. This is simple. Would you expect your copilot to just sit there and say nothing if you were running low on fuel and you as the PIC were too incompetent to notice? Would your presence and experience absolve them of all responsibility?

[digits_]

Additionally, can you fault a candidate for being unable to perform a task, which the PIC - examiner is unable to perform as well, with probably hundred times as much experience?

Yes. Of course you can. The task is elementary and absolutely critical to the safe completion of the flight. The presence of the examiner and their level of experience is irrelevant and does not relieve the candidate of the responsibility of monitoring their fuel. If a candidate is incapable of doing so, they should fail. This is simple. Would you expect your copilot to just sit there and say nothing if you were running low on fuel and you as the PIC were too incompetent to notice? Would your presence and experience absolve them of all responsibility?

Legally? Yes.

I've worked for a company where the only action expected from the FO would have been a question as "are you sure we have enough fuel?". A "yes" from the PIC would have absolved the FO from any consequences. I've worked for a company where everything short of physical violence would have been expected from the FO, and even then he might have lost his job. Even so, both companies would have been pretty understanding if this would have happend on the first day of line indoc for a brand new FO straight out of flying school with a training captain.

By the way, how would the FO know how much fuel is required for the trip, if you:
- don't tell him where you're going
- might change your mind about how long you'll be flying
- have him do fuel calculations for a destination and a pax load that has no impact on the actual planned flight

Every flight test I've ever done included some variation of "don't rush, take all the time you need to perform the exercise. Only do them when you are ready, we have plenty of time" during the briefing by the examiner.

[digits_]

Does that mean if you don't do those things the engine takes longer to restart? Or won't restart at all?

http://www.mennen.org/airplanes/Logs46Q ... Manual.pdf
Page 2-5 states that the auxiliary fuel pump *will* be needed to restart after you run a tank dry.

I've never tried it myself.


Now that I think about it, B95A's don't restart by themselves either, you have to pump the throttle to get it going again. Another one of the more ancient variety of airplanes out there.

[shimmydampner]

By the way, how would the FO know how much fuel is required for the trip, if you:
- don't tell him where you're going
- might change your mind about how long you'll be flying
- have him do fuel calculations for a destination and a pax load that has no impact on the actual planned flight

All irrelevant. They should know what their fuel burn is, how much fuel they have remaining at any given moment, what that translates to for endurance and what their VFR or IFR reserve is. When they arrive at the point where there is only reserve fuel remaining and they still are not on the ground, if they either don't notice or don't say anything or don't immediately come up with a plan to get on the ground or otherwise fail to indicate THAT THEY'RE EVEN AWARE OF THE SITUATION (!!!), guess what? That's a failure of one of the most very basic requirements of being a pilot. Unless of course, you don't believe in monitoring your fuel en route. If you're the 'fuel it and forget it' type, I can see how this would be a difficult concept for you.

[digits_]

By the way, how would the FO know how much fuel is required for the trip, if you:
- don't tell him where you're going
- might change your mind about how long you'll be flying
- have him do fuel calculations for a destination and a pax load that has no impact on the actual planned flight

All irrelevant. They should know what their fuel burn is, how much fuel they have remaining at any given moment, what that translates to for endurance and what their VFR or IFR reserve is. When they arrive at the point where there is only reserve fuel remaining and they still are not on the ground, if they either don't notice or don't say anything or don't immediately come up with a plan to get on the ground or otherwise fail to indicate THAT THEY'RE EVEN AWARE OF THE SITUATION (!!!), guess what? That's a failure of one of the most very basic requirements of being a pilot.

Most airplanes flying with FOs have instruments showing that, so sure, an FO should be able to figure that out and report it when he sees it. Even then, if the captain says "I know this plane, this gauge underreads, we're fine", then I don't expect a brand new FO to keep challenging it during the first line indoc flight.

How would you suggest one does this in a 172? What is your fuel burn on a flight where you will be going full power/idle multiple times, fly in all kinds of different configurations? How would you know "at any given time" how much fuel you have in your tanks? Hell, you even take off with about a 2 gallon estimate if you dip the tanks.

The fuel on board a 172 -especially the older models- is always an estimate. Never accurate. If the experienced guy, the examiner, tells you "don't worry about it, we've got plenty to finish the test", you really expect a PPL student to say "screw this, i'm flying back"?

Unless of course, you don't believe in monitoring your fuel en route. If you're the 'fuel it and forget it' type, I can see how this would be a difficult concept for you.

Yup, sounds like me. As long as I switch of the transponder and the ELT, nobody can track me anyway, so I won't get violated.

[shimmydampner]

The fuel on board a 172 -especially the older models- is always an estimate. Never accurate.

Right. It's amazing 172's aren't dropping from the skies en masse due to fuel starvation. Look, you can make whatever logical contortions and hypothetical gymnastics you need to in order to attempt to justify it but you've yet to present a compelling scenario in which it's ok for 2 people, who allegedly know the workings of a fully functional fuel system in a totally airworthy airplane they are flying, to run out of fuel. It's just not ok. It's not ok for the candidate. It's not ok for the examiner. It's not ok for an FO. It's not ok for a captain. It's not ok for you to not understand and be familiar with how your fuel system works, including its indications and their potential limitations and known flaws. It's not ok for you to not know your aircraft performance. And it's certainly not ok to recognize a developing dangerous situation and sit there and do and say nothing out of deference for the person next to you. This can be demonstrably fatal and is an indicator that you aren't fit to hold a pilot's license. Sorry if that very low standard of not accepting negligence doesn't square with you.

[photofly]

So... you’re saying it’s NOT ok..?

[digits_]

The fuel on board a 172 -especially the older models- is always an estimate. Never accurate.

Right. It's amazing 172's aren't dropping from the skies en masse due to fuel starvation. Look, you can make whatever logical contortions and hypothetical gymnastics you need to in order to attempt to justify it but you've yet to present a compelling scenario in which it's ok for 2 people, who allegedly know the workings of a fully functional fuel system in a totally airworthy airplane they are flying, to run out of fuel. It's just not ok. It's not ok for the candidate. It's not ok for the examiner. It's not ok for an FO. It's not ok for a captain. It's not ok for you to not understand and be familiar with how your fuel system works, including its indications and their potential limitations and known flaws. It's not ok for you to not know your aircraft performance. And it's certainly not ok to recognize a developing dangerous situation and sit there and do and say nothing out of deference for the person next to you. This can be demonstrably fatal and is an indicator that you aren't fit to hold a pilot's license. Sorry if that very low standard of not accepting negligence doesn't square with you.

Of course it's not ok. Did I say it was ok?

I just don't think it would be appropriate for the examiner -who is reponsible for the whole flight- to fail the student for this flight test, (based on my hypothetical assumptions specified earlier). I don't think it's obvious the student should fail the flight test because of this.

If an examiner fails in his duties to provide the circumstances that are required for a safe flight test, then he is not authorized, in my opinion, to fail a candidate for the circumstances he created.

I am also convinced the majority of the pilots on this board, would have flown into their final reserve fuel, during their PPL test, if the examiner would push for it.

[RatherBeFlying]

IMG_20201226_172637.jpg (704.75 KiB) Viewed 7260 times

[digits_]

IMG_20201226_172637.jpg

I never understood the near hero status those pilots get from some people or pilots. Impressive landing, but would have been much more impressive if they didn't cause the incident in the first place...

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

IMG_20201226_172637.jpg

I never understood the near hero status those pilots get from some people or pilots. Impressive landing, but would have been much more impressive if they didn't cause the incident in the first place...

They had a complete loss of power and everyone survived. They could almost even use the aircraft the next day. They kept their cool and flew with just enough verve and gusto to land. That is a lot better than most in their situation can say, if they even survived.

As for their original mistake, it wasn't a simple oversight. What, would you have a 767 captain or FO dip the tanks themselves as part of the preflight? Refuse a scheduled flight because of a fuel indicator problem (well maybe we do now, I'm not sure about that)?

[digits_]

As for their original mistake, it wasn't a simple oversight. What, would you have a 767 captain or FO dip the tanks themselves as part of the preflight? Refuse a scheduled flight because of a fuel indicator problem (well maybe we do now, I'm not sure about that)?

Actually, that's almost exactly what they did. The dripstick value was wrongly converted.

They made a mistake, which could probably have happened to multiple people in those circumstances, but the fact remains they had a big hand in creating the circumstances of their otherwise impressive feat.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Huh, I recall it being loaded in lbs instead of kilos and the crew accepting that, but I don't recall the crew dipping the tanks. I should watch the Mayday episode.

That aside, my point was that one can admire their accomplishment and at the same time, condemn their mistake. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[pelmet]

Huh, I recall it being loaded in lbs instead of kilos and the crew accepting that, but I don't recall the crew dipping the tanks. I should watch the Mayday episode.

That aside, my point was that one can admire their accomplishment and at the same time, condemn their mistake. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Bottom line...follow the MEL. They didn't....and that is why you can buy baggage tags from the airframe.

[digits_]

That aside, my point was that one can admire their accomplishment and at the same time, condemn their mistake. The two are not mutually exclusive.

True, but that prevents them from being called heroes in my opinion.

But it's an interesting comparison, on the one hand we have a student pilot, preparing for the most (or second most) stressful flight of his life. Potentially misreading the dipstick value from the fuel in his tanks. Then going on a flight of unkown length and destination, in an order and direction he doesn't control. With no indication of the fuel burn. They run out of fuel, and the general consensus is to punish him, as he should have failed his check ride.

On the other hand, we have a very experienced crew, with 61 pax on board, flying an advanced aircraft, on a route where the flight time is pretty much calculated and guaranteed within 5 to 10 minutes, with a preset fuel burn. They misread the fuel on board, have very accurate fuel flow data available, run out of fuel, nobody dies, and the general consensus is praise and potentially be labeled as a hero.

Double standards?

[pelmet]

Double standards?

Going strictly from memory, there may be one significant difference between the two when it comes to accolades.......a union.

If I remember correctly, the 767 crew were initially disciplined. Union assistance led to an award.

Maybe student pilots need to form a union. Then they could have one requirement be that they always pass the flight test.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

That aside, my point was that one can admire their accomplishment and at the same time, condemn their mistake. The two are not mutually exclusive.

True, but that prevents them from being called heroes in my opinion.

But it's an interesting comparison, on the one hand we have a student pilot, preparing for the most (or second most) stressful flight of his life. Potentially misreading the dipstick value from the fuel in his tanks. Then going on a flight of unkown length and destination, in an order and direction he doesn't control. With no indication of the fuel burn. They run out of fuel, and the general consensus is to punish him, as he should have failed his check ride.

On the other hand, we have a very experienced crew, with 61 pax on board, flying an advanced aircraft, on a route where the flight time is pretty much calculated and guaranteed within 5 to 10 minutes, with a preset fuel burn. They misread the fuel on board, have very accurate fuel flow data available, run out of fuel, nobody dies, and the general consensus is praise and potentially be labeled as a hero.

Double standards?

You make a hell of a point, sir. I also do not consider them heroes - but they did one hell of a job, mistake notwithstanding.

I'll just make the one comment that one of those aircraft was more complex than the other. When was the last time you put a 767 into a full rudder sideslip?

To be fair - I do fault the Gimli Glider crew for taking off with half the required fuel. In both cases, these mistakes are enough to warrant a license suspension (IMHO). But you can't exactly compare landing a 172 in a parking lot to landing a 767 on a long dead runway full of merrymakers.

Since we're comparing this to airliners running out of fuel - who would you fault for Avianca 52? To me this is a similar situation to what has been posited in this thread - in that, there is only so much a crew can do when the PIC insists on continuing to fly without sufficient fuel.

[shimmydampner]

They run out of fuel, and the general consensus is to punish him, as he should have failed his check ride.

No need for hyperbole. Failing a ride is not a punishment. It's nothing more than an accurate and impartial assessment of the candidate's clearly demonstrated unsuitability to hold a pilot's license due to their inability to manage their fuel situation in a fully functional aircraft.

[digits_]

They run out of fuel, and the general consensus is to punish him, as he should have failed his check ride.

No need for hyperbole. Failing a ride is not a punishment. It's nothing more than an accurate and impartial assessment of the candidate's clearly demonstrated unsuitability to hold a pilot's license due to their inability to manage their fuel situation in a fully functional aircraft.

It wasn't meant as hyperbole. I don't think the candidate would consider it hyperbole.

Either way, doesn't affect my point that the Gimli glider crew did all those thing, and worse, with paying pax in the back and with superior systems, yet they are considered heroes.

[pelmet]

Still had some gas......

C-GDPY, a Piper PA-34-200T aircraft operated by KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. was conducting a
photo survey of an area approximately 50 miles north of the Sioux Lookout (CYXL), ON. with only
the pilot onboard. While conducting the survey, the pilot noticed the main fuel cells were low on fuel
and selected the auxiliary fuel pumps on. Shortly after, the left engine began to sputter and then
lost power. The pilot then selected cross-feed and was able to restart the engine. The pilot decided
to conduct a precautionary landing on a logging road approximately 24 miles north of CYXL. After
touchdown, the aircraft wings struck some bush and directional control was lost. The aircraft came
to a rest off the right side of the logging road in an upright position, approximately 50 feet into the
bush. The pilot was not injured. The aircraft sustained substantial damage. Shortly after, the pilot
was picked up by a passing vehicle and taken to CYXL.

It was reported that the left auxiliary fuel cell had fuel remaining after the occurrence, while the
other auxiliary and main cells appeared empty. Post-occurrence examination and testing of the left
auxiliary fuel boost pump indicates that it was defective. The operator has submitted a service
difficulty report with Transport Canada.

[pelmet]

C-FDLX, a float equipped Republic RC-3 was on a VFR flight from Powell Lake Water Aerodrome
(CAQ8), BC to Boundary Bay Airport (CZBB), BC with 2 persons onboard. After being cleared for
an approach to Runway 13 by CZBB Tower, the engine (Franklin 6A8-215-B9F) failed. The pilot
communicated the engine failure to CZBB tower but did not declare a MAYDAY. The pilot was able
to force land the aircraft on the South arm of the Fraser River approximately 2NM South East of
Vancouver International Airport (CYVR), BC. The pilot declined CZBB tower's offer for fire fighter
or coast guard hovercraft assistance. The aircraft was towed to a nearby boat launch by a private
boater where it was pulled up to the parking lot. There were no injuries and the aircraft was not
damaged.

Upon inspection by an AME it was discovered that the fuel gauge read approximately 6 gallons
more than what was actually onboard. The fuel system was recalibrated, the aircraft was fueled,
and a flight to CZBB was completed without further incident. It was concluded that the engine failed
due to fuel exhaustion.

[pelmet]

I have used dipsticks on several aircraft types, but I don't think I have ever seen an ungraduated one......

"The privately registered Cessna 182A, C-GWAW, was operating a recreational flight from
Westlock, AB (CES4) to Josephburg, AB (CFB6). While conducting preflight checks of the aircraft,
the pilot noted that the fuel gauges read below half and checked the fuel tank level with an
ungraduated fuel dipstick. On the final approach to Runway 08 at CFB6, the engine (Teledyne
Continental O-470-L) subsequently lost power and the pilot initiated a forced landing; the aircraft
collided with trees 0.3 nm short of runway. The pilot and the two passengers evacuated the aircraft
with no issues. The pilot received minor injuries; the two passengers were uninjured. The aircraft
was substantially damaged and the ELT did not activate. The RCMP conducted a post occurrence
examination of the aircraft and observed no fuel in either fuel tank."