Stories from Old Aviation Safety Digests

[Centaurus]

Older readers will remember with great affection the marvellous authorship of Macarthur (Mac) Job when he was in DCA as editor of the flight safety magazine free to all licenced pilots - Aviation Safety Digest. Having trawled Ops shops and answered Trading Post advertisements over the years - as well as furtively lifted a few from dark and dusty corners in long gone flying school club houses - I have a whole library of these sought after mags at home.

In those days before cost recovery, Mac Job's flight safety magazines did not need pages of advertisements to pay for publication and this meant each page was full of good gen. Todays CASA's flight safety magazine is another story of glossy pictures and self promotion, leaving not a lot of room for a well thought out story. In the old days one pored over each page of Aviation Safety Digest. Now one flicks through the funnies and the ads and the quizzes until something interesting in the way of flight safety turns up. Of course FSA has to pay for itself nowadays.

As we grow older, policeman look younger and so do the captains of Virgin Blue and the regionals. Few younger generation pilots have ever heard of Aviation Safety Digests. Yet the stories and accidents are timeless and the reason for aircraft accidents haven't changed much. So I thought it would be a nice idea to occasionally include in Pprune some brief accident reports from the old days directly from Aviation Safety Digests - for the new pilots coming up the line.

Now most of us have flown the venerable Cessna 150 in our career and we know the fuel cock is prone to jamming on. CASA know this too and issued an AD I think some years ago about the need to exercise the fuel valve to stop it binding and finally jamming on completely. That is because just about every flying school and C150 owner never turn off the fuel cock at the end of a flight. Same with lots of GA types. Maybe it is sheer apathy or a perception that it is unnecessary and will wear out the part. In fact there was one incident where the Cessna 150 engine caught fire on start and the pilot could not turn off the fuel cock because it was jammed irrevocably on.

So here is a report from my dusted off June 1966 issue of Aviation Safety Digest - page 25. It is as valid now as it was then:

A Beech Bonanza was on downwind for landing when the engine lost power. The instructor directed the pupil (don't you love it? In those days we called 'em "pupils" - not "students") to change tanks and to work the wobble pump to restore fuel pressure but from his seat he could not see exactly what the student was doing and the engine surged two or three times then stopped.

The instructor then made an approach onto a recreation ground that was the only forced landing area available. The aircraft touched down hard and slid into a fence, injuring the instructor.

Examination of the aircraft showed that the fuel selector was positioned to the empty starboard tank which had been only partially full at the start of the flight. The port tank was still full. It was found that another instructor had previously given the pupil an erroneous briefing on the fuel selector in this particular aircraft, he having told the pupil that the long end of the selector indicated the tank. Although this was the case with selectors fitted to certain other models of this type of aircraft, the reverse was true for this particular aircraft.

The comment by the Australian Dept of Civil Aviation was as follows:

"Confusion over the correct positioning of fuel tank selectors has been responsible for a number of accidents to light aircraft in Australia. Earlier this year a Piper Cherokee was force-landed at Goulburn when the engine failed simply because the pilot wasn't familiar with the operation of the fuel selector fitted to that aircraft. One of the contributing causes to incidents of this sort is that some student pilots are seldom required to operate the fuel selector in the normal course of their training. Flying training periods are usually less than one hour and a number of flying schools and aircraft operators have regretfully adopted the practice of leaving the fuel turned on when their aircraft are not in use - a practice, incidently, which contributes nothing towards inculculating sound cockpit habits in students, and which could have undesirable effects when the pilots graduate to more advanced aircraft with multi-selection fuel systems.

The only practicable answer to the overall problem is a twofold one. Flying instructors must place greater emphasis on briefing both students and qualified pilots obtaining endorsement training on the layout and operation of the fuel system of the particular aircraft they are flying and all pilots must ensure they fully understand their aircraft's fuel system before they attempt any solo flights." Unquote.

So there you have it from 1966. Turn off the fuel cocks at the end of each flight. - In the Cessna 150 this practice may prevent potential jamming of the fuel valve in the long run.:ok:
............................................................ .......................

[remoak]

Regarding the Bonanza accident, I think my questions would be:

- How did the instructor come to take off with one tank nearly empty, and the other full? There may not be a max fuel imbalance figure for the Bonanza, but it is very poor airmanship to take off with such an imbalance. He did check the fuel... didn't he...?

Even if the briefing given to the student was erroneous - all he had to do was turn the selector to the OTHER tank. How hard is that?

As far as fuel cocks on 150s jamming in the "on" position is concerned - one has to wonder at the efficacy of the maintenance the aircraft is receiving. It takes a long time for the cock to jam, and if it is stiffening up, it should be picked up on a 50 hour check or whatever they have in Oz.

I can't think of any good reason to turn the fuel off when the aircraft is not in use, simply as a preventative maintenance measure. Just maintain the aircraft properly in the first place.

I can, however, think of some serious consequences to forgetting to turn the fuel on prior to engine start...

[Jamair]

Ah, the good old Crash Comic; some of the best aviation art ever done. Who has seen the one of the pilots hangar-flying, stubbies in hand, wearing shorts and long socks as was the style in GA............ Got a few copies myself; wish I had the full set:\

As far as fuel cocks, I always turn them off at the end of the flight; a habit acquired through flying C182s which - if you leave them on - can siphon fuel out of one tank into the other and if full, onto the ground.

Another classic 'caught-out' is the Part-Banana; most if not all have seized fuel selectors (low-leverage knobs combined with slack cables) as no-one ever checks the x-feed during run-ups or preflights.

[chimbu warrior]

I also turn off fuel at the end of each flight, especially if I am going to a fly-in or somewhere where there are people walking around the aircraft. Propellors seem to act as magnets to some people, and the urge to reposition or slightly turn the prop seems irresistible to some. If the fuel is off, this minimises the risk of damage to persons or property should the engine fire when the prop is turned.

[MBA747]

How's the command going? have you started sim yet? or you hoping for the 777?

[remoak]

If the fuel is off, this minimises the risk of damage to persons or property should the engine fire when the prop is turned.

Only if your engine is fuel-injected. If it has a carb, there is more than enough fuel in the carb and the lines for the engine to start and run for at least 30 secs or so (depending on the carb). Of course, that assumes that you were silly enough to leave the mags on... and the mixture out of ICO... :rolleyes:

[Barkly1992]

After Mac Job came Harvey Ritchie (ex RAAF/RPT and BASI investigator, followed by Allan Stephens (ex RAAF and BASI investigator and now a PhD and RAAF historian), David Robson (ex RAAF and civilian flying instructor), Al Bridges (ex RAAF and still in the CASA Safety Promotion team - I think) and finally Roger Marchant (erudite and urbane Ex RAF Vulcan navigator, RAAF and civilian ATC).

I (PPL club scene but experienced in public affairs) worked in BASI in 1983-1986 and worked for Harvey alongside Allan and established and managed the Department's/CAA's Saftey Promotion Unit from 1987 until I took a package in January 1992. The first ASD I have is 94/1976 although I didn't start to fly until 1978. The last of course is the final one 150/1991. All are bound in three hard cover volumes.

I wrote some stories and introduced the Annual Nikon Photo comp which was real fun. The final issue has an inscription by the then editor (Roger Marchant) - "To Terry - who got me into this".

When Mac, Harvey and Allan were the editors they were anonymous. Policy was not to identify authors. I had that changed and felt that it was important for the editor to be identified and to identify other authors and to invite contributions from the industry as you all had something important to contribute to safety.

It was good fun - well that is until 'commercialisation' became the CAA's focus and the unit I headed up was abolished - I went on an overseas trip. When I got back I was horrified to discover that they had realised they had made a mistake and decided to reinvent the unit. When I managed it we had on six staff in total. It is now quite rightly a sizable unit.

The last edition has an intro by Ron Cooper, then GM Safety Regulation Division and Standards Division, CAA. He says "The results of the survey we conducted to identify readers' wishes in relation to the continuation of the Digest indicate inadequate support to warrant its continuation." - Go figure.

I treasured the time I was there although for many reasons the going could get a bit rough from time to time - not least when we published something in error! I remember three in particular.

Barkly1992 formerly VH-Grumpy and Terry Walls
Canberra
:ok:

[Centaurus]

Another classic 'caught-out' is the Part-Banana; most if not all have seized fuel selectors (low-leverage knobs combined with slack cables) as no-one ever checks the x-feed during run-ups or preflights

Absolutely right. There were three Partenavia's at Essendon a few years back all with malfunctioning fuel cocks. One of the Partenavia's was brought into a hangar to get a seriously bent nosewheel rectified. It had got bogged at Phillip Island but the pilot flew it back with a buggered nosewheel. Included in the numerous defects found by the maintenance people were totally jammed fuel cocks. There was no way the pilots flying that aircraft could have crossfed or turned off the fuel cocks of either engine in case of fire. The engineers estimated it had been flying in that state for several years and in each case the owner's maintenance organisation had ignored this defect during 100 hourly inspections. The fault lay in the fuel selector valves in the wings and it turned out to be a design fault. In UK, this defect was the cause of two passengers drowning when a Partenavia ditched due to fuel exhaustion when the female pilot was unable to summon the strength needed to switch to cross feed.
Actions by this reader stirred CASA into action and an AD was issued requiring all instances of jamming fuel cocks to be reported and regular maintenance inspections were directed. Despite that, memories are short and it's a fair bet that there are Partenavia's currently flying where it is well nigh impossible to actuate the fuel cocks with one hand.

[Centaurus]

When Mac, Harvey and Allan were the editors they were anonymous. Policy was not to identify authors. I had that changed and felt that it was important for the editor to be identified and to identify other authors

I have reservations on the policy of publishing names as you describe. The RAF flight safety journal "Air Clues" ran a wonderfully witty and erudite column by a Wing Commander Spry - the pseudonym of a talented and knowledgeable editor. Similarly, an early UK aviation magazine called "Aircraft" published a regular comment column by "Canopus". Readers had no clues who these people were but their columns were avidly read.

Their names were not published and for sound reasons. It is all too easy to rubbish and make personal attacks on those who use their real names and in the Public Service as well as in military service, pressure is often brought to bear from top brass to lean on editors that may be too truthful for comfort.

You have only to see how Dick Smith is treated by some Pprune operatives because he has the courage (or naivety) to use his own name, to understand how quickly a persons identity quickly attracts personal attack.

[Peter Fanelli]

Jamair,
If I'm not mistaken Cessna checklists for the 182 actually call for fuel to be selected to the right tank when shutting down the aircraft. The reason is that when selected "OFF" both tanks are still connected together by the same port which allows selecting "BOTH" tanks as the fuel source. This will allow fuel to flwo from one tank to the other if the aircraft is not level and out the tank vent. By selecting the right tank there is no connection between tanks so flow cannot occur from one tank to the other.

Just dug out the manuals and the 182Q manual does state select right tank as the last item under "securing aircraft" on the checklist.

The 172P manual makes no reference to turning the fuel off as part of securing the aircraft and it's possible the 150/152 is the same which would explain why these aircraft spent so much time in the "BOTH" setting

[bushy]

We need something like the old "crash comic"
We used to get significant statistics in every issue about accident rates etc. We got facts not propaganda, although their were seasonal factors. We got more about icing and bad weather as winter approached.

It was clearly shown that private flying was the most dangerous, with about the same accident rates as Agircultural flying. RPT was the best, with GA charter sitting in the middle, much better than private flying, but not as good as RPT.

The latest stuff we get is much like the flying magazines you buy at the news agent, which are promotional.

The last crash comic was hilarious. It described how a twin commanche took off from Moorabbin for Essendon "with the magnetos turned off", and, because of that the battery went flat in the time taken to fly from Moorabbin to Essendon. The message was, as always "use a checklist and all your troubles will go away" And make sure you do not take off with your magnetos turned off.

I think this formerly well respected magazine was rapidly losing credibility, and that was the last issue.

But our latest magazine has described what I consider to be very poor flying under the heading of "the right stuff" I consider it to be promotional propaganda.

The recent data we have been getting from our aviation authorities has been very misleading as it lumps private and charter flying together (and ag flying?) and tells us "it's about as safe as riding a motorbike" I cannot respect the purveyors of such stuff. It would be nice to get the proper figures, like we used to in the old ASD.

On the subject of anonymity. It is absolutely essential that pilots have somewhere to express their opinions anonymously. That is why Prune is so popular. We should also have an independant flight testing and flight safety organisation where pilots can go and get rating renewals etc, and specialised knowledge, so they are not totally dependent on their employer or CASA. Something like the US Flight Safety organisation.
Pilots are always looking at a flight test, medical or renewal of some sort, and operators are the same. I know of a "compliant" charter operator who had to renew his AOC 18 times in 13 years. (theoretically they last for three years). Then there are the "dispensations" that may not last.
And there is doubt if these things will go well if you make too much noise, or complain. Whether this is real or imagined the effect is the same. It inhibits two way communication. and two way communication is necessary for safety systems to operate properly.

We need something like the old Safety Digest which gives us real information and statistics to help rebuild faith in the system. Research is being done.

[Centaurus]

The suggestion has been put to AOPA that selected articles from original Aviation Safety Digests be re-published as a regular flight safety section in the magazine and it looks like being happening.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I found the Safety Digest to be of great value in my early flying career. I still have them from 1972 until they stopped being published.

I used to devour the Safety digest from cover to cover. I generally just flick through its replacement, and occassionally fire off an email when they publish complete crap.

Never understood why they did away with the original.

Dr:cool:

[Centaurus]

Never understood why they did away with the original.


Unfortunately it is user pays whereas in the old days the tax payer footed the bill. Now the advertisements in the current flight safety magazine pay for its production. Hang on to the old Aviation Safety Digests. Any way, history always repeats itself when it comes to aircraft prangs. While the accidents don't change except for the names, the style of writing and quality of text content was better in the ASD series.

[Chimbu chuckles]

MBA747 ya got the wrong Chimbu there...sim is finished and I start line training in a week:sad: ...not that I mind a week off but after a week of double hydraulic failures, rapid depress, multitudinous engine failures, including double engine failures and fires, including during LVP (Cat3b no decision- rejected takeoffs/fires/evac in 75m vis anyone:ok: ) always in the dark and always in bad weather it will be nice to be sitting in a cockpit which is not deliberately boobytrapped.

To the subject at hand...the old crash comic was fantastic...the current iteration doesn't hold a candle...not least because it doesn't seem to me the current editors/writers really have the depth of experience nor the editorial freedom in this PC world to be able to match the older version..a shame really but just one more aspect of aviation which has suffered over the years.

I think the modern editor's reference always to 'links in the chain' can be/has been taken too far...PC has made it very difficult to get to the nub of crashes sometimes...certainly accidents rarely happen for just one reason but causal links have been taken to the point of nobody being to blame or everyone is to blame or sometimes the wrong people are blamed.

One thing that training for command in a Class D sim teaches you is that you are the final filter.

[185skywagon]

I managed to get data, in electronic form, of all reported accidents involving C180/185 types since 1969. All I did was ask for it from a safety point of view on behalf of our group.
ATSB and DOTAC/BRE were very helpful.

It is interesting reading. Many repeated themes in most of the accidents on this type of aircraft.

I have a number of ASD's and scoured through them before I got into flying 185's.

Invaluable.

[DX Wombat]

and it's possible the 150/152 is the same which would explain why these aircraft spent so much time in the "BOTH" setting:confused: :confused: :confused: The fuel selector for the 152 is either ON or OFF, there is no differentiation between tanks.

[Ovation]

I have almost complete collection from 1978 to the end of publication that I would be happy to pass over to a suitable "custodian", preferably in Adelaide.

[Chimbu chuckles]

If I covered your costs would you be prepared to box em up and ship them to QLD?

I live overseas but could give you an addy to send em to and do a direct debit through internet banking to cover your costs.

[chimbu warrior]

The Digest was well written over the years, whoever was at the helm.
A sample article.................http://www.aeros.com.au/Downloads/Fatal%20Obstruction%20in%20Controls%20-%20Chipmunk%20-%20Safety%20Digest%20Mar69.pdf

[Jamair]

Chuck - I'll chip in and 'mind' them for you while you're O/S....:} I've got a few from the 70's and still read them every once in a while.:8

Peter Fanelli - yep, but after an incident with a stuck carb float needle, a dicky suction valve and a 'lot' of fuel dripping out through the carb overflow overnight, I just turn the sodding thing off altogether.:ugh:

[compressor stall]

What copyright is on them?
Can they be scanned into pdf and made available on website somewhere?
Even though they are old, the same mistakes are being made today as were made 30 years ago.

[remoak]

They would probably be Crown Copyright (ie the government owns them).

BTW the NZ Flight Safety mag was also very good, but it too went the way of the dodo when "user pays" became the mantra. The new version is laughably inadequate - it ranges from stuff that is questionable, to stuff that is downright wrong.

[Peter Fanelli]

The fuel selector for the 152 is either ON or OFF, there is no differentiation between tanks.


Well there ya go, that's what I get for making a suggestion about an aircraft I've never actually flown :)

[Philthy]

More about the Aviation Safety Digest here: http://www.airwaysmuseum.com

Go to 'History' then 'Air Safety and Accident Investigation'