BLADECRACK - I about 2k emergency hours on 355 and 105. Both types require careful fuel management when the fuel states get close to the MLAs.
In this case there was plenty of fuel in the main tank. It remained there because the pilot did not switch the transfer pumps back on. As a consequence the LOW FUEL warning illuminated (recorded by the VMS) and the RFM requires a landing within 10 mins. To an experienced pilot this means land ASAP. These two facts are the most significant in the report.
I wonder how many times this situation had arisen where the outcome was favourable.
What you, and many others on this thread fail to appreciate is that in attempting to discredit the fuel contents and indicating system you are actually promoting a culture where indications are no longer relied upon are indeed acted upon.
As such, two habits form. 1. Lack of trust and therefore conservative application of limits OR 2. lack of trust leading to a belief that there is probably more fuel available than indicated.
This aircraft, based on the total contents indicated AND the pilots in flight airmanship was already below the MLA in the OM and he had still not reached his landing site. To me this indicates a habit based on condition 2 above. Complacency leading to mismanagement of the fuel system.
It is remarkable simple if you think about it. With less than 100 kgs in the main tanks at least one or both TRFR pumps needed to be on. I would think that is an obvious requirement regardless of the perceived pressures of the task.
Fuel system indications are a lot more robust that posters on this thread like to intimate. As such, if the LOW FUEL lights illuminate in flight.....hers my to tip. LAND ASAP.
DB