Plane 'suffered fuel supply problems' before fatal crash.

[donnlass]

April 12, 2012

A light aircraft that crashed into two houses in Peel Green in Salford, killing the pilot, probably suffered a fuel supply problem, an air accident report revealed.

No-one on the ground was hurt but the Piper PA38's pilot, Ian Daglish, 59, died later in hospital, the report from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said.

Mr Daglish's 19-year-old passenger Joel McNicholls was seriously hurt in the crash on the morning of July 29 last year.

Leaving Manchester/Barton City Airport, the aircraft suffered an engine stoppage on take-off at about 200ft. It rolled to the left, with the extension roof of the first house most likely being struck by the aircraft's right wing.

The underside of the aircraft then hit the side wall of a neighbouring house, with the wrecked and on-fire aircraft coming to rest in a driveway between the two homes.

The AAIB report said: "The account of the passenger and the findings from the investigation support a fuel supply problem as being the most likely cause of the engine stoppage."

The AAIB went on: "Although other potential causes for the engine stoppage could not be eliminated from the investigation, the most likely cause, based on the available evidence, was that stiffness of the fuel selector valve and wear on the rod connecting it to the selector handle, may have resulted in the valve being in an intermediate position during the take-off.

"This would have reduced the fuel flow to a level too low to sustain continuous engine operation."

The report added: "The suddenness of the engine stopping and the limited time available to react to it probably resulted in the pilot omitting to lower the nose before the aircraft stalled.

"Once the aircraft stalled, it is highly unlikely that he could have recovered the aircraft in the height available." Father-of-two Mr Daglish, from Alderley Edge, Cheshire, was a military historian and wrote a series of books about Second World War battles.

He described himself on his website as a "battlefield mythbuster". Colin Maher, whose home was hit, said at the time that he had run into his garden and saw the plane alight. "I heard a man shout for help and just put a hosepipe on him," Mr Maher told the BBC.

Read more at:

Plane 'suffered fuel supply problems' before fatal crash in Salford killed pilot Ian Daglish | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk (http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1491041_plane-suffered-fuel-supply-problems-before-fatal-crash-in-salford-killed-pilot-ian-daglish)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Does anyone know how the passenger is doing? What level of recovery from his horrific burns has he made?

[172driver]

The AAIB went on: "Although other potential causes for the engine stoppage could not be eliminated from the investigation, the most likely cause, based on the available evidence, was that stiffness of the fuel selector valve and wear on the rod connecting it to the selector handle, may have resulted in the valve being in an intermediate position during the take-off.

"This would have reduced the fuel flow to a level too low to sustain continuous engine operation."

This is one of the reasons why I think changing tanks immediately prior to t/o is NOT a good idea :=

I sincerely hope the pax recovers, as much as is possible after the burns he suffered.

[piperarcher]

This is one of the reasons why I think changing tanks immediately prior to
t/o is NOT a good idea


In my PA28 checklist, it (obviously abbreviated) goes along the lines of 1: Set fuel selector to lowest tank 2: Start engine 3: Taxi to run up area 4: change to fullest tank 5: do power checks 6: do pre-departure checks 7: take-off.

Therefore I dont change fuel tanks just before take-off, I have done it before commencing the power check, where hopefully any fuel flow or pressure issues would be spotted before commiting to line up.

Most of my experience is limited to Pipers, and a few hours on a Cessna, but are there aircraft where changing fuel tanks just before take-off is suggested?

[peterh337]

but are there aircraft where changing fuel tanks just before take-off is suggested?

I cannot imagine a fuel system on which that would be anything other than a really stupid idea.

The idea is to take off with the fuel path as "proven" as possible.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I agree with Peter.

My personal habit is to taxi with one tank, then switch before engine run-ups.

G

[riverrock83]

Start on left, taxi on right, power checks and takeoff on "both" for me ;).
As has been said - it means you are taking off on the best source of fuel which has been proven to be uncontaminated.

I don't think there is a resource anywhere containing how long an engine needs to run at a) taxi speed / power
b) power checks / runup power
to confirm that fuel is running from a selected tank for individual aircraft?

Of course -this list would need to be specific for a particular make/model with a particular configuration. Would this be a good additional to a POH?

[AdamFrisch]

Please explain to me why pretty much every aircraft manufacturer has such complicated and deadly tank designs? What's wrong with having both wing tanks drain into a feeder tank and having NO selector? It's obviously doable as many aircraft have it - including mine. Some with tip tanks are even worse - there you have to run 30mins on the mains, then switch to tips, to leave room for the overflow to fit in the mains again etc, etc.

It's frankly nuts. How many people have killed themselves due to tank mismanagement compared to aircraft with no tank selection? I bet a lot. Seems like every second fuel issue is actually a tank problem.

[peterh337]

One advantage is that if you fly alone, the plane flies crooked (a bit like a 1960s MG Midget sits on the road because unless you got "lucky" at univ. ;) you were usually driving alone) unless you drain down the LH tank more.

Another is that you can install a ferry tank and have that feeding into the tank you are not using to drive the engine.

Another is that you can keep car petrol in one tank and run off that when over land ;)

[AdamFrisch]

One advantage is that if you fly alone, the plane flies crooked (a bit like a 1960s MG Midget sits on the road because unless you got "lucky" at univ. you were usually driving alone) unless you drain down the LH tank more.

This is what you have aileron for, no?;)

[peterh337]

Yes, but you get a sore arm after a bit.

On a Cirrus (and some others) you can trim it out, but the plane still flies crooked in that you get the extra aileron drag, and then the adverse yaw so you get some rudder drag as well.

2-3kt?

[Jan Olieslagers]

What's wrong with having both wing tanks drain into a feeder tank and having NO selector?

That's exactly the arrangement on my little joy and pride - though there ARE a filter and a valve in each "wing to feeder" line, and a third such couple between the feeder and the mechanical fuel pump on the engine.

I think all three valves useful, the first two to select the tank to be used, the third to cut everything off if ever things go wrong.

But of course, that's only on a ridiculously simple microlight - worse, it's from the continent.

[Pilot DAR]

Please explain to me why pretty much every aircraft manufacturer has such complicated and deadly tank designs?Please explain to me why pretty much every aircraft manufacturer has such complicated and deadly tank designs?

With a few exceptions, you will find the "left OR right" fuel selector to be associated with low wing, dihedral wing arrangements. There is a design requirement for certification that the airspaces of tanks be interconnected and self draining, if a "both" fuel selector position is to be available. Obviously were there to be a self draining vent line connection the airspaces of the two (or more) wing tanks, it would have to cross the fuselage well above the wings, and it would end up looking like the wingstruts on a Pawnee or Cessna Agwagon. This is one way in which high wing arrangement is more versitle.

Obvioulsy, being able to turn the fuel off is necessary.

I wish my C 150 did have a left and right selector, I'd use it!

It is wise for a pilot to become familiar with about how long the plane will run with the fuel selector turned off. Do it at idle, and for sure, it will be a shorter time at takeoff power. You certainly don't want to begin a takeoff until this amount of time, plus some has passed since you last fiddled with the fuel selector. This test is easily done when you're ready to shutdown, and best to return the fuel supply just as it begins to sputter, and shut down normally (safer for the next pilot too!)

[AdamFrisch]

I'm assuming they have more than multiple pickup spots, not just from the center feeder tank. Never had a problem.

[mm_flynn]

I did a test on my aircraft and at idle power my engine shuts down about 10 seconds after I select off, so I guess for me switching prior to power checks is going to provide plenty of time for any fuel flow issues to show up (of course if you can't maintain full power flow, that won't show up until you are in the takeoff roll no matter what you do with selecting tanks).

[peterh337]

Another advantage of two separate tanks is if you get an in-flight leak in one of them.

[Maoraigh1]

I did a test on my aircraft and at idle power my engine shuts down about 10 seconds after I select off,
On the Jodel DR1050 I can turn fuel off, do a full run-up, and would probably be in the air when the engine stops. I don't change tanks until at altitude.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Of course you need to factor in the power setting to how long it runs with the fuel off. I run old motorbikes and I like to turn off the fuel and run the carb dry at the end of a ride so the carp that's in modern petrol (when the lighter stuff evaporates off) doesn't block my jets.

If I turn it off while still riding, it won't last long before the engine stops. If I turn it off after arriving home and let the bike tick over until it stops, it takes ages.

[donnlass]

Shaggy I got this from a Get Well Soon Joel McNicholls FB page:



"joels getting stronger and stronger each day hes making great progress so thankyou to the dedicated medical team and everyone for your continued support x"

[riverrock83]

With a few exceptions, you will find the "left OR right" fuel selector to be associated with low wing, dihedral wing arrangements. There is a design requirement for certification that the airspaces of tanks be interconnected and self draining, if a "both" fuel selector position is to be available. Obviously were there to be a self draining vent line connection the airspaces of the two (or more) wing tanks, it would have to cross the fuselage well above the wings

The Scottish Aviation Bulldog that I've been flying has a "both" position. The manual includes the venting system - but there isn't a special strut for the vent - it runs along inside the wing. The bulldog has outer and inner tanks in each wing, permanently interconnected, with the vent linking the tanks (presumably just the outside tanks - at least, thats what the diagram suggests). The exit of the vent is on one of the wheel struts (so below the tanks). I have noticed that if the tanks are fully filled, and the aircraft is moved, there can be a small amount of discharge from the vent. So its not impossible to do - it just needs designed in! Air doesn't need gravity to flow...

Mind you - I still need to manage the fuel as it often doesn't drain each tank evenly, and we always set it to one tank after shut down to stop cross-feeding and so letting the fuel leak if the aircraft isn't parked on level ground. Britain 1, USA 0 :ok:

[Big Pistons Forever]

Mind you - I still need to manage the fuel as it often doesn't drain each tank evenly, and we always set it to one tank after shut down to stop cross-feeding and so letting the fuel leak if the aircraft isn't parked on level ground. Britain 1, USA 0 :ok:

My Nanchang CJ6A has 2 wing tanks which drain by gravity to a small collector tank in the bottom of the fuselage. The engine then draws from the collector tank. The result: no tank switching, unusable fuel measured in ounces, and a fuel drain that is at the very lowest point of the fuel system. The whole system is vented to one underwing vent which never leaks and the system tends to drain almost exactly evenly from both sides. As a bonus the fuel gauges are very accurate. Below 40 litres a side I have proven them to be out less than 1 litre from a measured added amount.

China 1, US 0, Britain -1 ;)

[riverrock83]

Bulldog gauges are pretty accurate, although I can't put a figure on it. There is a central fuel drain at the lowest point. I suspect that the tendency to not drain evenly is likely due to pilot error (not quite keeping straight and level :O - I'll use the student excuse ) which if you flew out of balance I suspect you would probably get the same error (there is a moral in here somewhere).
I have only seen the vent leak once, and that was when it was set to cross feed ("both"), it was being pulled across uneven ground and the tanks were tipped.
In your setup, there is no way of telling whether the fuel in separate tanks is OK, and if there is a problem on one side, there is no way of controlling that. Mind you - if there is a problem on one side, there is a good chance there is the same problem on the other...
I presume that there is a fuel pump to pull in from the collector so that in inverted flight doesn't stop the donkey when gravity is no longer your friend?

I might give you China 2, UK 1, US 0, but I think I'm being generous (and I think I should stop the game of trumps: they are very different planes and I'll soon start to show my lack of true knowledge..):}

[Big Pistons Forever]

In your setup, there is no way of telling whether the fuel in separate tanks is OK, and if there is a problem on one side, there is no way of controlling that. Mind you - if there is a problem on one side, there is a good chance there is the same problem on the other...


First off I think the Bulldog is a pretty nice ride so I was certainly not casting aspersions on your choice of aircraft.

I will say however experience with the Dripsy Major has given me a somewhat jaundiced view of the design choices made by British engineers......

In high wing Cessna's used by schools and clubs, I think the whole start on one tank and then do the runup on other and then switch to both is unnecessary and even dangerous. For starters the POH only says to check the selector is on both on the preflight inspection and then on the pre-takeoff check it says with regards to the fuel selector to "recheck both".

The only documented examples of a situation where fuel did not feed from a tank in a Cessna invariably involved a flight immediately after the fuel system had been disturbed during maintenance, usually removal of the wing. In the later case it is routine to cap the ends of the fuselage fuel and vent lines. If the caps are not properly removed a line could end up blocked.

I challenge anyone to find an example where an in service aircraft suddenly stopped feeding from one wing. The real danger IMO is if you do the left, right, then to both checks; will be forgetting to return the selector to both before takeoff.

I personally know of one aircraft that was destroyed after an engine failure in cruise that started with an inadvertent takeoff with the the fuel selected to left instead of both. I also know of an EFATO caused by a sharpish departure turn that was required for an unofficial but encouraged noise abatement procedure. Again the switch to both was missed on the pre takeoff check and the turn was towards the tank selected. When all the fuel sloshed over to the outboard end of the tank due to the bank the engine stopped. Fortunately the pilot immediately lowered the nose and leveled the wings and the engine roared back to life and he was able to fly away none the worse except for the state of his underwear.

Can't happen to you ? Hands up to all the pilots who Not Once ever realised they had missed something on the checks after they were airborne......

[Big Pistons Forever]

Bulldog gauges are pretty accurate, although I can't put a figure on it.


I highly encourage any one I teach who owns their own aircraft to use any occasion when the tanks are drained to check the gauges. Make sure the aircraft is leveled and then simple fill with small measured amounts recording the gauges reading after each addition of fuel. Most small aircraft gauges are usually pretty accurate when in the bottom one third to one quarter which is when the gauges are really needed.

This is obviously harder to do with rental aircraft but at a minimum the gauges should be compared with the dipstick reading on every pre flight inspection.

[vihai]

When all the fuel sloshed over to the outboard end of the tank due to the bank the engine stopped.


Why would the bank do that?

[riverrock83]

Why would the bank do that?

[NOTE: whats below is wrong - it doesn't take into account the forces in a turn, but I've left it up to keep my pride in check and the following post by IM to make sense...]

Gravity?

In a low wing plane, wings are normally slightly V shaped to aid lateral stability. If a fuel tank is in a wing, it makes sense that the pipe from the fuel tank will be at the lowest point in the tank, so that the maximum amount of fuel can be drained from the tank. In a wing sloping down towards the cockpit, the fuel pipe will be at the cockpit end of the fuel tank (nearest the bottom of the V) as this is the lowest point in the tank when the plane is straight and level.

If a plane banks, the outside end of the wing is now lower than the centre end. Due to gravity, the fuel will move towards the outside end of the wing, away from the fuel pipe to the engine. If only that tank is selected, the fuel pipe might then be trying to suck air rather than fuel...

Of course - designers know about this and will have designed the fuel tanks in such a way that this shouldn't happen during normal flight, but for example in the bulldog, there is a warning area marked on the fuel gauge in which aerobatics aren't allowed due to this problem (to the best of my memory anyway - I don't have the docs here - it might be a warning about steep turns over a certain bank angle).
Mind you - if you are this short of fuel then you shouldn't be thinking about aeros anyway!

[172driver]

Why would the bank do that?

Because the feed points from the tanks to the lines leading to the engine are inboard. IIRC there is an item about this in the Cessna POH advising against extended circling on one tank if low(ish) on fuel.

['India-Mike]

Thread drift alert...for riverrock

Due to gravity, the fuel will move towards the outside end of the wing, away from the fuel pipe to the engine

Does gravity pull you towards the outside end of the wing? Discuss. With your instructor:E

['India-Mike]

The club where riverrock flies his Bulldog has a Chipmunk which feeds very asymmetrically - the starboard tank can get to 2 IG in the time that the port has only used 2. With the starboard tank empty, there's about 8 left in the port one. Turns to the left or right are no problem - provided the turn is coordinated:ok:

[Big Pistons Forever]

Unporting is more of an issue in high wing aircraft as they have less dihedral. In the case I mentioned he compounded his mistake by taking off with very low fuel
as he only wanted to do one circuit, which would have been no problem if he had selected both.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I will say however experience with the Dripsy Major has given me a somewhat jaundiced view of the design choices made by British engineers......

How so? It's a lovely engine - reliable, sounds good, has character, leaks a bit of oil to stop the airframe from corroding. ;)

I've been flying well over 30 years, a lot of it behind various Gipsys, and I love 'em!

Donnlas - thanks for the update. Glad he seems to be making a good recovery.

[donnlass]

Yer welcome Shaggy:ok:

[donnlass]

BBC News - Salford plane crash survivor ready to fly again (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-18975362)

Salford plane crash survivor ready to fly again


24 July 2012 Last updated at 18:50


A man who spent months in hospital after the light aircraft he was a passenger in crashed into houses in Greater Manchester has said he is looking forward to taking to the skies again.


Joel McNicholls was a passenger in the plane which crashed into two Salford houses on 29 July 2011. The pilot, Ian Dalglish, died from the injuries he received in the crash.


The 20-year-old said he had no memory of the crash, but did recall using "every ounce of energy trying to get out of the aeroplane".


He said he thought about the crash "every day when I look in the mirror, but that is the risk that you take when you go flying".


He added flying was "a feeling like no other" and that he would not let what happened stop him flying again.




What a brave lad. A true hero:ok:

[742-xx]

What a brave lad. A true hero

Very true and very humbling.

[007helicopter]

Wow, what an attitude, good luck to him.:ok:

[sharksandwich]

similar topic:http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/490566-mental-arithmatic-versus-instruments.html

[A and C]

I can't help observing that this guy has the same type of attitude that the members of the Guinea Pig Club that I have been privileged enough to know demonstrated, I hope he has a support network that is as good as they had.

I wish him a speedy recovery as the medical work is a long way from being finished.

[Sam Rutherford]

I have a friend who, a couple of months ago after being obliged by ATC to descend to 500', realised he needed to switch tanks. Between L an R, there is 'none' - and it was at this point that the little lever came off in his hand. He was fine, but the aircraft was written off.

Something to think about if your aircraft fuel selector has the same design.

Fly safe, Sam.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Hmmm. Why did he 'have' to go so low? Why did he 'have' to change tanks while so low? Why couldn't he just place the selector lever back onto its (keyed) shaft and continue with the fuel selection?

Just asking.....

[Sam Rutherford]

It was classic 'incident pit':

ATC asked him to descend to 500' - so he obliged.
Once there, he realised he needed to change tanks
Didn't want to mess ATC about with requesting to climb again
Lever came off in his hand, and despite trying for about 10 seconds (which probably felt like about an hour!), it wouldn't go back on
He decided to 'fly the plane' rather than keep his head stuck in the footwell.

At 500' there's not much time to be 'messing about'.

So yes, change any of these parameters and there would have been no problem...