Engine Failure after take off due fuel exhaustion

[Centaurus]

Reading the September 2015 issue of the US flight safety magazine "Aviation Safety" I saw a story where the pilot of a Cessna 140 had an engine failure at 50 feet on take off. The reason for the engine failure was extremely low fuel contents even though the gauges showed full.

Now here is the fascinating bit. There was insufficient runway to land ahead and beyond that was a river and houses. Certainly not the best area to force land. So the pilot gently shook the wings with aileron giving a momentary return of power and thus enough altitude allowing a 180 degree turn to a dead stick landing on the runway.

I have never heard of that technique before when waggling the wings may get some remaining fuel back to the engine.

[Tourist]

Or you could just use a dipstick like a normal person and never be in that situation to begin with.

I have never ever in 35yrs of flying used a dipstick for fuel.
Am I not normal?

[Dusty_B]

I hope you are not normal.

[RAT 5]

Sounds to me like one smart cookie who has been around puddle jumpers for a while. I would not be surprised to learn that this titbit had been passed down a few generations: and guess what....it continues to be passed down.

In my days with low wings a/c it was common, on the walk round to peek into the tanks. One great difficulty with high wing. I'd be curious how both fuel sensors/gauges could be wrong. Take off with L/R selected is one thing; stutter and change tanks, but for both gauges to show an erroneous amount is smelly.

[stator vane]

I always visually checked to see fuel in the tanks and almost always filled them to the top.

[Mikehotel152]

During the course of my PPL we were taught to visually check the fuel tank contents on the C152. I'm very surprised some people don't.

[Wizofoz]

I have never ever in 35yrs of flying used a dipstick for fuel.
Am I not normal?

No, just limited on what types you've operated- for instance, I had fuel dip-sticks for my Pitts and Extra, and I think you had to dip the Chipmunk.

[Wizofoz]

I always visually checked to see fuel in the tanks and almost always filled them to the top.

Did you then fill the available seats?

[Spooky 2]

You must not have flown the DC4.:}

[Tourist]

I've looked in tanks, I've had drop down thingys and I've had captions and I've had digital readouts and moving bars and dials and totalisers.

That's across Airliners to Fast Jets to Helicopters big and small to Turboprops.

I suspect the majority are like me..

Not many real aircraft have dipsticks.....

[Wizofoz]

Sure- but the OP is regarding a Cessna 140.

[Tourist]

The fuel gauges don't work on that type?

[Mach E Avelli]

The fuel gauges don't work accurately on most GA aircraft, especially those over 60 years old.
Old pilots never go past a piss stop or fuel bowser without taking advantage of both.
But I did like the wing waggling memory item from the emergency checklist; must remember that one!

[Old Fella]

After a lifetime, well at least since age 17, in aviation I have always used a visual check of tank contents where possible, or a known uplift of fuel plus indicated fuel remaining prior to refuel, to determine fuel on board for flight.

Anyone who gets airborne without ensuring there is sufficient fuel aboard for the intended flight is not only being negligent but also very foolish. The pilot in the incident cited by Centaurus obviously did not visually check the fuel in tanks on the Cessna and, I would suggest, was very fortunate to have recovered sufficient fuel to conduct the turn-back.

[framer]

They do but you'd be a fool to rely on them all the time
That is true for sure. I never trusted or even used the gauges in the Cessnas I flew, or the BE-58 either.

[Southpole]

If I am not mistaken that 180 degrees turn is called "the impossible turn"

With engine failure at 50 feet he couldn't have turned back, so he made it with the last 5 second of engine life.. Did he forget to open the fuel valve? Or it was really empty tank? I heard of a similar incident many many years ago where the pilot forgot to open the fuel valve after the fuel check (don't remember the procedures on small aircrafts) at the holding point. So he took off and after 2 min he found himself without the eng and made an emergency landing.
Then during the investigation it was proved that he used just the fuel remaining in the from the valve to the eng.

[Tourist]

Anyone who gets airborne without ensuring there is sufficient fuel aboard for the intended flight is not only being negligent but also very foolish.

Then the majority of the worlds military pilots and airline pilots are negligent then if by "ensuring" you mean a visual check.....


Not many pilots (none I've ever met) of big toys ever personally check a tank.

Didn't know that about toy Cessnas though.

I find it slightly strange that the response to unreliable fuel gauges is to check visually rather than force Cessna to fit gauges that work.

[Uplinker]

How do Cessna 152 fuel gauges work? I can't remember - do they have a float and a thermal gauge like a car? If so they are very crude and prone to misreading and malfunction, especially on an old aircraft.

Modern airliners have multiple point capacitance fuel level measuring devices in each tank - all of which have to agree with other to give a reading on the fuel gauge. We also calculate how many litres we will need to load the fuel we want, and we cross check that with the literage delivered by the fuel bowser. If the actual figure is more than 5% different to the calculated figure, we have to "dip" the tanks and find out where the discrepancy is.

One of the most fundamental things to get right in aviation is to be absolutely sure that the fuel you need for your flight is present and on-board in the tanks. Getting this wrong is potentially life threatening, so should never be assumed or treated lightly.

If you run out of fuel in an aircraft, you can't pull over to the side of the road and call the AA..........

The Cessnas I flew back in the day all had a wooden dip stick in the shape of a T that we used to double check the fuel level in the tanks.

@tourist: even if you have perfect fuel measuring systems, you should always double check something as fundamental as the amount of fuel on board.:ok:

[Derfred]

What an amazing thread!

Light aircraft:

Visual check "full" or dipstick for quantity. High wing or low wing. Gauges as useful as a nun's nipples.

Heavy aircraft:

Two independent methods to verify fuel quantity, or stick check. The two independent methods are normally fuel remaining plus fuel uplift = gauge reading +/- a tolerance. Fuel remaining is verified at end of flight by fuel load - fuel used = gauge reading +/- a tolerance and estimated transit/hangar fuel used.

I have always thought these rules of the air to be as entrenched globally as a pre-flight walkaround.

Obviously not. :=

[Centaurus]

Not many real aircraft have dipsticks.....

One exception was the DC3 and that was a real aircraft.

[Centaurus]

It is generally accepted that single engine Cessnas have unreliable fuel gauges.

The fuel gauges would have been reliable when first certified. So what happened in between? Easy question. Over time various things could cause fuel gauges to become inaccurate or faulty. You would think responsible pilots would immediately write up the suspected defect in the approved maintenance document.

But often they don't because they either can't be bothered or are afraid to make perceived waves and upset the boss. So they simply leave it to the next unsuspecting pilot to fly that aircraft to wear the problem (F**k you, Jack - I'm OK) Repeat ad nauseam. The worst sort of back-stabbing to the next pilot.

Often, flying school managers avoid encouraging clients to write up any snags because the aircraft owners can get snarly at the extra cost of fixing things. Parking brakes on Cessna's not working properly, jamming fuel valves on C152's, binding or jamming primer pumps, inoperative landing and taxi lights. They all play up occasionally and should be rectified but unless a pilot reports these on paper they don't get fixed. And that includes intermittent defects as above, including fuel gauges..

[Uplinker]

Not many real aircraft have dipsticks......



Well actually Airbus have several MMI's - Manual Magnetic Indicators in each tank. They are like dipsticks but are designed to be deployed and read from underneath the wing. They are measuring rods which are released from underneath the wing and are lowered until they engage with a floating magnet in the fuel tank. The level of the contents of the tank are then read off the graduations on each stick.

[ACMS]

One of the easiest Aircraft to visually inspect the fuel quantity in is the PA28 however unless it's full or at the tabs I'll use the dipstick to accuratly tell me how much fuel is in there. We never trust the gauges on GA types.

On the A330 , yes we have to trust the gauges and fuel uplift calculations to ensure the fuel is correct....

If you have a dipstick then use it when you cannot see precisely how much is there.

It's not rocket science.

[MarkerInbound]

The fuel gauges would have been reliable when first certified.

FAR 23 lists the certification requirements for small aircraft -

23.1337(b) Fuel quantity indication. There must be a means to indicate to the flightcrew members the quantity of usable fuel in each tank during flight. An indicator calibrated in appropriate units and clearly marked to indicate those units must be used. In addition:

(1) Each fuel quantity indicator must be calibrated to read “zero” during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply determined under §23.959(a);


So unless you lift the tail of a 140 to a level attitude there is no requirement for the fuel gauge to show you useful information. If you weren't taught that in primary flight training I'd say your instructor was negligent.

[stilton]

Sounds like our hero knew immediately he was low on fuel judging by his
quick thinking actions


Which makes you wonder why he took off like that :ugh:

[JammedStab]

Reading the September 2015 issue of the US flight safety magazine "Aviation Safety" I saw a story where the pilot of a Cessna 140 had an engine failure at 50 feet on take off. The reason for the engine failure was extremely low fuel contents even though the gauges showed full.

Now here is the fascinating bit. There was insufficient runway to land ahead and beyond that was a river and houses. Certainly not the best area to force land. So the pilot gently shook the wings with aileron giving a momentary return of power and thus enough altitude allowing a 180 degree turn to a dead stick landing on the runway.

I have never heard of that technique before when waggling the wings may get some remaining fuel back to the engine.

Probably aircraft dependent. Without commenting on the need for a visual check on an aircraft like that, I suppose it is something one could keep in mind as a desperation thing to do if ever somehow in a similar situation.

Perhaps rudder input would work as well. I remember on the old Citabria that I used to fly long ago, I had a situation where the quantities were very low. However, with sideslip input, the quantity on one side increased significantly.

[Machinbird]

I haven't flown the Cessna 140 in over 50 years, but as I recall, you can stand on the strut next to the fuselage and get a good visual or dipstick check.
Wonder if I can still do that?:}

I do not know of a light aircraft I would wish to fly in without checking the tanks visually or by dipping the tank. Corks fill with gas and sink. Sealed floats develop cracks and sink. Mechanisms disassemble themselves. Even capacitive systems get cantankerous.
Better safe than sorry.

[A Squared]

Not many real aircraft have dipsticks.....

Hmmm, both 4 engine types I've flown had dipsticks.

For my own personal aircraft (Cessna 180) I don't always fill the tanks, and before departing with partial tanks, I always dip the tanks. The gauges have always indicated accurately, but I verify fuel on board independently. It's that whole redundancy thing that's common in aviation.

[oggers]

For my own personal aircraft (Cessna 180) I don't always fill the tanks, and before departing with partial tanks, I always dip the tanks. The gauges have always indicated accurately, but I verify fuel on board independently. It's that whole redundancy thing that's common in aviation.

Spot on :)

[mustangsally]

Many, and I mean many, moons ago I flew a bi plane with the fuel tank right behind the firewall and then an open cockpit. Always did visually confirm the fuel state with a yard stick. Then when flying would watch the float stick slowly get shorter. About once each hour I would take the same yard stick and push the floating stick down and watch it bob back up. As I recall, when the floating stick was all the way down, there was less than five usable liters remaining.


Now this C-140 and for that matter the 150's only needed about 240 meters or about 800 feet to take off. So maybe at 50 feet over the runway he had used maybe 300 meters/1000 feet. I suspect the takeoff start point left a good number of meters/feet behind the tail. Either that or a very small, short runway.


Now the lift off speed would be about 55 MPH, and a 50 feet the engine sputter, wing rock and relights. If the engine did stop instead of sputtering, was the starter reengaged? As I recall the airspeed for an unassisted start was something about 90 MPH.


One very lucky dude. Just lost a couple of his nine lives or maybe just some bar talk over a large cool one.

[john_tullamarine]

Worth keeping in mind that unusable is not necessarily related to undrainable(/unaccessible) due to the FT procedures used to determine the former.

One should know the difference .. some or all of that "spare" volume may be available to help out depending on body attitudes and jiggling ..

[Mach Jump]

(1) Each fuel quantity indicator must be calibrated to read “zero” during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply determined under §23.959(a);

Is it just me, or would an indicator that read 'zero' all the time meet the requirements?:eek:


MJ:ok:

[underfire]

Cessna asymmetric fuel system: (hence the wing wagging)
http://i62.tinypic.com/11kv5vb.jpg

Asymmetric fuel delivery
Asymmetric (uneven) fuel delivery was a well known phenomenon in single engine Cessna aircraft. The Cessna Pilots Association, (CPA) Santa Maria CA, highlighted the issue in a 1993 Tech Note #003 Uneven Fuel Feeding in Single Engine Cessnas.
The CPA describe the problem as being common on the 150/152, 172 and pre-1979 182 aircraft models.
The reason for asymmetric fuel delivery was attributed to the design of the fuel venting system, which allowed for a greater head of pressure in the left tank than the right, promoting faster delivery of fuel from the left tank. The CPA advised that due to the long and shallow design of the fuel tanks, their sensitivity to tank/ head pressure was increased. While the design incorporated a crossover vent line between the tanks, equalisation of head pressure could not be assured. The CPA highlighted that when the fuel tanks were filled above a certain level (typically half full), there was also the capability of fuel sloshing from the left tank to the right tank through the crossover vent line. That action resulted in the right tank retaining a higher level of fuel than the left, while still supplying the engine.

The Cessnas I flew back in the day all had a wooden dip stick in the shape of a T that we used to double check the fuel level in the tanks.

Like this!

http://i61.tinypic.com/1268aq1.jpg

[pithblot]

Sounds like our hero knew immediately he was low on fuel judging by his
quick thinking actions


Which makes you wonder why he took off like that

Good question stilton.

I've heard of more than one pilot regularly use a similar method to milk fuel from dry tanks on spotting work over the beach.... long time ago, never did it myself and I don't condone it.

These guys never cared much for the rules & probably don't read this forum.