Ran out of Gas/Fuel Mismanagement Thread

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

User avatar
RedAndWhiteBaron
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 813
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: In the left seat, admitting my mistakes

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by RedAndWhiteBaron »

They should both fail. There was a ground portion where the route (or at least the planned elapsed time) was determined and fuel quantity was known. If, as PIC, the examiner looked at that, and did not fail the student based on the ground portion, I would have serious doubts regarding their competency both as a pilot and an examiner.

On the other hand, if there was sufficient fuel for the planned test, and the examiner then directed the student to deviate from the planned test to a route that would lead to fuel exhaustion, the student should know this as well, and either refuse to fly it as it is unsafe, or suggest an alternate course of action.
digits_ wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 8:22 am How is it within the candidate's control if someone else determines the routing and the air exercises? Note, you don't know in advance what said routing will be, nor how long the test will actually take. That person is also the PIC, the candidate is not.
It's pretty simple IMHO: Examiner asks for further exercise to be completed, student replies with "unable, we have insufficient fuel remaining".

Whether or not the student supplied enough fuel to complete the test is a separate issue from flying the plane to fuel exhaustion. The aircraft may be unable to carry full tanks with both the student and examiner on board, for example. The instructor should absolutely be aware of the endurance, however, the student should also be aware.

I suppose it would all depend on what was discussed before the test. Was this a planned 2 hour test that the examiner extended to 4 hours, with 3 hours' fuel on board? Or was this a planned 2 hour test, for which the student supplied 1 hour of fuel?
---------- ADS -----------
 
I will dance the sky on laughter-silvered wings.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by digits_ »

RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 8:41 am There was a ground portion where the route (or at least the planned elapsed time) was determined and fuel quantity was known. If, as PIC, the examiner looked at that, and did not fail the student based on the ground portion, I would have serious doubts regarding their competency both as a pilot and an examiner.
The student needs to prepare a flight plan and calculate fuel for a navigation flight that will never be completely flown. These calculations might have been perfect,and would probably not have affected how much fuel was actually on board the airplane. You could end up with the necessity for 3 hours of fuel for the navigation flight, but that would put you outside of the utility category, and thus be impossible for some of the flight test exercises for example.

The actual fuel state of the airplane might not have been known until they dipped the tanks during the walk around.
RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 8:41 am
digits_ wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 8:22 am How is it within the candidate's control if someone else determines the routing and the air exercises? Note, you don't know in advance what said routing will be, nor how long the test will actually take. That person is also the PIC, the candidate is not.
It's pretty simple IMHO: Examiner asks for further exercise to be completed, student replies with "unable, we have insufficient fuel remaining".
Teoretically, yes. Well, theoretically, the examiner shouldn't ask the student to do anything that would put them into reserve fuel.

When I think back to my flight tests, especially the first ones, I do not think many students would have the desire or the guts to speak up against The Examiner. The best you would get is maybe a shy question: "do we have enough fuel for that?". Pissing that guy off could cost you over 500 dollars, which is a lot, especially towards the end of your training when you'll undoubtedly be short on cash. And up to this point, you've always had more fuel remaining than you would have estimated anyway, so why would today be any different. After all, he is the examiner, I'm sure he knows best.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by pelmet »

digits_ wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 8:59 am Pissing that guy off could cost you over 500 dollars,
Similarities to the real paid pilot world in many operations. Bottom line....the candidate will be doing another checkride.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Sidebar
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 4:26 pm
Location: Winterpeg

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by Sidebar »

https://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports- ... c0167.html

Findings as to causes and contributing factors
1.It could not be established whether the pilot's company Cessna 185 training met the minimum requirements specified in the company operations manual (COM) and Commercial Air Services Standards (CASS) for pilot competency certification. The pilot's pre-flight fuel planning and response to the engine power loss are indications that his training did not sufficiently prepare him to perform his assigned duties.
2.The acting chief pilot and the occurrence pilot had different understandings of "full fuel" and the instruction to the pilot was not clearly communicated. As a result, although both the pilot and the company intended that the aircraft depart with full fuel, it departed with less than full fuel.
3.The pilot underestimated the en route flight time and overestimated the aircraft's endurance. The aircraft used more fuel than expected and its fuel reserves were substantially depleted.
4.The fuel gauges were not reliable and were not monitored during the flight; consequently, the pilot was not fully aware of the aircraft's in-flight fuel state.
5.An unequal quantity of fuel developed in the tanks as the flight progressed. The engine likely lost power as a result of fuel starvation when the small amount of fuel remaining in the left wing moved away from the fuel supply line pickups in the left tank during a gradual right turn.
6.After the engine lost power, the pilot did not turn on the electric auxiliary fuel pump, and as a result, engine power was not restored.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
RedAndWhiteBaron
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 813
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: In the left seat, admitting my mistakes

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by RedAndWhiteBaron »

Sidebar wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 11:57 am 5.An unequal quantity of fuel developed in the tanks as the flight progressed. The engine likely lost power as a result of fuel starvation when the small amount of fuel remaining in the left wing moved away from the fuel supply line pickups in the left tank during a gradual right turn.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this shouldn't happen in a coordinated turn?

(Of course, there's no guarantee that he flew a coordinated turn, either...)
---------- ADS -----------
 
I will dance the sky on laughter-silvered wings.
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by 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?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by digits_ »

photofly wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 5:44 pm 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by photofly »

Does that mean if you don't do those things the engine takes longer to restart? Or won't restart at all?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by shimmydampner »

digits_ wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 8:22 am 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?
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by digits_ »

shimmydampner wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 8:41 pm
digits_ wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 8:22 am 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by digits_ »

photofly wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 8:31 pm 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by shimmydampner »

digits_ wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 8:08 am 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by digits_ »

shimmydampner wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 10:59 am
digits_ wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 8:08 am 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"?

shimmydampner wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 10:59 am 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.
:roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by shimmydampner »

digits_ wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:43 am 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by photofly »

So... you’re saying it’s NOT ok..?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by digits_ »

shimmydampner wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 1:42 pm
digits_ wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:43 am 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
RatherBeFlying
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by RatherBeFlying »

IMG_20201226_172637.jpg
IMG_20201226_172637.jpg (704.75 KiB) Viewed 4518 times
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by digits_ »

RatherBeFlying wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 5:35 pm 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...
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
User avatar
RedAndWhiteBaron
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 813
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: In the left seat, admitting my mistakes

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by RedAndWhiteBaron »

digits_ wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:13 pm
RatherBeFlying wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 5:35 pm 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)?
---------- ADS -----------
 
I will dance the sky on laughter-silvered wings.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Ran out of Gas Thread

Post by digits_ »

RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:38 pm

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”