Ditching - how to do it

[172driver]

Here's how:

Pilot rescued after ditching plane off Big Island - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL Home (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/15646096/hawaii-rescue-crews-ready-for-emergency-landing)

Great job! :ok:

[Momoe]

Pretty certain this would be a ferry flight, 310 has a max range of 1000m so a 2200m flight must have had ferry tanks installed.
It's a long hop in any case which would have made a small change in wind direction/strength significant given the distance, no matter he's safe and that's what counts.

[IO540]

Is that the same Brian Mellor who instructs at a well known Spanish FTO?

Impressive :ok:

[Desert185]

I wonder if he encountered unforecast winds, had a fuel leak or didn't have enough fuel, initially? From MRY, OGG is the closest HI airport. Be interesting to hear his version of the story.

[IO540]

I wonder if he had a GPS-linked fuel totaliser.

If not, that's a very brave pilot, relying on the gauges in that old heap and the POH figures.

[172driver]

Is that the same Brian Mellor who instructs at a well known Spanish FTO?

Was wondering the same - if he is, then he can definitely start a 'how to ditch properly' course!

[Pilot DAR]

Happily, I have no experience at ditching 310's (or anything else!). I do, however, have a hundred hours flying the same model 310 shown, and can attest to it's having one of the best fuel systems, and fuel quantity indicators I have ever flown. The one I used to fly also had wing locker tanks. If I remember correctly, those six tanks would get you about 1300 miles, so that plane would have to have been tanked for such a long flight.

I compare the C 310 fuel system, to that of the C 303, which I copiloted Transatlantic. The 303 fuel system, though much more simple, and error resistant, was nowhere near as nice, or reassuring for a very long flight.

Nice job ditching!

[Big Pistons Forever]

I wonder if he had a GPS-linked fuel totaliser.

If not, that's a very brave pilot, relying on the gauges in that old heap and the POH figures.

I think it unlikely that he relied on the POH figures, although like Pilot DAR I can personally relate my experience as to the accuracy of the post 1971 capacitance type fuel gauges fitted to twin Cessna's as I have considerable experience flying the type. The owner of the 340 I occasionally fly just checked the gauges on the aux tank. The gauges showed 30 pounds remaining. Draining the tanks and weighing the fuel resulted in readings of 29.5 pounds and 30.1 pounds.

I think it is much more likely to be a pilot decision making accident. He probably launched with a considerable head wind which was scheduled to diminish, a not unusual situation at this time of the year, ....but did not and he paid the price.

While you are , by virtue of considerable experience, qualified to comment on the operation of a Trinidad in domestic eurocontrol airspace, I would suggest you have very little experience in the reality of transoceanic ferrying operations, and should therefore comment (or not) accordingly.......

The bottom line is he was in a very ugly place and pulled off a text book ditching manoever

[IO540]

BPF

Thank you for your tip

While you are , by virtue of considerable experience, qualified to comment on the operation of a Trinidad in domestic eurocontrol airspace, I would suggest you have very little experience in the reality of transoceanic ferrying operations, and should therefore comment (or not) accordingly.......but unfortunately you have undermined it considerably by suggesting that you think the following (which may or may not have happened on this flight) is OK:

I think it is much more likely to be a pilot decision making accident. He probably launched with a considerable head wind which was scheduled to diminish, a not unusual situation at this time of the year, ....but did not and he paid the price.[my bold]

:)

I have never come across a wind which is "scheduled to diminish". Where do you find those, and where does the wind publish its diminishing schedule?

Having done a number of 900nm+ flights (no ferry tanks) e.g. UK to the bottom of Sardinia, I know a little about fuel planning too.

Also, accurate fuel gauges (no fuel gauge can be that accurate, being just a small analog gauge) are of little use when you are say 1000nm from the nearest airport, over the sea. The best you can read a gauge to is about 5% and that assumes zero errors elsewhere. The 29.5 and 30.1 outcomes mentioned were just pure luck because nobody can read these gauges to that accuracy - of the order of 0.1 to 0.01% of full scale deflection.

[Jan Olieslagers]

now just imagine you read "scheduled" as "forecast" ?

[IO540]

Yes, I know that was what BPF meant. I was just playing with him :)

The real Q is whether one should use a forecast of a headwind dropping off in one's planning, especially in a scenario like this where you will quite likely pay with your life.

[500 above]

IO540

The fuel gauges in the Cessna 310 are in my experience pretty accurate. Also, they are standard panel hole sized - pretty large in size, easy to read. certainly a lot larger and more accurate than the tape gauges fitted in your flying Renault.

[Romeo Tango]

IMHO discussing the accuracy of the fuel gauges is not relevant. The pilot knew he was going to run out of fuel so he must have known reasonably accurately how much fuel he had.

Either he did not have enough fuel to start with or he used more than expected. We can all think of lots of reasons for those, some the pilots error or lack of judgement, many not.

Bill

[IO540]

The pilot knew he was going to run out of fuel so he must have known reasonably accurately how much fuel he had.

Yes, a very good point. Unless he was already on one engine, with the other having recently stopped, from a cross-feed selection (or whatever it is called). Can one tell from the video?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Yes, I know that was what BPF meant. I was just playing with him :)

The real Q is whether one should use a forecast of a headwind dropping off in one's planning, especially in a scenario like this where you will quite likely pay with your life.

When flying the Oakland to Hawaii west bound at this time of year it is not a question of whether there is a headwind, it is how much. Unless you were extraordinarily lucky, you would likely have to wait for weeks to get a no wind or tail wind day.

It is not necessarily foolish to depart with initial headwinds that will result in insufficient destination fuel because the route wind forecast (happy now IO 540 :rolleyes:) is usually pretty accurate. Everyone keeps a 1/2 hour PLOG update which allows you to compare the actual headwind component to the scheduled maximum you can accept to keep going. The bad news is you may be 7 or 8 hours into the trip when you hit the no go mark and have to turn around and fly another 5 or 6 hours back to the airport you left. That is a pretty bitter pill and the temptation to push on just a little further to find those lighter winds, is going to be pretty strong, although I guess that would not be a factor to a pprune skygod like yourself.......

The other cause could be a malfunction of the ferry fuel system. I know of a guy who found out well past the PNR that the ferry tank would not feed the bottom third of the tank :uhoh:. He made it but ran out of fuel on the taxi in :eek:

[IO540]

No idea why you are making personal attacks on me, BPF.

I am asking what should be reasonable questions.

Sure one might do a flight into a constant headwind; I have done so many times, obviously. But one needs to have a decent fuel margin, because winds can change. On a ~ 700nm flight the other day I saw everything from 10kt head to 10kt tail, despite a forecast of about 10kt tail all the way, and the MSLP chart showing that should have been the case. At only ~ 150kt, a 20kt wind change is a helluva lot.

Are you a ferry pilot? If so that might explain it. They mostly seem to hate each other. But I am not a ferry pilot.

Incidentally, does anybody know how FlightAware tracks planes 1000nm from the nearest land?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Bit of video on AvWeb plus some interesting info:

Pacific Ditching Caught On Video (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/PacificDitchingCaughtOnVideo_205557-1.html)

[patowalker]

Is that the same Brian Mellor who instructs at a well known Spanish FTO?

Yes.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/display/avi-wire-news-display/1518282950.html


"Charles Brian Mellor, 65, of Spain, was an experienced airman, licensed in the U.S. as an instructor and commercial pilot, according to FAA records."

[500 above]

Poor guy has rather undeservingly made the Darwin Awards...

Slush Pile: Plane stupid on fuel (http://www.darwinawards.com/slush/new/pending20111010-022515.html)

[jxk]

I think (Charles) Darwin would be turning over in his grave at this complete nonsense; doesn't the idiot know that the aircraft was fitted with ferry tanks?

[ExSp33db1rd]

.......The bad news is you may be 7 or 8 hours into the trip when you hit the no go mark and have to turn around and fly another 5 or 6 hours back.......

That's the optimistic view - what happens when you are WAY beyond your PNR - at which point everything was on plan - and now have no option but to continue into unforecast increasing headwind.

Splash.

Never had to do it, only ever flown that route at 35,000 +ft or so with 4 engines and more fuel than one could possibly need, i.e. flt. plan plus diversion plus 10% plus a bit for Mum - just in case.

Way to go.

The only time one has too much fuel is when one is on fire.

Not that he had any choice of course, he would doubtless have tanked up to the maximum.

I've just sold a final 10 litres of Avgas to a guy setting off from Northern New Zealand to Norfolk Island (part way to Oz. ) he insisted on absolutely full tanks to the last drop.

I knew another guy who flew up to the very top of NZ, illegally landed in a field and stashed away a couple of cans of fuel under the hedge, then flew back to the Customs airfield of departure for the night, some 45 minutes away. Next morning he cleared Customs, flew to his field again and topped off his tanks with his stash before also setting off across the Tasman to Aus.

But that's another story !

[Big Pistons Forever]

That's the optimistic view - what happens when you are WAY beyond your PNR - at which point everything was on plan - and now have no option but to continue into unforecast increasing headwind.



That is what reserve fuel is for. The bottom line is as you are approaching the PNR you have to have your planned reserve fuel at destination. If you don't because the head wind component have not decreased as forecast then you have to turn around. This only works with a weather pattern that gives you strong headwinds to start but which are forecast to diminish throughout the trip.

You would have to be out of your mind to takeoff with a forecast increasing headwind along your route of flight.

[ExSp33db1rd]

You would have to be out of your mind to takeoff with a forecast increasing headwind..........

Agreed, but I did say .......

......unforecast increasing headwind.

and what about the " bit for Mum " do you keep it to the end, or use it enroute ?

One of our guys was approaching New York and was advised of a 45 minute hold, and experience was that such delays usually lengthen, so had he continued he would, eventually, have still been airborne in the hold below the minimum reserve fuel required, so diverted to Boston, where the weather was worse, but manageable. Arriving Boston the weather had deteriorated below limits. Had he continued to New York he would, most likely, have by then landed without trouble - but been "illegal"; he has now no alternate fuel left, having used it diverting, and almost used his 'bit for Mum' and has nowhere to go - but he had done everything 'by the book' and was 'legal'. - but nearly dead. Eventually ATC managed to get him into a Military airfield nearby.

Don't pick me up on detail, many moons ago, can't remember all the figures, but the point is that despite ones' best efforts Murphy is always with us.

[moreflaps]

Damn only 13 miles short! Could he have glided in if he had kept high while he had fuel?

Cheers

[IO540]

I dont get why a flight into a forecast reducing headwind is smarter than a flight into a forecast increasing headwind.

A wind forecast is only a forecast.

Anytime the general weather pattern shows a significant wind relative to ones range, one needs lots of reserve.

I am sure this pilot had lots of reserve, but evidently not enough - unless something else happened e.g. A fuel system problem.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I dont get why a flight into a forecast reducing headwind is smarter than a flight into a forecast increasing headwind.


If you have to turn around prior to the PNR, would you rather have a large and likely increasing tailwind or a small and likely decreasing tailwind ?

[IO540]

If you have to turn around prior to the PNR, would you rather have a large and likely increasing tailwind or a small and likely decreasing tailwind ?

I would take a view of the overall wx pattern. There is no simple answer. The way you pose the question has no practical meaning.

The accuracy of a forecast varies widely according to the weather. So e.g. The light winds prevailing within a large area of one or multiple high pressure zones are basically unforecastable. They may all be within 10kt but nobody can tell which way it will go and at what altitude. Same with a region of multiple (but weak) lows. If you have an aggressive frontal system OTOH then the situation is better defined but the winds along a route are much more sensitive to timing because the whole lot is likely to be moving at some speed, and forecasters routinely get the speed wrong i.e they forecast the wx ok but for the wrong time.

For me, the only way is to disregard tailwind (unless there are so many alternates along the route that it is moot) and take the worst case headwind as constantly present.

In the TB20, this policy makes Crete easily reachable from the UK with one fuel stop somewhere nice. If one took tailwind into account one could do all kinds of things and possibly LGST would be reachable nonstop (1450nm) but none of the alternates have avgas so if you screw up.... Not all that different to this ferry flight really except there was not just no avgas but no runway too.

But then i dont ferry to Hawaii :)

[GWYN]

Ray Clamback anyone??

[Big Pistons Forever]

. The way you pose the question has no practical meaning.


Actually the way you are posing the questions has no practical meaning.

The bottom line is simple. Ferrying aircraft across the Pacific is not something private pilots do. Virtually all of theses flights are done by professional ferry pilots. A PPL like yourself would find it almost impossible to get insurance for the trip.

Obviously the preferred situation is a weather pattern that will produce light winds, preferably from behind you, for the entire route, thus being in the position that you will be fat on fuel right from the the time the wheels leave the ground. However this is unlikely to occur at this time of the year.

It is simply unrealistic for a ferry pilot to wait for these conditions as it may mean a delay of multiple weeks. The alternate is to launch into the forecast reducing headwind with the turn back option kept open by a careful monitoring of the flight progress. Most of the time this works out fine and by the time you get to the PNR you have enough fuel to continue with adequate reserves. Occasionally the wind Gods do not cooperate and you have to turn around which obviously sucks big time.

Very Very occasionally the pilot gets it wrong and thereby makes the news along with a a lot of speculation by folks who do not have the specific knowledge and experience of trans oceanic flying to be credible when criticizing the decisions of a pilot.............

[IO540]

professional ferry pilots.

How do you define that?

A PPL like yourself would find it almost impossible to get insurance for the trip.

FWIW, I am not a PPL :)

when criticizing the decisions of a pilot

Criticizing when?

If I was going to criticise Mr Mellor's decisions (which I know nothing about) I would first get the historical forecasts and actuals for his route, and post them here. Then it could be discussed properly. I haven't done that, so... but neither has anybody else. (I have done that in some other accident cases which were discussed here).

So, over to you, BPF. As you clearly are a "professional" pilot, your contribution to knowledge in this area would be enlightening (seriously). Let's see the weather for the route, and how would you plan it.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I wonder if he had a GPS-linked fuel totaliser.

If not, that's a very brave pilot, relying on the gauges in that old heap and the POH figures.

Rather sounds like a "criticism" to me :hmm:
but maybe I am just a sensitive soul :O

Fuel totalizers are only as good as the "K" factor set and the condition of the transducer. If you fly only one aircraft, over time you can really dial it in, and they will give amazingly accurate results. But if I am in flying a strange aircraft I look at what the totalizer tells me with a very jaundiced eye. Only after several legs where I have been able to compare the fuel uplift values with the totalizer will I believe what it is telling me, and this of course requires filling the tank to the brim which may not be possible on every leg.

Bottom line: The presence or absence of a fuel totalizer is only one very small factor in a successful (or not) trans oceanic flight .........

[IO540]

I know a ferry pilot who never does USA-Europe jobs unless he can pick the plane up well inland before the US coast, so he gets a chance to suss it, over some hundreds of miles over land, before heading out to Greenland. So he can see the oil consumption, etc. Apparently a significant % of ferry jobs which start right at the US coast are cases where a previous ferry pilot abandoned the plane because he didn't like something about it :)

100% right about checking a fuel totaliser. Again, this could be done over a single tank fillup. I know quite a number of pilots with totalisers and would bet that half of them do not use them because they don't know how to, or because nobody ever set the K-factor so the thing is 10-20% off.

[Big Pistons Forever]

100% right about checking a fuel totaliser. Again, this could be done over a single tank fillup .

I would argue one fill up is not enough. I have twice seen intermittent transducers. The totalizer would work great on some flights, but under count on others. The bad news is when totalizers lie they will almost always say you have more fuel than the actual amount in the tanks :uhoh:

[IO540]

The totalizer would work great on some flights, but under count on others.

If you keep half an eye on the systems, you should spot that.

The way one normally works is that you level off in cruise, set up the engine etc, and look at the appropriate GPS page to see the computed FOB at the loaded destination. On most flights, this figure changes suprisingly little through the flight. Tailwind improves it of course, and headwind degrades it. But the nearer you are to destination, the less difference the wind makes, obviously.

If you have a sticky transducer, which is possible but is extremely unlikely to be thoroughly sticky on some flights and perfectly OK on others, you will see wild fluctuations in the computed LFOB (landing fuel on board) figure. Not to mention wild fluctuations in the current flow rate indicated on both the flow instrument and the GPS page.

Some notes here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc/fuel.pdf) and here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/shadin/index.html) :)

[Big Pistons Forever]

If you keep half an eye on the systems, you should spot that.

Some notes here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc/fuel.pdf) and here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/shadin/index.html) :)

You do have a gift for stating the obvious ;)

As for your assertion that you can't have a intermittent fuel transducer......well all I can say is that is exactly what I saw. It was right on on some flights and 10 to 25 % off on others with no wild fluctuations of fuel flow or gallons remaining. A replacement fuel totalizer for stupid dollars instantly and permanently fixed the problem. The other failure was a wiring issue and it was as you say pretty obvious. I guess the moral of the story is when dealing with GA systems "never say it can never happen" :ouch:

Thanks for posting your notes on fuel totalizer systems, I learned some stuff I did not know about the unit :ok:

[ExSp33db1rd]

The bad news is when totalizers lie they will almost always say you have more fuel than the actual amount in the tanks

.......with GA systems "never say it can never happen"
...and not only GA.

Murphy is always with us.

The only time to believe fuel system 'gauges' is when the say 'empty' !!

[Jetblu]

Fuel totalizers are not by any means your get out of jail free card for fuel management. I have seen many errors with them.

Maybe, it was the fuel totalizer that gave the pilot incorrect information here ??

Anyway, the thread was about ditching. It was a perfect ditching by a very experienced pilot whom I guess is grateful that it was a Cessna 310 and not a leaky TB20 ;) It was most certainly not a gps approach on autoland :)