Ran out of Gas/Fuel Mismanagement Thread

[pelmet]

Via Google Translate....

"C-GCQJ, a privately operated Cessna 150F, was on a local flight under flight rules at
view from Joliette aerodrome, QC (CSG3) with a pilot on board. While the device is
was on approach for a landing, the engine stalled and the pilot made a landing
forced into the aircraft parking lot, north of runway 15. Upon contact with the ground,
the nose wheel sagged. There were no injuries, and the aircraft sustained damage to the
nose wheel, to the frame and to the lower cover of the engine as well as to the pipes of the pots
exhaust. Inspection of the fuel tanks after landing revealed that the
fuel tanks were empty."

[172_Captain]

There were no injuries, and the aircraft sustained damage to the....pipes of the pots

Was going to make a joke about that just buffing out, but when I read there was damage to the pipes of the pot, I knew the aircraft was beyond repair.

[pelmet]

I'm guessing that the student failed the flight test.....

"C-GSKF, a Cessna 172P aircraft operated by the Springbank Air Training College, was being used
for a private pilot flight test originating from and returning to Springbank Airport (CYBW), AB with
one pilot examiner and one student pilot on board. As part the flight test profile, an inspection pass
exercise was being conducted on Runway 28 at Olds-Didsbury Airport (CEA3), AB. After the
inspection pass, the student pilot performed a go around and at that time the engine (AVCO
Lycoming O-320-DJ2) lost power. Control was passed from the student to the pilot examiner (PIC).
The PIC elected to conduct an immediate left turn to join the downwind for landing on Runway 28.
While maneuvering to land on Runway 28, the left wing tip contacted the snow covered grass area
north of and adjacent to the threshold of the runway. Shortly after, the nose contacted the ground
resulting in the collapse of the nose landing gear, and damage to the propeller. The aircraft
continued to slide on a track of approximately 310°M until it contacted a ditch that runs parallel to
and north of the runway. The aircraft came to rest facing in a near north direction. The aircraft was
substantially damaged but no injuries were reported.

Post-accident inspection by maintenance found little fuel remaining in the aircraft’s fuel system."

[phillyfan]

Well considering that the examiner is the PIC on a Private flight test. Who is to blame?

[jschnurr]

Wait, I was PIC for all my flight tests. Did something change recently?

[7ECA]

Did something change recently?

A few years back, as I recall.

There are a few different stories or interpretations of the change - and with TC does that come as a surprise? According to a TC Inspector, the change was a result of the Department of Justice nosing about (the CARs being "held" by the DOJ, as of how ever many years ago) and deciding that there could be a question of "liability" (read, blame) in the event something went wrong during a flight test - for example, can an SPP be PIC during a PPL flight test? According to the CARs the answer used to be, yes, but that was changed to reflect the new "reality"; the reality according to the DOJ that is...

Apparently, though, that was the only change made - that an SPP can no longer be PIC during a PPL flight test. But, it's been interpreted that no candidate can be the PIC during flight test(s) by most DFTEs or TC Inspectors, because they decided to? Supposedly there may have also been changes to the DFTE manual that mandate examiners be PIC.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I think the most spectacular example of "running out of gas" would be Avianca Flight 52.

There was also a 767 that was hijacked by hijackers wanting to fly to Australia from Africa who didn't think that a jet wouldn't necessarily carry a full fuel load. The flight and airline escape me currently. They ditched, killing half the passengers, if memory serves.

Or of course the Gimli Glider.

[telex]

I think the most spectacular example of "running out of gas" would be Avianca Flight 52.

There was also a 767 that was hijacked by hijackers wanting to fly to Australia from Africa who didn't think that a jet wouldn't necessarily carry a full fuel load. The flight and airline escape me currently. They ditched, killing half the passengers, if memory serves.

Ethiopian. ET961.

[jschnurr]

[thread diversion]

Did something change recently?

A few years back, as I recall.

Thanks for that. I just looked it up, and here is the CARs.
CAR 401.19:

401.19 (1) The holder of a student pilot permit may act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft of the category for which the permit is endorsed if
(a) the flight is conducted for the purpose of the holder’s flight training;
(b) the flight is conducted in Canada;
(c) the flight is conducted under day VFR;
(d) the flight is conducted under the direction and supervision of a person qualified to provide training toward the permit, licence or rating for which the pilot-in-command experience is required; and
(e) no passenger is carried on board.

Previous version:

401.19 The holder of a student pilot permit may, for the sole purpose of the holder’s flight training or flight test, act as pilot-in-command of any aircraft of the category to which the permit relates, where
(a) the flight is conducted in Canada under day VFR;
(b) in the case of flight training,
(i) it is conducted under the direction and supervision of the holder of a flight instructor rating for that category of aircraft, and
(ii) no passenger is carried on board; and
(c) in the case of a flight test,
(i) it is conducted in accordance with section 401.15, and
(ii) no passenger other than the person referred to in paragraph 401.15(1)(a) is carried on board.

[/thread diversion]

[pelmet]

Well considering that the examiner is the PIC on a Private flight test. Who is to blame?

No matter the answer, unless it was more than a simple fuel exhaustion case, I suspect the student didn't meet the expected standard.

[digits_]

Well considering that the examiner is the PIC on a Private flight test. Who is to blame?

No matter the answer, unless it was more than a simple fuel exhaustion case, I suspect the student didn't meet the expected standard.

You'd think so, and at first glance that would be the obvious outcome. But if you think about it, what exercise would the student have failed on the flight test?

You usually don't go flying if you've failed the ground portion, so you can't fail them on the pre flight stuff. Once flying, the examiner is PIC and controls where the plane goes and how long the flight takes. How/why fail the student for that?

I'd be very interesting to know what the actual outcome was, but if I was a betting man, I'd say it was an interrupted flight test. Maybe the examiner or the flight school will drag out the second part of the test past 30 days, so a full retest is required, but most likely not.

I see two fairly realistic scenarios that could have led to this:

1) The student gets an assignment bordering on the edge of the envelope as to what the plane can do. He searches for a solution, and figures out he could do the flight, take all the pax and luggage, by flying max range speed at 10000 ft. Estimated fuel burn (just making numbers up) of 5 GPH, for a 2 hour flight and reserve, he calculates 13 gallons, and he has fuel to fly for 2.5 hours. Before the flight he dips the tanks and there are 14 gallons on board. Great!
The examiner glances over the calculations, looks at it, asks the student how much fuel we actually have on the aircraft. Student proudly says "over 2.5 hours!". Then they go flying at 3000 ft, no leaning and burn 10 gallons per hour. The flight takes a bit longer than anticipated due to the student needing some time to set up properly for the various exercises, and bam, after 1.5 hours the plane runs out of fuel.

Which exercise did the student fail?

2) Student calculates how much fuel he needs for the exercise. Tells the examiner "we'dneed 13 gallons for the exercise, but for the actual flight test I'd like to take 25 gallons at least. The plane wasn't here yet when I arrived, so I'll go fuel it up now"
- "oh, don't worry about it. Great calculations, but I just flew the plane, and it has plenty of fuel left for the test".
Student feels confident and goes flying. The examiner, for whatever reason, made a mistake.

Which exercise did the student fail?

[pelmet]

Well considering that the examiner is the PIC on a Private flight test. Who is to blame?

No matter the answer, unless it was more than a simple fuel exhaustion case, I suspect the student didn't meet the expected standard.

You'd think so, and at first glance that would be the obvious outcome. But if you think about it, what exercise would the student have failed on the flight test?

You usually don't go flying if you've failed the ground portion, so you can't fail them on the pre flight stuff. Once flying, the examiner is PIC and controls where the plane goes and how long the flight takes. How/why fail the student for that?

I'd be very interesting to know what the actual outcome was, but if I was a betting man, I'd say it was an interrupted flight test. Maybe the examiner or the flight school will drag out the second part of the test past 30 days, so a full retest is required, but most likely not.

I see two fairly realistic scenarios that could have led to this:

1) The student gets an assignment bordering on the edge of the envelope as to what the plane can do. He searches for a solution, and figures out he could do the flight, take all the pax and luggage, by flying max range speed at 10000 ft. Estimated fuel burn (just making numbers up) of 5 GPH, for a 2 hour flight and reserve, he calculates 13 gallons, and he has fuel to fly for 2.5 hours. Before the flight he dips the tanks and there are 14 gallons on board. Great!
The examiner glances over the calculations, looks at it, asks the student how much fuel we actually have on the aircraft. Student proudly says "over 2.5 hours!". Then they go flying at 3000 ft, no leaning and burn 10 gallons per hour. The flight takes a bit longer than anticipated due to the student needing some time to set up properly for the various exercises, and bam, after 1.5 hours the plane runs out of fuel.

Which exercise did the student fail?

2) Student calculates how much fuel he needs for the exercise. Tells the examiner "we'dneed 13 gallons for the exercise, but for the actual flight test I'd like to take 25 gallons at least. The plane wasn't here yet when I arrived, so I'll go fuel it up now"
- "oh, don't worry about it. Great calculations, but I just flew the plane, and it has plenty of fuel left for the test".
Student feels confident and goes flying. The examiner, for whatever reason, made a mistake.

Which exercise did the student fail?

What happens on a flight test when a candidate violates a Canadian Aviation Regulation?

[digits_]

What happens on a flight test when a candidate violates a Canadian Aviation Regulation?

That probably depends on the violation. Chances are they would fail the exercise. Then again, if the violation would be that the pic's medical is expired, it shouldn't result in a fail.

If you fly through a prohibited area to make a great forced landing after the examiner closes the throttle, it shouldn't be a fail either.

The examiner would always get the fine though.

[photofly]

The Pilot Examiner manual contains the following text for the PPL:

The failure by the candidate to visually confirm that there is sufficient fuel and oil for the actual intended flight is disqualifying and will constitute a failure of the flight test. It is intended that this visual check be an actual check of the tank (or tanks) as opposed to just a check of the fuel gauges.

An examiner will not allow a student to fly without this check, and if they do, the test is moot for not having been conducted properly from the start. But no, it’s not a realistic scenario.

You also ask:

Then they go flying at 3000 ft, no leaning...

Which exercise did the student fail?

Exercise 2: operation of aircraft systems: “Assessment will be based on the candidate’s proficiency to operate the aeroplane systems in accordance with the POH / AFM”

Also exercise 23c, specific criterion “set power, lean mixture and manage fuel and engine cooling as recommended in the POH / AFM for the desired performance;”

The Pilot Examiner Manual also states: “ The use of mixture control ... will be evaluated during the flight.”

I like these. Ask me another.

[digits_]

The Pilot Examiner manual contains the following text for the PPL:

The failure by the candidate to visually confirm that there is sufficient fuel and oil for the actual intended flight is disqualifying and will constitute a failure of the flight test. It is intended that this visual check be an actual check of the tank (or tanks) as opposed to just a check of the fuel gauges.

An examiner will not allow a student to fly without this check, and if they do, the test is moot for not having been conducted properly from the start. But no, it’s not a realistic scenario.

It might not be realistic, but it's likely something must have happened. They either took of without enough fuel, or didn't spot a fuel leak in time.

You also ask:

Then they go flying at 3000 ft, no leaning...

Which exercise did the student fail?

Exercise 2: operation of aircraft systems: “Assessment will be based on the candidate’s proficiency to operate the aeroplane systems in accordance with the POH / AFM”

Also exercise 23c, specific criterion “set power, lean mixture and manage fuel and engine cooling as recommended in the POH / AFM for the desired performance;”

The Pilot Examiner Manual also states: “ The use of mixture control ... will be evaluated during the flight.”

I like these. Ask me another.

Is not leaning a failure? During most weather, most training aircraft would get the required performance. I'd expect a 2 somewhere, not an actual fail. Even so, 23c is only talking about navigation. Full rich during stall recoveries, slow flight, steep turns etc would be forgiveable, at least in my neck of the woods.


The examiner was obviously happy with the pre flight performance of the student, rightfully or not, since they went flying without extra fuel. Which exercise would this student have failed? Do you think he should have failed the flight test?

[photofly]

If not leaning means you run out of fuel, then it cannot be other than a fail. Running out of fuel during flight is very much an Undesired Aircraft State, wouldn’t you say? Isn’t that what fuel gauges are for? Not taking note of them - how could that possibly be a pass?

If the fuel exhaustion was caused by a sudden mechanical defect it would be re-test.

[digits_]

If not leaning means you run out of fuel, then it cannot be other than a fail. Running out of fuel during flight is very much an Undesired Aircraft State, wouldn’t you say?

If the fuel exhaustion was caused by a mechanical defect it would be re-test.

**The following is based on the assumption they didn't take enough fuel, which is speculation (big assumption, I know, but the most interesting option for our discussion)**

Yes, but it is an undesired aircraft state in part caused by the examiner, because he is PIC and controls how long the test takes. If the examiner tells the candidate to prepare for a 1.5 hour flight, and the flight test drags on, is it the student's fault or the examiner's fault?

The responsibility and authority of an examiner, while conducting any flight test, is illustrated by the following non-exhaustive list. An examiner:
determines the route of the aircraft;
establishes the conditions for the takeoff and landing;
directs the candidate when conducting air exercises;
manipulates the flight and power controls at their own discretion when preparing for certain exercises;
intervenes, when necessary and at any time, to ensure the safe continuation of the flight;
makes decisions with respect to the continuation or termination of the flight.

If the examiner determines the route of the aircraft, and he directs the candidate when to conduct the air exercise, then how can the candidate be faulted for running out of fuel?

The candidate can not know how long the flight will take exactly. You could, theoretically, end up up an hour from your airport of departure by the time the flight test items are completed, and then you have to get back. The above mentioned list puts the responsibility of keeping track of those things with the examiner.

If anything, the candidate would probably have a good case against the examiner, for not performing his duty of care. He was, after all, the PIC.

[photofly]

Doubtless.

But it’s still a fail.

[shimmydampner]

If you're doing a flight test, you are presumably attempting to show that you're fit to be a pilot. Never mind running out of fuel, if you even get to the point of using up your VFR reserves, and either don't notice, or don't say anything to the examiner about it, you've demonstrated a gross ineptitude that should preclude you from passing that ride. Not running out of fuel when it is within your control to do so is so elementary to the business of flying airplanes that I cannot even fathom arguing otherwise.

[digits_]

Not running out of fuel when it is within your control to do so is so elementary to the business of flying airplanes that I cannot even fathom arguing otherwise.

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.


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?


If the examiner creates an undesired aircraft state by erroneously pulling the mixture instead of the throttle during a simulated forced exercise, will the candidate fail?
If the examiner creates a huge deviation by accidentally blocking the yoke witha clipboard during a steep turn exercise or a slow flight exercise, which causes the student to grossly exceed the allowable deviations, will the candidate fail?
I don't think anyone here would say the candidate needs to fail in those scenarios. So why does the candidate need to fail if the examiner causes the plane to run out of fuel?