Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Engine Failure after take off due fuel exhaustion

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Engine Failure after take off due fuel exhaustion

Old 12th Sep 2015, 11:58
  #21 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,186
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
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..
Centaurus is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 12:33
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,471
Received 84 Likes on 49 Posts
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.
Uplinker is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 00:41
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,991
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
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.
ACMS is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 03:33
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2015, 00:09
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,083
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
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
stilton is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2015, 01:35
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
JammedStab is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2015, 03:24
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 05:51
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tourist

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.
A Squared is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 08:35
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
oggers is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 16:57
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Floating stick....

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.
mustangsally is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 23:04
  #31 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,178
Received 92 Likes on 61 Posts
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 ..
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 23:52
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
(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?


MJ
Mach Jump is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 23:52
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cessna asymmetric fuel system: (hence the wing wagging)


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!

underfire is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 07:49
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Abeam YAYE
Posts: 331
Received 13 Likes on 9 Posts
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.
pithblot is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.