G/A Light Aircraft ditches off Leighton Beach, WA

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Ch 9 reporting that a light aircraft has ditched just offshore at Leighton Beach, WA. at approx 1710 WST this arvo.
Leighton Beach approx 1nm N of Fremantle Harbour.

Blurred image shows aircraft is about 20 m or so offshore and is fully submerged.
Female pilot and young male pax - (Mother & Son?) - swam to shore and are reported as 'being OK'. Seas look to be 'calm'.

Ch reporter said acft was a 'Cessna Birddog'.....looks low wing to me - thru blurred water image - it will all come out - eventually.
The fact that it did not seem to have 'flipped' might suggest a retractable u/c..??
WA Police and 'Ambos' in attendance...More to follow I would imagine.

That is all.....

[Clare Prop]

It's a Piper Archer VH-FEY and the pilot is the owner. She has a CPL, is very capable and handled the ditching really well.

[Thirsty]

Two bits of excitement in one day! It is not every day you get to see a full solar eclipse, and safely ditch your aircraft, and it looks good they came out of it unscathed.

A wag would say they could have done a bit less family bonding, or used another method to save on landing fees, but....

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-20/two-people-to-safe-after-plane-crashes-in-sea-leighton/102249554

"Ms Yeats said she was speaking to her son as the plane came down, telling him, "mate, we've just had engine failure, we're going to have to land on the beach".

"He was like 'for real, are you for real?'. I said, 'hopefully this is the most exciting thing that's going to happen in your life and we're going to be okay.'"

"But the best part is, people were rescued and they all came out safe and that's the main thing."

[lucille]

That’s about the time of the eclipse, no? Maybe the engine went into “auto rough” as it sensed impending darkness…. A common feature of single engined aircraft at night, I’m led to believe.

[sablatnic]

Doesn't this belong under Accidents and Close Calls?

[Clare Prop]

That’s about the time of the eclipse, no? Maybe the engine went into “auto rough” as it sensed impending darkness…. A common feature of single engined aircraft at night, I’m led to believe.
No, she'd watched the eclipse then flown back from Exmouth so that's a few hours difference

[First_Principal]

Video in Thirsty's link shows a good job of landing. Interesting to see the prop stopped horizontally - probably luck, but well done and good presence of mind if intended.

Comment re [lack of] fuel leakage seemed fairly definite? Hopefully that's not related to the fundamental issue (and for the avoidance of doubt, this comment is not intended to be sarcastic, nor a pointed barb).

FP.

[Sunfish]

Don't you need an IFR rating to fly under an eclipse? What about a partial eclipse?

[BronteExperimental]

Don't you need an IFR rating to fly under an eclipse? What about a partial eclipse?

only if its IMC…

[43Inches]

The ditching was really well done, almost looks like it aqua planed for a short while before biteing in. The prop can be seen slowing to a stop in the last few seconds, so pure luck it went horizontal.

As for cause, they said they had full fuel at the start. Many things can go wrong with the fuel system, which seems the likely area to focus on as the prop was rotating until low speed suggesting oil or a catastrophic mechanical failure unlikely.

[Deaf]

Don't you need an IFR rating to fly under an eclipse? What about a partial eclipse?

Not if it is after first light and before last light.

In the 1976 eclipse we were holding on Eildon (center of the band) at 120. High enough to see the shadow coming and during it we could see the sunlit areas to the north and south. On IFR but that was due to +4 octas to and from EN.

Despite extreme propaganda re "no filters will save your vision" all of us in the Baron had degrees in hard science/engineering and CIG No 13 welding filters were fine.

[Capn Bloggs]

The ditching was really well done, almost looks like it aqua planed for a short while before biteing in.
People call it barefooting.

Aeroplanes call it baretyring. :E

[Pearly White]

It looked textbook from the shore. Keeping the nose high for so long prevented a higher speed nose-over as the main gear dug in. Hope nobody woke up too sore this morning.

[Framcicles]

No, she'd watched the eclipse then flown back from Exmouth so that's a few hours difference

She definitely didn’t land at YEXM, I spoke to everyone who arrived prior to the eclipse. She was either at Yardie Homestead, Coral Bay or maybe she never landed 😉 🥄🥘

[Clare Prop]

She definitely didn’t land at YEXM, I spoke to everyone who arrived prior to the eclipse. She was either at Yardie Homestead, Coral Bay or maybe she never landed 😉 🥄🥘
Yes you are right, she didn't get all the way to Exmouth, I now know she only went as far as Carnarvon.

[Oodnadatta]

If she had landed at an Exmouth area airstrip, Watched the eclipse alongside the aircraft and then departed immediately for home, say1145, she would have needed jet type speeds to ditch near Perth about 5 hours later....In photos of the pilot and aircraft, with rego, it is clearly an Archer II, not a Cessna Bird Dog.
I shakes me weary old head.

[PiperCameron]

The ditching was really well done, almost looks like it aqua planed for a short while before biteing in. The prop can be seen slowing to a stop in the last few seconds, so pure luck it went horizontal.

Certainly impressive and well done!! I thought she came in very fast, no flaps, resulting in a very sudden stop and it'd be interesting to know why she chose to do that. Maybe she thought skiing in the low/no waves might be a better outcome??

[Thirsty]

A followup story, including a lengthy interview shows a level headed pilot, doing what she had been trained to do, and doing it well. Listen to the interview.
Plane being towed out of the drink via a winch.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-21/wreckage-removed-of-light-plane-that-crashed-leighton-beach/102250564

The original story at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-20/two-people-to-safe-after-plane-crashes-in-sea-leighton/102249554 now has had a bit more material and photos added.

All the above speculation in the preceding posts (mostly incorrect) will be answered. For once, no sensationalising by the ABC media - just a well reported story.

[Thirsty]

Video of the actual landing, including the impact shown in the original story. The picture of the plane as it is brought to the beach in the second story.

The interview of the pilot in the second story. Note comments of a Qantas pilot who witnessed the landing.

No worries, a bit of polish, buffing up and drying out in the sun and VH-FEY will be good to fly again... [NOT]

Wondering what the cause was? No ATSB investigation?

[Capn Bloggs]

I thought she came in very fast, no flaps, resulting in a very sudden stop and it'd be interesting to know why she chose to do that.
Flapless, possibly, but "very fast"? No. Check out the angle of attack before touchdown. Much slower and she would have stalled. And in all probability, they were slightly downwind, increasing the groundspeed. She wasn't going "fast". "Very" sudden stop? No, looks like she skied on the wheels/spats for some distance, slowing down, before the mains dug in. A great effort, IMO.

[Capt Fathom]

I thought the whole idea of ditching was to stall it on… similar to a short field landing. Minimise the groundspeed at touchdown.

The underwater video shows the flaps up. It certainly looked like a fast touchdown, but no injuries on this occasion.

[43Inches]

Certainly impressive and well done!! I thought she came in very fast, no flaps, resulting in a very sudden stop and it'd be interesting to know why she chose to do that. Maybe she thought skiing in the low/no waves might be a better outcome??

I've seen other vids of ditching pipers and mostly they 'splat' onto the water stopping where they hit. This ditching was very good, light touch so it skiid to a stop rather than flip.

[Icarus2001]

Was there much of a fuel slick on the water after impact?

[AbsoluteFokker]

Looking at the video, I was impressed with the stalled corkscrew dive and recovery done by the sea bird. Caution, wake turbulence? LOL.

[Squawk7700]

Was there much of a fuel slick on the water after impact?

Very unlikely unless the tanks were ruptured.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

As for cause, they said they had full fuel at the start.

But would full fuel cover the flight from where she took off to Jandakot?

I remember some years back a twin forced landing into a cane paddock just short of CNS. Female pilot praised for textbook landing, front page of cairns post etc etc.. 8 months later page 10 - investigation revealed she had run out of petrol ........
​​​​​​​

[Thirsty]

But would full fuel cover the flight from where she took off to Jandakot?

I remember some years back a twin forced landing into a cane paddock just short of CNS. Female pilot praised for textbook landing, front page of cairns post etc etc.. 8 months later page 10 - investigation revealed she had run out of petrol ........
​​​​​​​Maybe she could have landed on the Northern Highway and topped it up at the BP roadhouse on the way down. Did you actually listen to the interview - covered.

[Thirsty]

Was there much of a fuel slick on the water after impact?Covered in the article audio interview.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

No I didn't listen to any interview.

[Mach E Avelli]

It's a Piper Archer VH-FEY and the pilot is the owner. She has a CPL, is very capable and handled the ditching really well.
Agree with this.
To those who question the lack of flaps for landing, consider:
At 1500ft if your only engine quits in a.typical draggy old airframe, you have about 90 seconds to set up the landing. Adding flap too early will reduce that time. On some types flap requires considerable nose down pitch to maintain safe speed - not desirable.
In that 90 seconds you will probably try a quick troubleshoot first - carb heat, boost pumps etc. Then pick the landing area, then put out a mayday call.
Final memory actions prior to impact usually include switching off all electrics.
On many of these Pipers the flaps are electrically powered.

The lady dun gooood.

[Head..er..wind]

Agree with this.
To those who question the lack of flaps for landing, consider:
At 1500ft if your only engine quits in a.typical draggy old airframe, you have about 90 seconds to set up the landing. Adding flap too early will reduce that time. On some types flap requires considerable nose down pitch to maintain safe speed - not desirable.
In that 90 seconds you will probably try a quick troubleshoot first - carb heat, boost pumps etc. Then pick the landing area, then put out a mayday call.
Final memory actions prior to impact usually include switching off all electrics.
On many of these Pipers the flaps are electrically powered.

The lady dun gooood.


Someone doesn’t know their Pipers very well………

[Clare Prop]

A Cherokee with electric flaps? That’d be a first.

[B2N2]

No injuries, plane is virtually intact.
I don’t see how flaps could have made the outcome any better.

[Clare Prop]

As she has done a fait bit of media now I feel I can say a bit more about this.
For all the people with opinions about ditching, I was Michelle's CPL instructor, I learned to fly on an island where there was a lot of over water flying and we had ditching drlls drummed into us over and over. I was able to pass that knowledge on to her and she put it into action and it worked.
The main thing is to maintain control, for that you need airspeed, and to land as flat as you can along the swell and get the door open before you reach the water. She did exactly that and it worked. Flaps not relevant.
She owned that aeroplane, knew it inside out and did her hour building in it including adventures into remote areas.. She keeps meticulous fuel logs. So what happened? Maybe we'll never know, but it's been disappointing to see how many on social media have had said that being female is a contributing factor in "running out of fuel", I would dare any of them to say it to her face! Or mine!

Meanwhile here is an interesting article on ditching by Paul Bertorelli
EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE (tm) - Ditching Myths Torpedoed! (http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm)

[Lead Balloon]

My (albeit brief) review of ostensibly authoritative guidance material indicates that FULL flaps are NOT recommended when ditching in a low wing aircraft, unless the POH/AFM specifically says full flaps should be used. The consensus seems to be “no more than intermediate flaps” (unless the POH/AFM etc).

(Well done the PIC and well done Clare Prop!)

[Mach E Avelli]

To all who flamed me, thanks for setting me straight - I really thought later model Piper singles had regressed to electric flaps. Pleased to now know they didn’t
However, in my defence, I did not categorically state that this particular Piper had electric flaps (RTFT) so while I could go back & edit out my ‘mistake’, I won’t, because you/we like to prove others wrong sometimes.

[Lead Balloon]

(Slight thread drift: You’re flying a retrac single with a three-bladed prop. You have an engine failure and are forced to ditch, but have a few minutes to prepare after the HSM. Which is safer when you hit the water: (1) Prop windmilling. (2) Prop stopped with one blade pointing straight up. (3) Prop stopped with one blade pointing straight down. Assume you can engage the starter to rotate the prop if you need to. I’d opt for 2 if I had the time and choice.)

[Clare Prop]

If the prop is windmilling you have no control over where it might stop. In this case it stopped due to the reduced airspeed due to the raised nose as she flared and the rapid deceleration as they touched the water. If the prop has stopped then the engine has seized or your crankshaft has broken. So starter is irrelevant.

As I have advised her and all my other students, once you are committed to a forced landing the aeroplane belongs to the insurance company. No point trying to save a prop. I'm not sure in her case if it was developing any power, but I tell people to shut the engine down as a restart can increase the liklihood of a loss of control, we actually demonstrate this in stall and PFL training by applying full power from idle to an aircraft with full flap and trimmed for the glide.

[Lead Balloon]

I don’t want to start an argument with you, Clare, as you’re vastly more experienced than I am. But you can stop a windmilling prop in the air (if you have time). Presumably you’ve been through an ‘air start’ exercise many times, which exercise involves stopping the prop from windmilling first? And my scenario was about reducing the probabilities of the aircraft flipping on ditching, not about ‘saving the prop’.

[Clare Prop]

The Piper Archer is a single engine aeroplane with a fixed pitch propeller...
Not quite the same as doing feathering drills in a twin.
Even if there was a variable pitch prop in a single in the event of a loss of oil pressure a spring will take it to full fine pitch.
So no,I haven't practised "air starts" in a single engine fixed pitch aircraft so please share your experience.

[Lead Balloon]

And a Cessna 152 is a single engine aeroplane with a fixed pitch propellor. I enjoyed the exercise in them where we’d shut the engine down and stop the prop from rotating, then start the engine without using the starter.

(Interestingly, I recently reminded myself of the procedure because I was going through a run-the-tank-dry-to-confirm-its-actual-useable-capacity-in-smooth-air exercise in a new (to me) aircraft, which has a lightweight (fixed) prop. There was a ‘higher’ unknown probability of the prop not continuing to windmill during the tank changeover. Add to that the remote chance of the starter not working. However, it turned out to be the usual non-event.)

[Squawk7700]

If the prop has stopped then the engine has seized or your crankshaft has broken. So starter is irrelevant.

This depends on the engine type.

Rotaxes, Jabiru and some others do not windmill.

Are you also suggesting that the “attempt restart” drill which flying schools have been teaching for many years is now somehow invalid and no longer safe?

[Clare Prop]

Of course the attempt restart drill is taught. With the power at idle, not turning the engine off.

[ACMS]

Agree with this.
To those who question the lack of flaps for landing, consider:
At 1500ft if your only engine quits in a.typical draggy old airframe, you have about 90 seconds to set up the landing. Adding flap too early will reduce that time. On some types flap requires considerable nose down pitch to maintain safe speed - not desirable.
In that 90 seconds you will probably try a quick troubleshoot first - carb heat, boost pumps etc. Then pick the landing area, then put out a mayday call.
Final memory actions prior to impact usually include switching off all electrics.
On many of these Pipers the flaps are electrically powered.

The lady dun gooood.


I’ve flown Single Engine Pipers for a long time and NONE had electric flaps!! You’d been thinking Cessna…

[Capt Fathom]

I guess it comes down to 'remembering' what the POH says for emergency procedures.... the ones where you don't have time to look up.

There was a Rockwell 114 that ended up in the water off Redcliffe Aerodrome some time back. Sadly it tipped over resulting in the deaths of all on board! :(

[Duck Pilot]

How much fuel was in the tank/s feeding the engine when the engine stopped?

[Mach E Avelli]

I’ve flown Single Engine Pipers for a long time and NONE had electric flaps!! You’d been thinking Cessna…
err… Comanche 260 and 400? Both of which I flew a very long time ago, but my memory occasionally fails me, so maybe their flaps were Bluetooth activated.
But read my previous post…I was wrong it seems with regard to the lesser bugsmasher Pipers. and I already admitted it.

[Lead Balloon]

Clare: The air start exercise I’m talking about involved pulling the throttle to idle, pulling the mixture to ICO then slowing the aircraft until the prop stopped windmilling. This was usually achieved without stalling the aircraft. Then nose over to accelerate until the prop started windmilling again, mixture to full rich and slowly advance the throttle while slowly pulling the nose back to the horizon. Fun!

(As an interesting aside, I’m told that a ‘popped’ Bonanza cabin door can be closed in flight by slowing the aircraft. I’ve never tried it, but have had a couple of ‘popped’ Bonanza doors.)

[Checkboard]

Lead - I've done that same exercise on piper singles. That was nearly 40 years ago, perhaps it's a bit old fashioned now. Pulling a bit of G at the end of the dive also helped with some assymetric airflow to kick the prop over.

[Clare Prop]

OK I see what exercise you mean,
As you can see that's exactly what happened as she raised the nose and the tail touching the water caused deceleration...In a ditching you have to make sure the rear end hits the water first so as not to flip but not stall it in and risk a pitch down or wing drop. It's a fine line especially with glare also.



MAch there are some who say the Commanche isn't a "real" Piper! ;)

[Thirsty]

How much fuel was in the tank/s feeding the engine when the engine stopped?Answered precisely in the ABC interview with the pilot at the 7 minutes 30 seconds mark in the second link I posted (see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-21/wreckage-removed-of-light-plane-that-crashed-leighton-beach/102250564 or just go directly to the audio file at https://mediacore-live-production.akamaized.net/audio/01/hi/Z/5h.mp3 direct). Go on, go back and have a listen! I insist you do. It is as if she was answering your exact question.

A complete transcript of the interview posted here would be most welcome, and make good reading for people interested in what to do in this situation. It reflects well on the pilot and Clare Prop too. Level headed decision making under duress, doing what you have been trained to do and doing it as well as you can.

Rant mode on: (For all the other people reading, see a pattern here - all the persistent questions that have been answered in the article and audio interview seem to be by people that have been unable to be bothered to check the reported facts. I'm sorely tempted to be rude, but that would be unwise, unkind, and possibly awkward)
I see the article has also been updated to include the ATSB dithering if it will investigate. Maybe the comprehensive solutions guesses offered here in these forums will be final report we hear about it? I hope the cause is found as it impacts (sorry) many others in the GA industry who may come across a similar situation in the future.
Rant mode off.

[Clare Prop]

ATSB will want to know if it is an airworthiness issue, that's as far as they usually go with something like this, as they do whenever there is a Mayday declared. The next step may be for CASA to ask more questions and may be a look at the engine for any evidence of the cause of the loss of power.

Thanks for the post above. I did advise her not to go to the media but she had seen some of the rubbish being posted online and chose to publicly put the record straight, which I think she did very effectively.

[Bosi72]

.

, once you are committed to a forced landing the aeroplane belongs to the insurance company.

This is not quite correct.
No insurance company will insure the engine.
They will insure the hull only.
Also, not even the hull if the aircraft has 3rd party insurance only.
Regardless, good advices as no aircraft is worth of your life.

[lucille]

Bosi72…. Are you sure? Most unplanned landings usually involve engine damage.. In that instance, are you saying insurance only covers hull/airframe repair but not engine overhaul? And in the event of a write-off, how do they evaluate the worth of the hull minus the engine?

(Apologies in advance for thread drift, but it’s an interesting side bar)

[Lead Balloon]

This is not quite correct.
No insurance company will insure the engine.
They will insure the hull only.
Also, not even the hull if the aircraft has 3rd party insurance only.
Regardless, good advices as no aircraft is worth of your life.Here’s the definition of “aircraft” in my current hull insurance: Aircraft means the aircraft described in the Schedule together with the engine(s) and standard instruments and equipment usually installed and recorded in the aircraft log books.

[EXDAC]

No insurance company will insure the engine.
They will insure the hull only.

The hull includes the engine. I own and operate a PA-28-180 and I assure you that the entire aircraft is insured. My insurance company did not decide they would only insure parts of it.

Now, if your engine blows up and you land the aircraft without additional damage, the insurance company is not going to pay for a new engine. If the aircraft is destroyed in a landing attempt after engine failure they would pay agreed hull value less any deductable (USA policy).

I am very interest to know why this engine quit. My Lycoming 0-360-A4A has over 3,000 hours since overhaul and I have no expectation that it will suddenly stop working.

[Squawk7700]

This is not quite correct.
No insurance company will insure the engine.
They will insure the hull only.
Also, not even the hull if the aircraft has 3rd party insurance only.
Regardless, good advices as no aircraft is worth of your life.

I can only assume that you do not own an aircraft nor hold an insurance policy on one. If you do, I urge you to read your policy before next flight as it may have impacts on you’re decision making process.

[First_Principal]

I was interested in the ABC interview with the pilot (link posted by Thirsty above).

There were two things that struck me; the first being the clear and direct responses to the interviewer by the pilot. Given the recency of the event I was very impressed, and in a perverse way I think she delivered a great advertisement for aviation - not in the least showing presence of mind, the value of her training, and consideration for those on the beach nearby.

The second thing was the description of the engine failure itself. Having had many engine failures (not necessarily in aircraft!) this sounded a lot like a fuel issue, as opposed to catastrophic mechanical failure, or even ignition (although I recognise the possibility [of ignition failure] remains). The pilot has stated there was 60L of fuel remaining, and a more recent report suggests there was some fuel leakage, which leads me to wonder about some form of blockage, or pump failure.

It's seems uncertain if there's going to be an investigation (?) but I'd have thought finding out what happened would be useful. It's been a while since I worked on, or flew, a Cherokee but my recollection is that there's an auxiliary electric pump switched via the panel, and a directional fuel tap to the left lower of the pilot in or near the footwell? I should imagine the pilot switched on the electric pump and/or swapped tanks at the first signs of trouble, but if the one of the pumps had failed in the wrong way (valve stuck shut?), or the primary inlet line blocked somehow, such moves may have been in vain.

Clearly I'm speculating on a possible cause here, it could well have been something completely different. Nevertheless I'd be interested to hear from those with greater or more recent knowledge than me as to likely fuel delivery failure modes, and whether there's anything that might be worthwhile inspecting more closely during regular maintenance or preflight inspections?

FP.

[Clare Prop]

I can assure you that engines are covered by insurance.
Over the years I've had to make a few claims from prop strikes and the engines and props have always been covered.
In most cases they will pay out pro-rata on the remaining life of the engine. In one case I got a brand new engine for a half life one.
The way things are at the moment, with the 1970s era four seaters, an overhauled engine can be around 3/4 or more of the value of the whole machine. Sadly, many of them are now worth more dead than alive.

[43Inches]

I am very interest to know why this engine quit. My Lycoming 0-360-A4A has over 3,000 hours since overhaul and I have no expectation that it will suddenly stop working.

More than likely it's fuel related, not the engine itself. Faulty fuel selector, fuel leakage, blocked fuel line, carb ice, carb failure, fuel pump failure, just to list a few possibilities. I know she said it was too warm for carb ice, but it can form at fairly warm temps and she was on descent, I assume at lowish power. Carb heat was applied after the engine failed from the sound of it, which may be too late (where is the hot air coming from if the engine is not running as well as the ice has already blocked the flow of air). Dual mag failure for it to be ignition sounds unlikely and oil loss or other catastrophic engine event would seize the engine, so the prop would not have been rotating as seen in the footage.

And the whole aircraft except expendables is insured. You insure it relative to 'hull value', but the insurance covers all major fixed items, engine, avionics etc... If you are found to be negligently at fault, or operating outside the scope of the policy the insurer may not cover at all or request partial payment from the pilot. I know several pilots who needed to pay extra above the excess due to fault or being outside coverage limits, ie landing somewhere they should not.

PS; apart from the obvious water damage the only significant panel damage appears to be the right outer leading edge, so it may fly again.

[tossbag]

I'm sorely tempted to be rude, but that would be unwise, unkind, and possibly awkward

No, go ahead. Some people (pilots) posting on this board think that every poster on here is bon fide. It's aviation facebook mate, call out the flogs, it's also great entertainment.

​​​​​​​Spend enough time here you can sort the wheat from the chaff.

[tossbag]

An investigation here is not required, there's some textbook flying right there. (well done Clare and Pilotgirl). Would love to know what stopped that engine though.

[Clare Prop]

I have over 12,000 hours in Cherokees in this area and never had carb icing, in the Archer the air intake is under the cowling, through the air filter then alongside the engine to the carb so is pre heated, unlike some aircraft where it goes straight through the air filter at the front into the carb therefore much colder. POH says to apply it only if there is an indication of icing. Use of carb heat is not one size fits all, and even different Cherokees have different intakes and filter positions, but all preheat the air intake in some way.
I'd say carb ice was extremely unlikely, but the emergency check list says to apply it if you have an engine issue so that, as you rightly said, there is still some heat around the engine. Another kind of issue preventing fuel from getting to the carb is possible. In these aircraft if your throttle cable lets go a spring will take it to full throttle, so it wouldn't be that.

[43Inches]

I have over 12,000 hours in Cherokees in this area and never had carb icing, in the Archer the air intake is under the cowling, through the air filter then alongside the engine to the carb so is pre heated, unlike some aircraft where it goes straight through the air filter at the front into the carb therefore much colder. POH says to apply it only if there is an indication of icing. Use of carb heat is not one size fits all, and even different Cherokees have different intakes and filter positions, but all preheat the air intake in some way.
I'd say carb ice was extremely unlikely, but the emergency check list says to apply it if you have an engine issue so that, as you rightly said, there is still some heat around the engine. Another kind of issue preventing fuel from getting to the carb is possible. In these aircraft if your throttle cable lets go a spring will take it to full throttle, so it wouldn't be that.

I'm more familiar with Warriors with only a few hours in Archers. The Warrior can definitely suffer carb and throttle icing which can cause rough running and also jam the throttle butterfly. I've seen a bit of carb ice, in the form of rough running, never had a failure due to it though. As for whether or not its possible in WA would just depend on the conditions of the day.

[Squawk7700]

I can assure you that engines are covered by insurance.

Not in all cases. It depends what caused the crash/outlanding. If you’re engine fails and you land safely on a road or paddock, the engine is not going to be covered under normal policies. You’ll be covered for recovery costs and the cost of you wings hitting the sign posts.

If you roll the aircraft into a ball, escape and lose it to fire, you may still not be covered, depending if a cause can be found. I know of an aircraft that had an engine failure and was an economical write off and they were still analysing what caused it, who was at fault and whether they would pay for it some 4 years later.

[43Inches]

Not in all cases. It depends what caused the crash/outlanding. If you’re engine fails and you land safely on a road or paddock, the engine is not going to be covered under normal policies. You’ll be covered for recovery costs and the cost of you wings hitting the sign posts.

If you roll the aircraft into a ball, escape and lose it to fire, you may still not be covered, depending if a cause can be found. I know of an aircraft that had an engine failure and was an economical write off and they were still analysing what caused it, who was at fault and whether they would pay for it some 4 years later.

For it to take that long there must have been a scent of something amiss. I would be getting lawyers if it was taking more than a few months. We are usually not talking small amounts when aircraft are involved.

[Clare Prop]

All insurance claims I have put in have usually been dealt with in a matter of days and my policy wording has no exclusions for the engine. If the engine is newly overhauled then the value of the aircraft increases and you would insure it accordingly.
I had a half life engine replaced with a freshly overhauled one and brand new prop in one instance. Win!

[kellykelpie]

Very curious as to the fuel situation. Reports are that no fuel escaped from the tanks after ditching. Not sure how far they had flown but what is the range of this aircraft? The Sunday Times today states “it is reported the engine failure was due to low fuel”. Would insurance cover costs if this is the case?

[Cloudee]

Very curious as to the fuel situation. Reports are that no fuel escaped from the tanks after ditching. Not sure how far they had flown but what is the range of this aircraft? The Sunday Times today states “it is reported the engine failure was due to low fuel”. Would insurance cover costs if this is the case?
If insurance only covered no fault claims they wouldn’t have to pay out often.

[Mach E Avelli]

Very curious as to the fuel situation. Reports are that no fuel escaped from the tanks after ditching. Not sure how far they had flown but what is the range of this aircraft? The Sunday Times today states “it is reported the engine failure was due to low fuel”. Would insurance cover costs if this is the case?
From listening to the interview, I got the impression that she refuelled at Geraldton - in which case she should have had heaps of fuel.
But tanks can leak, lines can break, seals can split, fuel caps can come adrift. Any of which would have to mean an insurance pay-out unless some critical component in the fuel system was not replaced when required by the maintenance schedule. And even then, the failure to replace it would need to have been a deliberate decision on the part of the operator. From all accounts the owner was quite meticulous, so that’s unlikely.
Would the fuel gauges give a warning of fuel loss? Maybe, but my recollection of typical bugsmasher fuel gauges is that they are rather vague and not to be trusted.

[Squawk7700]

All insurance claims I have put in have usually been dealt with in a matter of days and my policy wording has no exclusions for the engine.

Have you ever had a claim where the engine throws a conrod through the crank case and a safe landing ensues and you got paid out for a new engine/pro-rata?

[Squawk7700]

Is there an ADSB track floating around for this one in WA anywhere?

Reminds me of this one: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-006

[Capt Fathom]

Clare, you are hanging on a bit tight here. Too much skin in the game. Your ‘student’ has come out publicly and said too much already, considering a possible Police or ATSB investigation.

I was always told if I was involved in an incident to say nothing to Police, Investigators or Media until I had a few days off and had a medical checkup and received legal advice.

[Clare Prop]

Capt F You are absolutely right and EXACTLY what I advised the pilot when I was contacted very shortly after the incident, for the same reasons you mention. I also told pesky journalists that spent Thursday evening hassling me that I had given this advice and that I had nothing to say to any of them.

I have said here a few general things about ditching, forced landing training, insurance, Cherokee systems, how the ATSB respond to these things etc as I've probably got more insight than some, but I haven't and won't speculate here or anywhere else what caused it because I wasn't there and I don't know, though as someone who operates Archers I am obviously keen to find out.

Suffice to say I would have handled the aftermath very differently and - I'm done with all this.

[EXDAC]

Would the fuel gauges give a warning of fuel loss? Maybe, but my recollection of typical bugsmasher fuel gauges is that they are rather vague and not to be trusted.

The fuel gauges in my 1975 PA-28-180 are very reliable and I trust what they tell me. I also run fuel burn estimates based on tach time. The fuel gauges were much more useful when I had a large fuel leak from a failed hose on the engine side of the fuel pump.

[Mach E Avelli]

The fuel gauges in my 1975 PA-28-180 are very reliable and I trust what they tell me. I also run fuel burn estimates based on tach time. The fuel gauges were much more useful when I had a large fuel leak from a failed hose on the engine side of the fuel pump.
Good for you to have picked up your fuel leak. Some pilots wouldn’t. But compound failures are not unknown - the accident books are full of them.
How often would a prudent pilot check fuel gauges? Obviously before takeoff, and hopefully at top of climb. Then every half hour or so, but the last half hour of any flight can be a bit busy, so a subtle or even major fuel leak at that stage would be easily enough missed.
I am trying not to to speculate here, rather, answering the armchair critics and non-expert journalists all too ready to imply that fuel mismanagement was the cause, when so far there has been no full investigation. IF fuel is a suspect, an immediate audit of the last two refuelling facilities should be done to check fuel quality and uplifts against dispenser meter accuracy. Unfortunately this probably won’t happen. The integrity of the fuel gauges would be hard to determine after such a dunking in salt water.

[lucille]

As to this obsession for postulating the cause of the engine failure, a gambling person would put money on pilot error nevertheless, there always exists the real possibility that it was a hard failure of sorts. Wise to keep an open mind until one cause or the other has been eliminated.

Either way, does it really matter right now? If it was the former, the pilot will have learned a valuable lesson and will now be a far wiser and safer pilot. If it was a hardware failure, dismantling of the engine will hopefully reveal it’s cause. As we all know, things do break at inopportune times.


Text book ditching …. Tick
Not being eaten by a shark… Extra Big tick (Especially with WA being the shark capital of the world)

All in all, a really good outcome.

[First_Principal]

In the hope of learning something useful I had a look around for similar incidents relating to the Archer II, and then the wider PA-28 range. I was particularly interested in fuel issues, given my earlier thoughts expressed above.

In terms of common failures these as these are usually (eventually) addressed via an AD that database was worth a check. For the PA-28-* there have been a number of AD's around the fuel or fuel delivery system. It's possible one or more may have covered this particular machine, but information suggests all applicable AD's had been carried out, and there doesn't appear to be anything recent that was likely to be relevant.

However when I first read of this, and listened to the describe failure mode, I was reminded of an incident in my flying past, when I came across a leaking fuel drain. As I recall this was one of the wing drains, and fuel was dripping at a fair rate. Subsequent investigation determined that valve was a little 'sticky' and had probably remained partially 'up' after someone had carried out a fuel check.

To some extent such a possibility is reflected in the AD's, and via this incident (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6076fa3dd3bf7f400f5b3c44/Piper_PA-28-161_G-BZDA_05-21.pdf), however this relates to lockable fuel drains and presumably is not at issue with this aircraft. That said, while I don't recall the date of my experience, I am fairly sure the valve wasn't locked up per se.

Compounding this I also well recollect fuel gauges in some of these old machines that were always a bit suspect, so one tended not to rely on them. Of course what this means is that if you knew you'd uplifted sufficient fuel for a flight, yet the gauges were indicating something different, that information may be erroneously discounted - which could be a problem if you lost sufficient fuel en route.

Now I want to be absolutely clear that I'm not suggesting this was necessarily the issue here, there remain a myriad of possible causes (for example, loose unions, blockages [sealant?] etc). However I relay this because it's something that happened to me and others, and given the possible outcome I figure it worth mentioning/reminding the value of a last visual inspection of the drains before climbing into the machine.

EXDAC, aside from this I see there were some AD's that were possibly relevant to the fuel selector in your 180, but not the 181.

FP.

[Lead Balloon]

Fuel leaks (and often unreliable steam driven fuel gauges) on bugsmashers are why there’s a recommended practice of dipping tanks after a flight to confirm that the amount of fuel consumed is the amount expected to have been consumed. Either that, or achieve the same outcome by making sure you compare the amount of fuel uploaded with the expected amount to have been consumed.

[43Inches]

Justva point on fuel slicks. There would definitely have been a slick of both oil and fuel in the accident area. So reports of nothing are ridiculous. These engines are oily and unusable fuel would be still around. The fuel tanks did not rupture so fuel spillage would be slow in anycase.

[tossbag]

The fuel gauges in my 1975 PA-28-180 are very reliable and I trust what they tell me.

What? Ya reckon? I've never met a fuel guage that I'd trust in any piston engine I've flown. They're pieces of ****.

[Alice Kiwican]

What? Ya reckon? I've never met a fuel guage that I'd trust in any piston engine I've flown. They're pieces of ****.

As unusual as it sounds the current piston twins I fly have very reliable fuel gauges.
Like everything in aviation if well maintained fuel gauges will not be a problem

[Cloudee]

As unusual as it sounds the current piston twins I fly have very reliable fuel gauges.
Like everything in aviation if well maintained fuel gauges will not be a problem
What maintenance do your fuel gauges get?

[Alice Kiwican]

What maintenance do your fuel gauges get?

Oops that should have said if aircraft well maintained fuel gauges will not be a problem

[Pinky the pilot]

The Chieftains I used to fly on a casual basis for the old ASA back in the early noughties had fuel guages that were surprisingly accurate!

One one occasion, at the encouragement of some of the Line Pilots I decided to run the 'Auxes' down until an Engine surged. A ferry flight, only me on the A/C. Each engine selected about 15 minutes apart.

At two full needle widths below the empty indication on the guage with my hand on the selector and auxillary pumps on my nerve gave out, and I swapped back to the mains whilst the engine was still running sweetly!

I was assured that the Mains guages were of the same accuracy, but the only way I would trust that statement would have been a calibration done by the LAME's.

On the other hand; Early model Cessna 402's guages were, how shall we say, not as accurate! Especially on low readings.

And we shall leave it there I think!

[dejapoo]

Interesting... the Boeing's I fly get more accurate the less fuel is in them.... always important to check the 3% check ey, checkout skippers at Wiluna in the Brasilia... learning's anyone can build into their own SMS.. Warriors or whatever.

The only lightie I ever trusted the guages was the C404, oh and the 737 🤣

[EXDAC]

What? Ya reckon? I've never met a fuel guage that I'd trust in any piston engine I've flown. They're pieces of ****.

You have never flown or even seen my PA-28. I have been flying it for 25 years. Which of us do you think is more likely to know about the accuracy and reliabiity of its fuel gauges?

Unlike you, I don't claim to know the characteristics of all piston powered aircraft fuel gauges. I only commented on mine.

[Thirsty]

Wouldn't the receipt for refuelling have the volume supplied shown on it? Simplez!

Every other cause has been canvassed here - could I venture to blame the solar eclipse? ;)

[Thirsty]

I know several pilots who needed to pay extra above the excess due to fault or being outside coverage limits, ie landing somewhere they should not.Does forced ditching in the drink qualify as landing where you should not? Isn't insurance there to cover unplanned situations?

PS; apart from the obvious water damage the only significant panel damage appears to be the right outer leading edge, so it may fly again.Covered in the interview (sighs). Would you install items removed from an airframe that had been totally immersed in salt water for over 12 hours? Was it tipped over, given a shake to let out all the water, and had a hair dryer blow out the water? Put in a plastic bag with some rice like you do with your cell phone? Maybe you could dip it in fish oil to prevent the internal panels from rusting, and re-certify it? Optional nose pegs for future passengers.

The insurance company will probably deem it a full write off, pay out in full, and then dispose of the salty bits by auction to recover the salvage value. This is where it gets murky, if the salty parts get put back into the spare parts system by some unscrupulous operator.

[Thirsty]

Very curious as to the fuel situation. Reports are that no fuel escaped from the tanks after ditching. Not sure how far they had flown but what is the range of this aircraft? The Sunday Times today states “it is reported the engine failure was due to low fuel”. Would insurance cover costs if this is the case?
The interview covered the departure and ditching locations, and the expected range and flying expected at time of engine problems. A simple measure of remaining fuel should easily clarify how much fuel was left and then any fuel issues could be more finely investigated.
Not sure where the expert aviation reporter from The Sunday Times was able to conduct a full and thorough investigation, seeing how the ATSB doesn't even have the incident showing on their website. I'm certain the informed discussion in this thread must be the definitive source of their facts....

[Clare Prop]

Not sure where the expert aviation reporter from The Sunday Times was able to conduct a full and thorough investigation, seeing how the ATSB doesn't even have the incident showing on their website. I'm certain the informed discussion in this thread must be the definitive source of their facts....

Initials GT by any chance?

BTW fuel gauges are calibrated every two years

[Squawk7700]

Maybe you could dip it in fish oil to prevent the internal panels from rusting, and re-certify it?

My personal aircraft spent the night fully submerged under water in the ocean for around 24 hours after an unscheduled landing.

Luckily it is a fibreglass airframe and lived to fly again. It took 180 hours of repair work and now has a clause on the CofA for an annual salt water immersion check.

All the higher grade alloys and steel were fine after the event, however the thinner and cheaper materials were pretty much instantly destroyed. There’s so many bits like the rudder pedals for example were all rusty, brake calliper pistons filled with sand and corrosion, the master cylinder, control cables, all wiring looms, strobe lights, all avionics and instruments (managed to save all the air instruments due to an air-lock). Wheels were corroding, there was sand inside, seat fabrics were ok, then of course the engine which was stuffed anyway, plus the engine mount was rusting etc. Throttle cable etc, the list goes on!

All these problems and the aircraft was thoroughly flushed with 15,000 litres of water straight afterwards. Even if it was legit, I don’t think I’d personally be repairing a metal aircraft after an excursion in the ocean.


PS GT lives in Perth from memory so if it was him, maybe he visited the site and did the investigation himself.

[43Inches]

I know of several aircraft that lived to fly another day after ditching. One was a DC-8 that flew on for another 30 or so years in commercial service. It all depends on how much you want to spend. Some were in far worse condition than FEY looks, hence why I said 'It may' fly again.

[First_Principal]

BTW fuel gauges are calibrated every two years

Thanks, I've done this on a few machines but couldn't recall the requisite interval for Cherokees.

Having said that there were a few that developed issues (or continued to have them) in the intervals between checks, hence their reputation for unreliability - although as a few have remarked here, some were quite good. I'm fairly sure they didn't make the MEL (remember the Gimli Glider!), and for the operators I knew they usually weren't taken seriously, preferring instead to ensure the tanks were dipped regularly. That works well until you have an in-flight leak...

FP.

[Capt Fathom]

now has a clause on the CofA for an annual salt water immersion check.

So do you take it to the beach for a swim every year? :E

[43Inches]

So do you take it to the beach for a swim every year? :E

I used to take one plane swimming daily, but it was on floats... It would proceed to splash copious amounts of water, both fresh and salt all over itself. Although good luck getting reasonable priced insurance for swimming planes. Also owned an aluminium hulled boat, it survived until it was sold. Older Steel hulled vessels are cheap for a reason.

[tossbag]

You have never flown or even seen my PA-28. I have been flying it for 25 years. Which of us do you think is more likely to know about the accuracy and reliabiity of its fuel gauges?

Excellent, I'm genuinely happy for you :ok:

Not in a hundred years would I trust an instrument that in most cases was made 40 years ago, oh, and don't forget, calibrated every two years.

​​​​​​​What I trust is the visual measurement, the fuel burn logged every flight and monitoring the trend.

[Clare Prop]

tossbag, most of us would trust those, our own experience, dipsticks etc as a primary tool and use the fuel gauges to confirm.

If there was a leak then the gauges are your only way of checking for differences from expected fuel consumption in flight. Unreliable maybe, but certainly better than nothing.

In my 35 years experience of operating Cherokees, leaking fuel drains have been the only cause of this.

[tossbag]

Clare, the current aircraft I own, the guages are 47 years old, they've been calibrated as required. When I was 47 years old, I was calibrated yearly, but I still couldn't run the 100m at my 18 year old time (i was pretty quick). If my fuel tanks sprung a leak I reckon I'd pick it up before I got airborne. If I could I'd post a video of a leak I did find, I would, it wasn't the tank, it was the line that came down through the centre pedestal in the Cessna. I digress.

If a tank sprung a leak in this incident, it obviously wasn't picked up by the guages, as the aircraft ended up in the drink. Kinda proves my point right?

And I also didn't say that you couldn't use them to confirm, I said I don't trust them and won't ever. The only fuel guages that I found reliable were in the turboprops I've flown.

I'm hoping that someone can find the cause of this, it will help all of us.

[FatPilot]

the barron i flu had quit a good fuel guage however unforutntly it was out on the wing nd a bit hard to read from the cockpit .

having said that i don ' t trust fuel guages, fuel pumps, fuel system's, fuel , refueleers , engines over water or trees , engineers , the met , met men, or farts after a curry and I' m still alive .

[QUOTE=Clare Prop] 35 years experience of operating Cherokees, leaking fuel drains have been the only cause of this.
jesus h crist that 's a long time in GA

[Desert Flower]

The Chieftains I used to fly on a casual basis for the old ASA back in the early noughties had fuel guages that were surprisingly accurate!

One one occasion, at the encouragement of some of the Line Pilots I decided to run the 'Auxes' down until an Engine surged. A ferry flight, only me on the A/C. Each engine selected about 15 minutes apart.

At two full needle widths below the empty indication on the guage with my hand on the selector and auxillary pumps on my nerve gave out, and I swapped back to the mains whilst the engine was still running sweetly!

I was assured that the Mains guages were of the same accuracy, but the only way I would trust that statement would have been a calibration done by the LAME's.

On the other hand; Early model Cessna 402's guages were, how shall we say, not as accurate! Especially on low readings.

And we shall leave it there I think!

Quite a few pilots who flew AWS got a nasty fright when the fuel in the auxes ran out before they were supposed to. I knew this fact well & I used to tell the newbies but they wouldn't believe me & found out the hard way! She also had a quirky port aux tank too - you could fill it to the brim then stand there & watch the fuel drop then top it off again. Nobody could ever figure that one out!

DF.

[Mach E Avelli]

Back in the days when we had a bit more freedom to do such things, a mate asked me to renew his instrument rating. He had hired an old Aztec from some el cheapo operator at Essendon.
When we boarded there was a very strong fuel smell in the cabin. I got out and gave the wings a good shake and fuel sloshing around in the belly started dripping out under the aircraft. Presumably the cross feed line had broken.
Needless to say we did not switch anything on to check the fuel gauges!
The owner was quite p!ssed off that we grounded his pride and joy with an entry in the MR.

[Pinky the pilot]

Quite a few pilots who flew AWS got a nasty fright when the fuel in the auxes ran out before they were supposed to

Ah yes, old (J)AWS.:hmm: Did my 402 endorsement on that a/c with the late TK.

I believe that it was exported to the US when it reached the maximum allowed airframe hours.

[PiperCameron]

Interesting reading here (thanks Clare Prop!).. it's good to know that 'no flaps' for ditching is the way to go. Ditching isn't something I was taught, doing my training so far away from water!

On the subject of re-use: I'd imagine this aircraft would be a write-off since any magnesium alloy components will have started fizzing almost straight away.

However when I first read of this, and listened to the describe failure mode, I was reminded of an incident in my flying past, when I came across a leaking fuel drain. As I recall this was one of the wing drains, and fuel was dripping at a fair rate. Subsequent investigation determined that valve was a little 'sticky' and had probably remained partially 'up' after someone had carried out a fuel check.

I've had quite a bit of first-hand experience with leaking PITA wing tank fuel drains on PA-28s, so it's a fair thing to pick up - especially after refuelling. Slow drips are more common than fast ones and a last-minute walk-around prior to boarding is essential.

[Mach E Avelli]

Interesting reading here (thanks Clare Prop!).. it's good to know that 'no flaps' for ditching is the way to go. Ditching isn't something I was taught, doing my training so far away from water!

On the subject of re-use: I'd imagine this aircraft would be a write-off since any magnesium alloy components will have started fizzing almost straight away.



.
You are right about the fizzing. Also the electrics, avionics etc would be gone, engine at the very least would require a major, but more likely also scrap. The cost to replace these alone would probably exceed the insurance value.
Don’t take the “no flaps for ditching “ to apply to all types. It depends on aircraft type. In this, the POH or AFM should be your guide. Failing specific advice from the manufacturer about landing configuration, slow is good, by whatever means achievable, but not so slow as to stall it in. I have no idea whether flap does much for Cherokee stall speed or whether it is primarily a drag device that only changes stall speed by a few knots, so possibly that is why Piper say it’s not recommended for that airframe? It would be interesting to know if any water tank model testing to determine ditching characteristics was ever done by Piper. It’s certainly part of certification for larger aircraft.
Here is a true tale told to me by an American ferry pilot who acted as my co pilot on a F27 delivery. He reckoned I was in good hands because he had already ditched three times, and no one ditched four times!
Aircraft were: high wing Cessna (not sure which model), Navajo and BN2 Islander.
The Navajo had a crew door. He said that the aircraft couldn’t maintain flight after an engine failure, due to the ferry fuel overload; sea was rough when he went in. He described the landing as not all that bad. He had time to grab the life raft on the seat beside him, exit through the crew door and inflate the raft. By the time he had boarded the raft and looked around, the aircraft had sunk. He was rescued by a ship and got a free ride to Vladivostok.
The Cessna single was interesting, because he ditched a bit short of Hawaii, using full flap. It pitched nose down on impact. As he exited under the wing, his life jacket prematurely inflated, trapping him between the wing and the flap. Somehow he got out of that one and was picked up by the Coast Guard.
The BN2 was somewhere in the North Sea not far offshore. Although the touchdown speed should have been low (as you’d expect in a Bongo), as the nose gear dug in the nose section crumpled badly - and probably the deceleration contributed - so he suffered quite severe leg injuries. It’s just possible the touchdown speed was not as low as he thought (if it was night, in those pre GPS days, groundspeed was often the great unknown).

[PiperCameron]

Thanks, Mach - that's interesting.

Don’t take the “no flaps for ditching “ to apply to all types, or even as generic wisdom. It depends on aircraft type. In this, the POH or AFM should be your guide. Failing specific advice from the manufacturer about landing configuration, slow is good, by whatever means achievable. I have no idea whether flap does much for Cherokee stall speed or whether it is primarily a drag device that only changes stall speed by a few knots, so possibly that is why Piper say it’s not recommended for that airframe?

The vast majority of my flying thus far has been in PA-28's of various flavours and capabilities, so it's pretty much all I know. The first 2 stages of flaps in the Archer/Warrior/Cherokee models are lift and the last stage basically all drag - so I get that you may not want ALL flaps out for ditching, but with the first two out you gain ~10kts before stall so that's what surprises me.

Hopefully Clare Prop can enlighten us, but maybe the concern is full or part flaps encouraging the aircraft to flip? Or maybe speed is better for a water landing?? Otherwise I've no idea why or where Piper say it's "not recommended for that airframe". I've never seen anything specific to ditching in the AFMs I've read and the airframe is stuffed anyway.

[43Inches]

Generally for ditching the idea is landing with minimal rate of descent, rather than absolutely minimal airspeed. Getting too slow can cause you to drop onto the surface which will result in very rapid decelleration and more chance of flipping. Of course too fast and you also risk much more damage. The POH usually has ditching advice so have a good read, you most likely will not have the time to look at it when the real thing happens.

[Agent_86]

Initials GT by any chance?

GT has now left (resigned) 7West Media Group (7News,The West Australian, Sunday Times etc) to concentrate on his 'Airliner Ratings' website, writing books and more TV appearances :rolleyes:

[megan]

One one occasion, at the encouragement of some of the Line Pilots I decided to run the 'Auxes' down until an Engine surged. A ferry flight, only me on the A/C. Each engine selected about 15 minutes apart.

At two full needle widths below the empty indication on the guage with my hand on the selector and auxillary pumps on my nerve gave out, and I swapped back to the mains whilst the engine was still running sweetly!Traveled on a Chieftain that was part of an airline operation based at Essendon, at one stage pilot was watching a particular gauge (fuel pressure?) like a hawk, when it dropped he immediately switched tanks, no engine hiccup, was impressed.

[WingNut60]

GT has now left (resigned) 7West Media Group (7News,The West Australian, Sunday Times etc) to concentrate on his 'Airliner Ratings' website, writing books and more TV appearances :rolleyes:
He's not after Alan's job is he?

[PiperCameron]

Generally for ditching the idea is landing with minimal rate of descent, rather than absolutely minimal airspeed. Getting too slow can cause you to drop onto the surface which will result in very rapid decelleration and more chance of flipping. Of course too fast and you also risk much more damage. The POH usually has ditching advice so have a good read, you most likely will not have the time to look at it when the real thing happens.

So pretend you're flying a seaplane, huh? Thanks heaps, 43I - will do. :ok:

[Lead Balloon]

I commend to everyone a thing called: “The Electric Interweb”. It can be searched to obtain information about subjects you specify. For example, you can search for information about ditching techniques in low-wing, fixed gear ‘light’ aircraft. And, in relation to a subject like running a tank dry in a ‘light’ aircraft, you’ll find stuff like this: https://www.avweb.com/features/avweb-classics/pelicans-perch/pelicans-perch-7run-that-fuel-tank-dry/

[PiperCameron]

I commend to everyone a thing called: “The Electric Interweb”. It can be searched to obtain information about subjects you specify. For example, you can search for information about ditching techniques in low-wing, fixed gear ‘light’ aircraft. And, in relation to a subject like running a tank dry in a ‘light’ aircraft, you’ll find stuff like this: https://www.avweb.com/features/avweb-classics/pelicans-perch/pelicans-perch-7run-that-fuel-tank-dry/

What?! Never heard of it. Sounds amazing! Whenever I've tried searching, all of the entries I've ever found start with "Back in my day".. oh, wait, that's here! :E

[Agent_86]

He's not after Alan's job is he?

Having 2yrs experience as a Baggage Handler for MMA back in the 1960's would stand him in good stead for AJ's role wouldn't it?

[Clare Prop]

Archer POH doesn't have a specific ditching procedure.
I did post an article on ditching by Paul Bertorelli earlier in the thread.
As for flaps, if I put anything about ditching technique I will be shouted down so I'm not going to bother.
As an Archer owner I am as interested as anyone else in what caused this.

[Mach E Avelli]

Archer POH doesn't have a specific ditching procedure.
I did post an article on ditching by Paul Bertorelli earlier in the thread.
As for flaps, if I put anything about ditching technique I will be shouted down so I'm not going to bother.
Wise, indeed. When it comes to opinions on ditching, it's a bit like rectums - everyone has one. Problem is that those with the strongest opinions haven't actually done it. I suspect old mate Bertorelli hasn't either, though he quotes lots of feel-good statistics to put our minds at rest. I wonder if he has seen what the North Sea or Bass Strait can dish up in winter.

[tossbag]

As for flaps, if I put anything about ditching technique I will be shouted down so I'm not going to bother.

Are you serious? Why would you give a toss what anyone thinks? You've got the runs on the board, screw the haters and know it alls.

[Desert Flower]

Ah yes, old (J)AWS.:hmm: Did my 402 endorsement on that a/c with the late TK.

I believe that it was exported to the US when it reached the maximum allowed airframe hours.

I thought it ended up down on Lance McKean's farm - I could be wrong though. The last photo I saw of her was a very sad looking one with bits missing. I know most of the pilots hated her but I loved the way the wind would resonate in the HF aerials & she would hum a tune - while all the other planes just sat there silent!

DF.

[PiperCameron]

As for flaps, if I put anything about ditching technique I will be shouted down so I'm not going to bother.
As an Archer owner I am as interested as anyone else in what caused this.

Oh, c'mon... you're the one who posted upthread that you trained this girl. Take some credit where it's due.
With runs on the board, surely you could part with some gems of wisdom for the rest of us PA-28 enthusiasts afraid of getting our feet wet?? So which is it: Fast or slow? Flaps or no?

[Capt Fathom]

surely you could part with some gems of wisdom for the rest of us PA-28 enthusiasts afraid of getting our feet wet?? So which is it: Fast or slow? Flaps or no?

Why don’t you book a lesson. :ok:

[43Inches]

There's a number of ditchings to study for ideas on what to do. Tuninter 1153 is a case where the pilot did just about everything wrong, except the ditching itself, where it was commented he at least landed it exactly as ATR wanted it to be done. Unfortunately ATRs are not the toughest airframe and even with the recommended touchdown it split into 3 parts with only the wingbox and empty fuel tanks remaining to float, which made a semi decent raft for the survivors. Then of course the Hudson event and a multitude of light aircraft both retracts and fixed gear are on record for a read.

Pipers small fleet POH usually has a statement that the emergency procedures are just for a quick refresh as emergencies such as power off landings/ditchings are part of the training syllabus so should be covered in pilot training and not really up to Piper to expand on. So if you read the POH it simply tells you to go speak to your instructor about it, but here's some common items that might be helpful to restart an engine or prepare for the landing, rather than the technique for achieving it.

It is worth some robust discussion over what is right, as it will vary slightly from aircraft to aircraft. Archer with spats and big tyres may well be better off slightly faster to skim with control, some other machines with shopping trolley wheels the opposite, slow as possible as it will bite hard no matter what, gear down or up if it's retractable and so on...

Things I think are worthwhile considering;

Carry lifejackets when operating near water, this incident shows even with land around you may end up in the drink. If time permits put the jacket on prior to landing and do not inflate it until you leave the aircraft. Even if you are a good swimmer the landing could knock you around enough to make it difficult, and its easier to just pull an unconscious passengers LJ and let them float until help arrives.

Doors/exits ajar prior to landing as long as they don't make life more difficult, pretty obvious if the fuselage twists the door could jam shut making escape difficult.

If you really want to avoid getting wet, fly higher over water so that there is always landing options on the hard stuff. If you have to fly over water make note of ships/boats oilrigs etc in the area as landing close to one should attract attention and possibly faster assistance. A large ship will take a long time to slow/turn around so don't expect it to come back quickly even if it does see you.

Never assume the craft will float after landing, get out and see what happens once outside.

[PiperCameron]

Why don’t you book a lesson. :ok:

Because: (1) I can't seem to find anyone willing to let me land their perfectly good aeroplane in the drink and (2) I don't want to get my feet wet. :)

[43Inches]

Because: (1) I can't seem to find anyone willing to let me land their perfectly good aeroplane in the drink and (2) I don't want to get my feet wet. :)

1. Do a float endorsement, if you can't land something made for water successfully then keep your one that's not well inland as it's not going to be any easier. In any case the float flying will get you familiar with the water and how planes even made for landing on it should really not do it (but we do anyway because it's fun).

2. Wear waders, feet will be dry, but you'll look like a tool.

I think the main point anyway was to have a chat with an experienced instructor about what to do in a ditching.

[megan]

As for flaps, if I put anything about ditching technique I will be shouted down so I'm not going to botherI'll have a go Clare ;) I delved through a whole bunch of military manuals as to their recommendations for everything from a T-34 (nee Bonanza type) to the B-52 and B-36. All recommend flap without exception, though the amount of flap depended on type, some are known to have such poor ditching characteristics that bail out is recommended if at all possible.The first 2 stages of flaps in the Archer/Warrior/Cherokee models are lift and the last stage basically all drag - so I get that you may not want ALL flaps out for ditchingSomething the B-25 manual states,

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/672x353/ab263_5d129318d68811859786f4dc95463a0a0310c279.png

[43Inches]

Another trap with water landings is judging your height above the surface, especially on flat glassy surfaces. In this case extra speed might be a good idea with a flare slightly higher and gentle descent as speed washes off to touch down. Once you start making contact firm backpressure as it slows will minimise the chance of flipping, ie don't relax until it stops.

Also knowing which way the current is flowing can minimise impact speed. Ideal would be into wind but with the current...

[spinex]

I'll have a go Clare ;) All recommend flap without exception,



Other than Cessna's 206, on account of rear doors not opening with (full?) flaps dangling in the way. I seem to recall that played into the Fraser Island accident of a couple of years back.

[Squawk7700]

Other than Cessna's 206, on account of rear doors not opening with (full?) flaps dangling in the way. I seem to recall that played into the Fraser Island accident of a couple of years back.

Same here, on my aircraft you can’t open the back door with the flaps down. You’d have to kick it out and only an adult would be able to do that.

[PiperCameron]

Same here, on my aircraft you can’t open the back door with the flaps down. You’d have to kick it out and only an adult would be able to do that.

Then buy a Piper... you won't regret it! :E

[megan]

Other than Cessna's 206, on account of rear doors not opening with (full?) flapsFAR 25 required ditching provision.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.801

FAR 23 on the other hand not nesasserily, depends on the level of aircraft
§ 23.2315 Means of egress and emergency exits. (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-23.2315)(a) With the cabin configured for takeoff or landing, the airplane is designed to:

(1) Facilitate rapid and safe evacuation of the airplane in conditions likely to occur following an emergency landing, excluding ditching for level 1, level 2, and single-engine level 3 airplanes.

(2) Have means of egress (openings, exits, or emergency exits), that can be readily located and opened from the inside and outside. The means of opening must be simple and obvious and marked inside and outside the airplane.

(3) Have easy access to emergency exits when present.

(b) Airplanes approved for aerobatics must have a means to egress the airplane in flight.Level of aircraft requirement.§ 23.2005 Certification of normal category airplanes. (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-23.2005)

(a) Certification in the normal category applies to airplanes with a passenger-seating configuration of 19 or less and a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 19,000 pounds or less.

(b) Airplane certification levels are:

(1) Level 1—for airplanes with a maximum seating configuration of 0 to 1 passengers.

(2) Level 2—for airplanes with a maximum seating configuration of 2 to 6 passengers.

(3) Level 3—for airplanes with a maximum seating configuration of 7 to 9 passengers.

(4) Level 4—for airplanes with a maximum seating configuration of 10 to 19 passengers.So only need to address ditching for level 4, ten or more pax.

[werbil]

Another trap with water landings is judging your height above the surface, especially on flat glassy surfaces. In this case extra speed might be a good idea with a flare slightly higher and gentle descent as speed washes off to touch down. Once you start making contact firm backpressure as it slows will minimise the chance of flipping, ie don't relax until it stops.

1. Speed is not your friend landing on water, especially when the water is glassy. Even a clean floating hull wants to suck its nose down on glass.

2. It is just about impossible to judge your height above pure glassy water. If you can put the sun in the right position you may be able to use the shadow of the aircraft to judge your height. If there are objects floating on the surface or an adjacent shoreline you can use those to help judge height too. Some very experienced float pilots use the trim change as they enter ground effect to know when to flare when flying into very small glassy lakes. Accurate height judgement even on textured water is a skill that takes a long time to develop.

My advice, ditch whilst you still have power if you can so you can set up a very slow rate of descent with a high nose attitude - that way it doesn't matter if you judge the height wrong. Without power there is a lot to be said for flying at minimum sink speed and not attempting a flare - a high flare followed by a stall is not going to be pretty. And in case it goes badly make sure you know how to open the door and exit the aircraft without losing orientation - this needs to be done before departure, preferably on a HUET course.

[Checkboard]

Piper 28 series aircraft -= three stages of flap. The difference in stalling speed between flap 2 and flap 3 is ONE knot.

In a ditching, slow is good. Right place is second good. You use that last bit of flap if you need to splash a bit sooner.

[43Inches]

Having flown floats onto still lakes I can say the most important thing is control.

You do not approach at minimum speed as this can lead to loss of control and high rates of descent. The important factors are body angle and minimal rate of descent at touch down. Some float conversions have the final stage of flap locked out for that reason. In a powered float situation you come down to a reasonable height above the water set an appropriate attitude and power to gently settle onto the surface, as soon as you touch down, cut power, and pull back, the hydrodynamic drag will suck you onto the water so you won't balloon. If you approach too slow you risk developing a high rate of descent, for a land plane this might only result in a heavy landing or bounce, in a seaplane it will be terminal and you'll end up inverted.

The reason I suggested a faster approach speed without power is to maintain control during the flare and touchdown, the idea is to be able to transition to the correct attitude nose high and allow it to touch down at minimal rate of descent. This in no way means dive bombing the sea in a nose dive, it just means carrying a few extra knots above normal landing speed.

The Perth ditching really demonstrated the importance of control during the touch down, she maintained back pressure, so however unlikely it was, the aircraft skiid on the water and resisted biting nose first.

You have to remember as well the sea is not a static target, it's moving and pulsing, so there can be a lot of visual illusions as you approach.

[Mach E Avelli]

I'll have a go Clare ;) I delved through a whole bunch of military manuals as to their recommendations for everything from a T-34 (nee Bonanza type) to the B-52 and B-36. All recommend flap without exception, though the amount of flap depended on type, some are known to have such poor ditching characteristics that bail out is recommended if at all possible.Something the B-25 manual states,

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/672x353/ab263_5d129318d68811859786f4dc95463a0a0310c279.png
While I would always prefer definitive manufacturer advice derived from some form of testing over generic advice, in the absence of the former, often old U.S. military books have the best information. After all, they have acquired more hands-on experience ditching than than any flying school or airline.
An example of how airlines don’t always get it right was something across all Qantas manuals which filtered down to other operators who plagiarised their stuff to satisfy CASA’s obsession with thick manuals. In ditching, after the aircraft came to a stop in the drink, this had the Captain order the evacuation via the P.A. No Australian operator got to try it, but if they had, they may have been quite disappointed.

[43Inches]

While I would always prefer definitive manufacturer advice derived from some form of testing over generic advice, in the absence of the former, often old U.S. military books have the best information. After all, they have acquired more hands-on experience ditching than than any flying school or airline.
An example of how airlines don’t always get it right was something across all Qantas manuals which filtered down to other operators who plagiarised their stuff to satisfy CASA’s obsession with thick manuals. In ditching, after the aircraft came to a stop in the drink, this had the Captain order the evacuation via the P.A. No Australian operator got to try it, but if they had, they may have been quite disappointed.

I think Qantas definitely got to test out poorly thought out Evac procedures. QF 1 comes to mind, whilst not on water it highlighted that the Captain can not always be in a position to order everyone to leave, so the other staff need strict guidance on what to do if no communication is received. If stuff is broken, burning, obviously amiss and dangerous. Have some procedure if there is no timely PA as the Flight crew could be incapacitated or the PA simply not working, as well as other electrical systems knocked out that power the normal communication methods.

I've had a situation where the batteries had to be turned off during a rejected start as the engine was continuing to motor. No comms with the cabin at all with PA or dings or whatever electrical method, so opened the door and told the FAs what was happening. Turns out a number of relays had welded open so any electrical power got to the starters. You don't want the FA's sitting in the dark down the back with no info too long, especially if the engine had torched during the abort.

[megan]

No comms with the cabin at allBring back the Gosport Tube. ;)

[dogcharlietree]

She did an EXCELLENT job of ditching. If CASA was smart (ha ha) they would use her video as a training aid.

[Agent_86]

She did an EXCELLENT job of ditching. If CASA was smart (ha ha) they would use her video as a training aid.

Probably don't use her fuel planning as a good example though. WOTS is the tanks were bone dry on both sides ;)

[Cloudee]

Probably don't use her fuel planning as a good example though. WOTS is the tanks were bone dry on both sides ;)
No sign on the ATSB website that they are investigating so we may never know.

[Lead Balloon]

So: Agent 86 and, implicitly from the ‘like’, Squawk7700 are asserting that both wing tanks were ‘bone dry’. Do I have that correct, Agent 86 and Squawk7700?

Or are you just speculating based on no information other than your educated guesses?

[Mach E Avelli]

Probably don't use her fuel planning as a good example though. WOTS is the tanks were bone dry on both sides ;)
If so, how do you know that it was a fuel planning mistake and not a fuel leak? Aspersions, aspersions…

[Lead Balloon]

I continue to be concerned about the lack of corporate integrity of ATSB (and CASA and Airservices and…)

[Squawk7700]

So: Agent 86 and, implicitly from the ‘like’, Squawk7700 are asserting that both wing tanks were ‘bone dry’. Do I have that correct, Agent 86 and Squawk7700?

Or are you just speculating based on no information other than your educated guesses?

I liked the post because I thought if it was true, then it was amusing the way it was worded.

"Liking" something doesn't necessarily imply that I agree with it.

[Lead Balloon]

You didn’t. And I didn’t say you did. I said you were implicitly asserting that “the tanks were bone dry on both sides”, when you ‘liked’ a post which asserted: “WOTS is the tanks were bone dry on both sides”.

What exactly did you mean by your ‘like’?

[Lead Balloon]

One of the many reasons for the lack of faith in ATSB’s integrity is the leaks. I get it that your mate can’t resist leaking and you can’t resist leveraging off those leaks, Squawk, but remember: It comes at a cost.

[Squawk7700]

One of the many reasons for the lack of faith in ATSB’s integrity is the leaks. I get it that your mate can’t resist leaking and you can’t resist leveraging off those leaks, Squawk, but remember: It comes at a cost.

I have no idea what you are talking about sorry. Feel free to PM me if you think I know anything about this other than a passing interest.

My “like” on the post was in relation to the amusement value of the post, I felt it was witty.

I’ll have to be careful from now on on here and Facebook as if I like something it’s implied that I agree with the post!

[43Inches]

Generally that's what liking something means, you looked at it, found it agreeable or amusing and liked it. Unfortunately you are also endorsing whatever message the OP is sending regardless of intent, and you are doing it so publicly, that's how social media works.

As for 'Bone dry' tanks, it would be interesting who made that assertion, as the tanks would either have still contained unusable fuel or seawater after being dragged out of the drink, neither would have the tanks dry. Most likely Seawater would have made its way in as it was submerged, displacing some fuel from the tanks.

[Cloudee]

My “like” on the post was in relation to the amusement value of the post, I felt it was witty.

I’ll have to be careful from now on on here and Facebook as if I like something it’s implied that I agree with the post!

People have lost their jobs by “liking” the wrong post on social media. I think it’s a general assumption that if you like a post you generally agree with it. That’s what I thought when I saw your like and I suppose that’s what LB thought.

[Squawk7700]

People have lost their jobs by “liking” the wrong post on social media.

…. and shortly after their visit to FairWork they got it straight back again, along with an apology and or a cash settlement.

It’s Pprune’s fault, they need a laughing emojee.

For the record here for the baby boomers thru to the Gen-z’s, liking a post does not necessarily mean that you agree with it. If you disagree, we will have to agree to disagree.

I know a lot about this topic. I had a mentally deranged individual (in my opinion) tell my employer my pprune username (and the old one that had a permission problem that they couldn’t fix) to look for all the anti-government comments I was making and where I was unstable and abusing people etc etc. Due to this, a Police detective spent 8 weeks going through the many thousands of posts over 15 years or more and do you know what they found…? absolutely nothing. I think I got 12 weeks taxpayer funded leave out of that thanks very much you know who you are :-)

[Capn Bloggs]

I was going to hit the Like button (I won't say on what post) but now I'm not so sure that I like that idea... :{

[Pinky the pilot]

I like Bloggsie's post just 'cos I think it's funny!

Merely a clarification, don'tcha know....:}

[First_Principal]

…. It’s Pprune’s fault, they need a laughing emojee....

For when you need it in the future: https://em-content.zobj.net/source/skype/289/face-with-tears-of-joy_1f602.png

[Capn Bloggs]

The epiglottis is even swinging! :D

[WingNut60]

The epiglottis is even swinging! :D
I think you'll find he/she/it is uvulating his/her/its uvula.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Is that like.....JEEEEEEZ........like..??............

Ullo Mr Pinky....


And, like, re above like.... in my 'best' John Wayne accent like......'Ya wanna be careful how ya spell that, ..Pilgrim...like.....

[PoppaJo]

Michelle has released a podcast which gives some more detail into the accident.

https://www.flighttrainingaustralia.com.au/1885012/13146549-ep-85-interview-with-pilot-michelle-yeates-ditching-piper-arrow-vh-fey

[First_Principal]

Michelle has released a podcast which gives some more detail into the accident...

Thanks for the headsup! ATSB investigation link here (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2023/report/ao-2023-021-0).

Appreciate the frank report by the pilot, thank you Michelle, quite useful to many of us I expect.

While I understand the tanks weren't swapped (and why) I was left wondering if the pump was switched on and/or what the fuel pressure gauge showed. Not being critical, just that they weren't specifically mentioned and I'm curious about this from a technical perspective.

Interesting comment re the RHS tank pickup and missing filter - it's been a long time since I looked inside one of them, anyone know if that's visible through the filler? Could be a useful additional check if so.

FP.

[Thirsty]

Thanks for the podcast link. 58 minutes. An interesting discussion well worth listening to.
Listening all the way through shows an practical approach by the pilot to aviation, and she discusses things that may have caused the incident, her mindset and thought processes during the incident, things in retrospect she may have done different, and where to from here.

To summarise:

Fuel issues and what she did seems to be the main cause here. Possible contamination, fuel quality, starvation are all discussed. The missing filter and non-standard fuel pickup may have been contributory as well.
Importance of following checklists, and learning in a different aircraft to which you normally fly.
Complacency.
Basic diligence.
20% luck, 80% pilot training and competence.
Continuous ongoing development and training. Learning never stops.
Missed opportunity by ATSB to collect conclusive evidence by being tardy to start investigation.
FCMIT


Insurance has paid out. Michelle discusses what aircraft she may be looking at as a replacement, and why.

Well worth listening to, and may clarify some of the discussion in this thread, which is a good example of where we can learn by discussion, the wild misinformed guesses clarified by further facts emerging, observing what happened, and what we can do different (and the same) if confronted by this situation. The stuff that makes PPRuNe what it is, a valuable resource where we can learn by sharing experiences.

The final report from ATSB will be worth reading too..

[EXDAC]

The final report from ATSB will be worth reading too..

I'll remain in suspense until it is published. Certainly not going to spend 58 minutes listening to a podcast in the hope of learning why the engine stopped. I would read a one page summary if there was one.

The fuel pickups should be fitted with a very coarse wire screen:

-46 72091-00 W STRAINER - Fuel tank finger
https://tinyurl.com/v5vsdk37

No, you can't see the strainers from the filler neck without a mirror or scope. I have never seen mine in 20 years of ownership but I will look next time the tanks are low.

[First_Principal]

... I would read a one page summary if there was one....

Thirsty did a fair job of their summary I thought, and it's less than one page ;)

I suppose that, without having listened to the audio, some of that summary might be fairly cryptic. To put it in one sentence then; noted [unusual] water in fuel at start of flight, drained, engine died long way into flight, carb heat+mix rich, engine ok, engine died again, low altitude, focus on landing, did not swap tanks, relatively gentle and successful water landing, frank retrospective re training, what could/should have done, initial findings of ATSB of non-standard fuel pickup and missing filter, why engine died may be blockage or could be nil fuel in RHS tank (not according to gauge).

While Thirsty's report and the long sentence above may cover the salient points I think the discussion is worthwhile listening to, and even the most grizzled veteran pilot could probably get something from it. Certainly I did, and I'm still thinking about it now.

Otherwise thanks for the link to the filters, I used to work on them a bit and that brings back hazy memories. My feeling is that we didn't inspect them terribly regularly so yes, could well be worth checking when the opportunity arises.

FP.

[zegnaangelo]

Thanks for the headsup! ATSB investigation link here (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2023/report/ao-2023-021-0).

While I understand the tanks weren't swapped (and why) I was left wondering if the pump was switched on and/or what the fuel pressure gauge showed. Not being critical, just that they weren't specifically mentioned and I'm curious about this from a technical perspective.

FP.

hi why would you not switch the fuel tanks (truly curious)
I thought the F in FCMIT is "fuel most full". practically it should be Fuel Pump+switch fuel tank (unless you are 100% sure that the other tank has been bled dry?).
i have practically zero time in a PA-28. I prefer flying high wing so we don't have to bother about switching fuel tanks tbh (my instructor keeps going on about him liking the Piper better - but i dont like them because of single door and this switching tank stuff (and doesnt feel convenient to reach that knob...))

[First_Principal]

hi why would you not switch the fuel tanks (truly curious)...

I hesitate to summarise but perhaps the short version is that things were pretty overwhelming, it wasn't a deliberate decision, and she has a better appreciation of checklists/mnemonics now?

That said, in my view, it'd be best to listen to what the pilot had to say, which more comprehensively explains how this came about in context and contains a decent self-appraisal of things learnt.

FP.

Footnote: I meant to comment on the ergonomics of PA28 series fuel tank valves; they are truly awful! However the fuel pump switch and fuel pressure gauge are reasonably within eyeshot and more easily reached, hence my technical interest in these two items from both a human factors and mechanical perspective.

[MagnumPI]

hi why would you not switch the fuel tanks (truly curious)
I thought the F in FCMIT is "fuel most full". practically it should be Fuel Pump+switch fuel tank (unless you are 100% sure that the other tank has been bled dry?).
i have practically zero time in a PA-28. I prefer flying high wing so we don't have to bother about switching fuel tanks tbh (my instructor keeps going on about him liking the Piper better - but i dont like them because of single door and this switching tank stuff (and doesnt feel convenient to reach that knob...))

Michelle addresses this question in the interview. I'm paraphrasing but she missed switching the tank, and thinks that doing so could possibly have allowed a restart. When the failure happened I think she said she was below 1,500ft and immediately assumed the engine would not be restartable so thoughts and planning went immediately to a forced landing.

[PoppaJo]

Sometimes those decisions are the correct ones.
Someone fiddling with tanks or something then trying another restart, before you know it your height is 500ft, glide speed has got away from you, and the focus on landing has been reduced.

We have seen enough fatals over the years with people playing with levers, dials and what not, and before they know it, they are about to stall, and dive into the ground.

[43Inches]

While I agree that the prime concern should always be gliding and picking a suitable landing area you should be able to carry out some quick trouble checks without much distraction. I haven't flown a piston for some time now, but I still have FMOST drilled in my head for if things went quiet. Starting with "F" Fuel - Pumps ON, contents checked, change tanks. While its nice to have individual procedures specific to the type it's way easier to remember a generic acronym that sticks in your head for almost every piston type you could fly. And I remember doing this drill with students at low level so they could practice whether they had time to complete the checklist or not and just focus on landing.

Having a lot of time on PA28s I could say the fuel system is very simple with just the one vice that you have to change tanks regularly. Ergonomics wise, its not that difficult, 3 place selector OFF/LEFT/RIGHT. I've seen much worse in various other aircraft. Fuel gauges are not hidden by any means and in a reasonable location. However as with any older aircraft there is no quantity warning system, and the pilot has to keep a fuel log to ensure burn is matching plan and gauge indication. CLEAR-OFF checks at 30 minute intervals usually were enough to keep track of fuel logs, with all the fancy iPad things these days I'm sure you could get an alarm to go off every 30 minutes to do your navigation checks.

[First_Principal]

I agree that PA28 fuel systems are not complex compared to some, but I don't consider the tank switch/tap an example of good ergonomic design.

To some extent that's a function of the times, ergonomics and human factors weren't really thought about back then, and there are many examples of even worse systems! However it's my view that, as much as you can try and 'train out' the designed-in flaws, they can still affect the outcome of an unexpected event; this may be an example.

To whit; objects have affordances; a door handle is directly visible and affords pulling on it, a door plate affords pushing on it. A PA38, or even a 172 fuel tap is directly visible to the pilot (IIRC?), and they point laterally to the fuel tank in question. On the other hand the PA28 tap is not especially visible, it is awkward to operate, and the longitudinal operation doesn't easily relate to the tank you're operating on, or have been operating on.

So, in the event of an 'oh sh*t' moment, and while you'd hope training will kick in and you do everything right, something that's not especially visible and doesn't tell you what it's doing (ie. which tank it's pointing to) doesn't exactly put itself out there for you to attend to with the limited processing you're likely to have at that time. OTOH the pressure gauge and pump switch are more line of sight, and so may be less likely to be missed. Having said that you've then got the issue, especially in this part of the world, of which way the switch should be when it's ON! Then there's the gauge which is doesn't exactly stand out from the others...

Now, like you I haven't flown one of these in quite a while but the drill is very clearly loud in my head and I'd like to think the fuel tank switch would be within one of the first few things I did (after carb heat, mix, pump), yet I've been fortunate and I've not needed to do this in anger - at least not in a PA28 - and so I've not been tested for real. This pilot was tested, and she's berated herself for not following the drill, and while I don't think the PA28 fuel switch design excuses that, it could perhaps explain it to a certain extent (along with other things discussed in the audio).

Where I'm heading with this is, what could we as pilots or instructors do to counter this? Mnemonics and memory training are all very well, but in the heat of the moment is there something that would assist us to get things right? With some of the 'planes I flew we had a QRH goto just for such an event, but in this era of inexpensive electronics I wonder if there's a place for a 'big red button' that you hit following which a voice starts telling you the drill, or it's put up on a screen?

I put this explanation and these ideas up as points for discussion and 'what can we learn' from this event in order to improve what we do now and in the future, and to - hopefully - reduce the likelihood of it happening again. That Michelle has been direct and truthful about what happened assists us all in this, but I think but we actually need to do something with that information for it to be effective.

FP.

[zegnaangelo]

i think at the end of the day, its all good/well in theory... but the startle effect is very real. (learnt that from spin training where i was recovering well with 100% success. then we are cruising along and my instructor puts me into an unanticipated spin and i froze and failed to recover on my own... )

i'm not sure how you mitigate that apart from a bit more training in your type (until it becomes muscle memory).
or every 30 mins as part of clearoff rehearse the engine failure drill to keep you in anticipation (you are meant to kee[ scanning for forced landing spot. but i admit that i dont do this often)

at end of day though, the pilot brought the plane down safely and followed the golden rule which was to fly the plane foremost and walked away with her family without a scratch so that has got to be a win.

[EXDAC]

For those that don't have PA-28 time - The fuel selector is easily operated with the right hand and its position can be seen by the pilot. It only has two positions that can be easily selected. Don't like the tank it's on then select the other one. I don't think I could select "Off" in flight as it is damn awkward on the ground and usually takes two hands. An experienced PA-28 pilot could operate the fuel valve blindfolded in less than 5 seconds.

I do not believe the ergonomics of the PA-28 fuel valve were a factor in this accident.

What is of interest to me is why one tank did not have the standard fuel strainer fitted. Was it never fitted when the airplane was manufactured? Who in their right mind would remove it and make no log entry? Without the strainer any piece of debris as large as the fuel port could completely cut off the fuel supply. Very difficult for the whole surface area of the strainer to be obstructed.

In over 1,000 hours in my PA-28 I don't think I have ever found water or any other contamination in the fuel. My only engine scare was in a C-182 with bladder tanks. It released trapped water in a Vx climb. Can't trap water in the PA-28 tanks.

[43Inches]

I agree entirely with what you are saying, my comments regarding the PA28 fuel selector was not that it was great, but is probably towards the better end of the spectrum for the design era.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/900x878/pipfs1_111f8c788752042e3d0eb56e26e798bb6c312058.png
The offending fuel selector from a 1978 PA28 Warrior II, taken 20+ years ago, but I assume they haven't changed much.

The only real issue with it was it's location down the left side of the cockpit which made it slightly awkward to operate. The "Off" locking mechanism can be seen to prevent inadvertently going through the "Left" position hastily.

As for procedures, nothing beats the old standard mnemonics. However pretty sure you can get all sorts of gadgets/apps, on iPads/Phones these days that you can set a basic alarm to remind you to change tanks. Have it yell "Hey Moron, check your fuel" through your bluetooth headset, or whatever will get your attention.

As for Vital actions, really can't be stressed those initial actions need to be from memory. Scrounging around for a checklist, paper or on an iPad or similar is not what you want to be doing low to the ground. One very good way to remember these things is to create flash cards, put em in the toilet to read and test yourself while on the throne. Make a home made quiz using one of the free quiz apps and set aside some time to do it regularly, keep adding stuff to your cards/quiz that will help you not only in emergencies, but on tests/renewals IPCs etc... Armchair fly, instead of paying for Yoga or TaiChi, sit in a chair and meditate on flying. There is a multitude of cheap things that you can do, and make sorta fun that can help you memorize your flying needs.

[PiperCameron]

The only real issue with it was it's location down the left side of the cockpit which made it slightly awkward to operate. The "Off" locking mechanism can be seen to prevent inadvertently going through the "Left" position hastily.

From someone with nearly all his hours in PA28's of various flavours and vintages, actually the biggest issue with the fuel selector being where it is is that there's no way for an instructor to get to it if for some reason the rookie student (TIF candidate even worse) can't do it. Not a biggie with forward planning and in some cases a good thing, but something to consider.

Other points are:
1. Some of the older versions (60's - 70's-ish) don't have locking detents, making it perfectly possible to turn the fuel off in flight if you're on Left but think you're on Right. (Fortunately I've only ever done this once and that was in the run-up bay... never again!)
2. The corollary is that, on the newer version like the one shown it's next to impossible to turn the fuel off on final for a forced landing and maintain a glide at the same time. The solution? Just don't bother.. it's not worth your life as it is.

[zegnaangelo]

The piper seems unintuitive. Off left right.

I fly the grob.it has the tank selector in the middle with Left Off Right.
more intuitive. Horses for courses.

i prefer Cessnas both tanks.

never has big urge to fly a piper.

[EXDAC]

actually the biggest issue with the fuel selector being where it is is that there's no way for an instructor to get to it if for some reason the rookie student (TIF candidate even worse) can't do it.

I don't remember any problem operating the fuel valve from the right seat. Maybe my arms are longer than yours.

[First_Principal]

For those that don't have PA-28 time - The fuel selector is easily operated with the right hand and its position can be seen by the pilot...

Interesting, while it's been a while since I flew one I don't think I ever tried switching tanks with my right hand - always the left. Perhaps it's like the Auster flaps where some people like reaching over with their right arm, whereas others just reach straight up with their left, anyway I wonder if there's a reason why you do it this way?

Otherwise I'm pleased you didn't use the word 'easily' with respect to actually viewing the thing, it's not exactly in one's normal field of view...

zegnaangelo I think you're quite right re the startle, I had something similar when a friend 'failed' an engine on me in a twin when I was trundling along happily looking out at some mountains on a sunny day .. took me more seconds than it should have done to figure out what was going on. Until it actually happens we'll never know how we will react in real life, and while practice is very important we can only hope it's enough, hence my interest in additional methodologies to assist us in the event.

FP.

[EXDAC]

Interesting, while it's been a while since I flew one I don't think I ever tried switching tanks with my right hand - always the left. Perhaps it's like the Auster flaps where some people like reaching over with their right arm, whereas others just reach straight up with their left, anyway I wonder if there's a reason why you do it this way?.

I operate the valve with hand, wrist, and forearm rotation. That's easy when the forearm is close to normal to the valve and much more awkward (for me at least) when the forearm is in line with the sidewall. Probably depends on pilot build and seat position.

[43Inches]

The piper seems unintuitive. Off left right.

I fly the grob.it has the tank selector in the middle with Left Off Right.
more intuitive. Horses for courses.

i prefer Cessnas both tanks.

never has big urge to fly a piper.

OFF-LEFT-RIGHT makes sense when "OFF" is not a typical setting, so 99% of times you are just switching between "LEFT" and "RIGHT". You would only select "OFF" on the ground for maintenance functions in reality. Why have a setting that could end up starving the engine of fuel as a regular, 'move through' option.

With that sort of thinking magnetos would be LEFT-OFF-RIGHT-BOTH or something like that.

In any case the Grob 115 at least is a good example of bad design. I personally know of one that has turned the fuel off and crashed as a result, thankfully they are built like F1 cars and the occupants survived with only a scratch. The fuel selectors being between the pilots but slightly behind so out of normal visual arcs.

Reminds me of the Seneca I & II having the Left mags, Landing lights and Fuel pumps all on top of each other so if you don't visually check what you are switching, you might just give yourself an engine failure while switching off the landing lights. Which is probably the cause of the Seneca accident in NW WA a while back, unfortunately that didn't end well for the pilot.

[KRviator]

It's a Piper Archer VH-FEY and the pilot is the owner. She has a CPL, is very capable and handled the ditching really well.

She owned that aeroplane, knew it inside out and did her hour building in it including adventures into remote areas.. She keeps meticulous fuel logs. So what happened? Maybe we'll never know, but it's been disappointing to see how many on social media have had said that being female is a contributing factor in "running out of fuel", I would dare any of them to say it to her face! Or mine!Apart from running the tank in use dry, it would appear. Then neglecting to change tanks while troubleshooting...Female or not. CPL or not. If you don't change tanks when you run the selected one dry, you're going to star in your very own ATSB report. And PPrune thread, too it would seem...

FWIW, my fuel management strategy is based on laziness with a dose of forgetfulness. Takeoff and climb on one tank. Once at TOC, switch to the other tank and fly for 165 minutes. At the 160 minute mark, monitor fuel pressure, have my hand on or near the fuel valve and get ready to switch. When pressure drops and engine stumbles, change tanks. No balancing the tanks, no "fly 30 minutes and swap over" while trying to remember what level is in what tank. I change once and that's it. YMMV - but I'd like to think such a method would have avoided this.

n 20 April 2023, a Piper Archer single-engine light aircraft departed Carnarvon for a private flight to Jandakot, via Geraldton. About 10 km north of Fremantle, engine power subsided then recovered a number of times.

“Unable to maintain height, the pilot decided to turn into wind for a forced landing on the adjacent Leighton Beach, but then opted to ditch into the ocean after observing a number of people on the beach,” ATSB Director Transport Safety Stuart Macleod said.

After a successful ditching, the uninjured pilot and passenger were able to egress and swim to shore. The aircraft was substantially damaged. The ATSB’s investigation concluded the pilot had left Carnarvon with enough fuel on board for the planned flight, but did not carry out regular fuel quantity checks in accordance with regulatory guidance, or keep a written log of fuel consumed from each tank during the flight.

“The engine power issues probably occurred due to a lack of fuel in the selected right tank,” Mr Macleod said. “The pilot responded to power anomalies by carrying out some of the emergency procedures, but did not select the other – left – tank, which contained usable fuel.”
Source (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2023/fuel-management-emergency-procedure-lessons-wa-beach-ditching)

[Cloudee]

Full report. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2023/report/ao-2023-021

No fuel log kept and tank not changed even when the engined stopped making power. Pretty cut and dried case, but the ATSB felt the need to harp on about the fact that engine had been in service for 28 years.

“The engine had been in service for 28 years, which was more than double the recommended time before overhaul (TBO) of 12 years. Given there were no engine defects, and the required maintenance was carried out, the extended TBO was not identified as a factor in the occurrence.”


Given that this is perfectly legal and was not a factor in the incident one wonders why they had to mention it 4 or 5 times unless they have an agenda to stop the practice of running engines on condition.

[dejapoo]

Apart from running the tank in use dry, it would appear. Then neglecting to change tanks while troubleshooting...Female or not. CPL or not. If you don't change tanks when you run the selected one dry, you're going to star in your very own ATSB report. And PPrune thread, too it would seem...

FWIW, my fuel management strategy is based on laziness with a dose of forgetfulness. Takeoff and climb on one tank. Once at TOC, switch to the other tank and fly for 165 minutes. At the 160 minute mark, monitor fuel pressure, have my hand on or near the fuel valve and get ready to switch. When pressure drops and engine stumbles, change tanks. No balancing the tanks, no "fly 30 minutes and swap over" while trying to remember what level is in what tank. I change once and that's it. YMMV - but I'd like to think such a method would have avoided this.

Sorry laziness or stupidness? Bet your punters love flying with you.

[Squawk7700]

9 pages of pprune discussion and 7 months of taxpayer funds and effort at the ATSB to find out she ran out of fuel in one tank.

The on-condition is an interesting point, but could be a case of grandpa’s axe in many cases. It does sound like a bloody long time though, only 16 years over 12 year calendar life.

[Cloudee]

FWIW, my fuel management strategy is based on laziness with a dose of forgetfulness. Takeoff and climb on one tank. Once at TOC, switch to the other tank and fly for 165 minutes. At the 160 minute mark, monitor fuel pressure, have my hand on or near the fuel valve and get ready to switch. When pressure drops and engine stumbles, change tanks. No balancing the tanks, no "fly 30 minutes and swap over" while trying to remember what level is in what tank. I change once and that's it. YMMV - but I'd like to think such a method would have avoided this.

Not something I would choose to do. When I change tanks I’m on alert for a few minutes in case there is a blockage or other issue with the selected tank. If there is I can switch back, you can’t. I prefer to have options.

[Cloudee]

9 pages of pprune discussion and 7 months of taxpayer funds and effort at the ATSB to find out she ran out of fuel in one tank.

The on-condition is an interesting point, but could be a case of grandpa’s axe in many cases. It does sound like a bloody long time though, only 16 years over 12 year calendar life.
I think the 12 years was an arbitrary number plucked out of thin air as an arse covering exercise to stop litigation. I would be more nervous flying a brand new engine than an older, well maintained one.

[megan]

Sorry laziness or stupidness? Bet your punters love flying with youFail to see a problem with his procedure, seen the switching when the pressure drops used in airlines in the past, making sure the tank contains no usable fuel, never saw a engine stumble during the process.

[PiperCameron]

FWIW, my fuel management strategy is based on laziness with a dose of forgetfulness. Takeoff and climb on one tank. Once at TOC, switch to the other tank and fly for 165 minutes. At the 160 minute mark, monitor fuel pressure, have my hand on or near the fuel valve and get ready to switch. When pressure drops and engine stumbles, change tanks. No balancing the tanks, no "fly 30 minutes and swap over" while trying to remember what level is in what tank. I change once and that's it. YMMV - but I'd like to think such a method would have avoided this.

Is this in a PA-28 - or something else? Maybe your aircraft has aileron trim??

One reason I was taught, still use and have no issue with "fly 30 minutes and swap over" in the Cherokees/Archers/Warriors/Arrows I get to play with is that some of these aircraft (especially the Hershey bar models) are especially sensitive to lateral trim and you really notice it on the controls if you don't switch over regularly. It's just a comfort thing.

[KRviator]

Sorry laziness or stupidness? Bet your punters love flying with you.You think running a tank dry in flight is stupid? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Every aircraft certified under FAR 23 is required to be able to regain power within 10 seconds (20 if turbocharged or multi engine) if you run a tank dry. Granted a lot of existing GA aircraft are certified under the likes of CAR3 so FAR23 doesn't apply, but even so, running a tank dry in flight is nothing to be scared of and was normal operation when going for maximum range before turbines came along... I do tell the passenger what's going to happen well in advance, so they can ignore the FUEL QUANTITY warnings in the headset and EFIS and thus far everyone's been like "Is that it? No gliding to our death, no MAYDAY, that's all that happens?!?" after the fact.
​Not something I would choose to do. When I change tanks I’m on alert for a few minutes in case there is a blockage or other issue with the selected tank. If there is I can switch back, you can’t. I prefer to have options.Why would the original tank fail to feed? It got me to TOC. If the opposite tank (let's call it the cruise tank) fails to feed on selection, I still have the original tank to either get me partway, or return to the departure airport to work out why the cruise tank isn't feeding. If someone's worried about a tank failing to feed after switching, you're better off minimising the number of times you do change tanks...

You're more at risk inadvertently running a tank dry trying to keep up with this 'balance it every 30 minutes' ideology, or un-porting a low tank manoeuvring on arrival because you've got your remaining minimum fuel spread across 2/4 tanks with 5-10L in each instead of 20+L one. As I said above, this isn't a one-size-fits all, and as PC alludes to above, low-aspect ratio wings such as the Warriors have a greater trim requirements than does an aircraft with higher aspect ratio and the fuel inboard on the wing, and I wouldn't necessarily recommend it for a tip-tanked Bonanza or Comanche unless you want to look like Popeye when you land.Is this in a PA-28 - or something else? Maybe your aircraft has aileron trim??It's an RV-9 and it does have aileron trim, though I don't use it much as it's only a spring-bias system, not a true aerodynamic tab. In several hundred hours of flying this way, I've never had the EFIS complain about roll forces being too high for the servo, or any servo slippage. Even when hand flying, it is noticeable, but not unpleasantly, or even uncomfortably so.

It's not everyone's cup of tea, and nor is running a tank dry, but it's how I do it, and for the accident in question, I feel comfortable saying I'm unlikely to make that same mistake on account of how I do things. Other mistakes, most definitely, but not this one. YMMV.

[Mr Mossberg]

I would be more nervous flying a brand new engine than an older, well maintained one.

Agree. The same as a fresh 100 hourly.

[Mr Mossberg]

or keep a written log of fuel consumed from each tank during the flight.

All you lot that have separate fuel tanks that require switching, how many of you keep a written log of when you switched? The truth.

[Cloudee]

All you lot that have separate fuel tanks that require switching, how many of you keep a written log of when you switched? The truth.
Mate, it’s not an issue…. Unless you run out of fuel.😳 GPS reminds me every 30 mins, that’ll do me (alternate method of compliance).

[43Inches]

Running a large lateral imbalance will also cost you fuel/performance. Holding in the aileron and rudder to offset the roll moment, whether by hand or trim, will incur a larger drag penalty than when neutral. Effectively the same as driving with the hand brake on. It probably also increases wear on the componants put into a constant load when designed to be neutral most of the time. I can imagine something like a Lance with the outer tanks would need a lot of roll trim if you ran one tank dry over the other almost full.

[Peter Fanelli]

Quite a few pilots who flew AWS got a nasty fright when the fuel in the auxes ran out before they were supposed to. I knew this fact well & I used to tell the newbies but they wouldn't believe me & found out the hard way! She also had a quirky port aux tank too - you could fill it to the brim then stand there & watch the fuel drop then top it off again. Nobody could ever figure that one out!

DF.
There was nothing about JAWS that was good, not until it went to EMU where finally the sticky elevator problem was fixed and a shiny new IFR GPS was installed.

[Desert Flower]

There was nothing about JAWS that was good, not until it went to EMU where finally the sticky elevator problem was fixed and a shiny new IFR GPS was installed.

And apparently the autopilot worked properly after the servo chains were cleaned & greased!

DF.

[EXDAC]

All you lot that have separate fuel tanks that require switching, how many of you keep a written log of when you switched? The truth.

No, I don't keep a log. Why would I? In the PA-28-180 the fuel tank selector is the only available roll trim system. The control wheel forces tell me it's time to change tanks. If the forces are not enough input I have fuel gages. And yes, I do also have a GPS nag.

[VH-MLE]

Fuel exhaustion/starvation still remains one of the most common causes of light aircraft accidents - reading some of the posts above, I can see why...

[Capn Rex Havoc]

So she did stuff up and starved the engine of fuel.
My post #26 I brought up the possibility of fuel starvation.
Thirsty on post #27 shut me down on my speculation.
The parallels to the event I described are uncanny. In both cases, the pilots were praised for the excellent piloting skills, front page news, interviews etc, only to have been discovered months later that they fu..ed up.
Aviation can be a cruel master.

[Squawk7700]

So she did stuff up and starved the engine of fuel.
My post #26 I brought up the possibility of fuel starvation.
Thirsty on post #27 shut me down on my speculation.
The parallels to the event I described are uncanny. In both cases, the pilots were praised for the excellent piloting skills, front page news, interviews etc, only to have been discovered months later that they fu..ed up.
Aviation can be a cruel master.

They’ve got you on a technicality there Capt as technically she did have enough fuel. You said she “starved” the engine of fuel, which is not quite the same ;-) You were indeed spot on though! Of course everyone probably assumed that you meant she ran out of fuel.

[EXDAC]

Of course everyone probably assumed that you meant she ran out of fuel.

Well not me. Engine stopping with fuel starvation when there is lots of fuel left in an unselected tank does not seem all that rare an event. As a PA-28 owner I immediately wondered which tank was selected and which, if either, contained any fuel.

[Squawk7700]

Well not me. Engine stopping with fuel starvation when there is lots of fuel left in an unselected tank does not seem all that rare an event. As a PA-28 owner I immediately wondered which tank was selected and which, if either, contained any fuel.

“Everyone” that didn’t know better :-)

[PiperCameron]

“Everyone” that didn’t know better :-)

Well, there's the problem. Everyone who's flown PA-28's for a long time knows fuel selection is a critical part of your SOPs so if you hear of someone flying one "running out of fuel", your first thought is exactly as EXDAC stated.

This is a distinctly Piper challenge.. those in Textronland have other issues.

[poteroo]

A 'cough 'from the engine on take-off at Geraldton would have been easily overlooked as it returned to full power and take-off and climb were normal. What would have focussed my attention though, would have been the power decrease at 1900 ft. My training was that the tanks were switched ASAP that there was any drop in power, regardless of altitude. The aux pump goes ON about 2 secs later. The POH specifies tank change as point #1 in the emergency response, and it's always restored power for me anyway. This includes where I've intentionally emptied a tank, eg, the AUX tanks of a PA23, 30 or 32. It seems to take forever for the engine to roar back to power, but was probably only < 5 secs. (FAA Certification says up to 10 secs OK). I suggest that training in PA-28 aircraft should include a fuel starvation review - at a safe height and location of course. It's a fact that many/most student pilots never actually do this stuff, similarly flying with a stopped engine. We do it for loss of electrics, loss of flap function - so why not for loss of noise?

[PiperCameron]

I suggest that training in PA-28 aircraft should include a fuel starvation review - at a safe height and location of course. It's a fact that many/most student pilots never actually do this stuff, similarly flying with a stopped engine. We do it for loss of electrics, loss of flap function - so why not for loss of noise?

AFAIK, it's because of the non-zero chance the engine won't restart immediately due air in the lines - at least that's what I was told by my instructor - prompting over-priming and a possible engine fire if the student panicked and held the button down too long (electric prime). It has happened - and at Moorabbin, no less.

I did some 'loss of noise' training on the ground early on while taxying back from a training flight and it was amazing to me how long the engine would run for from the time the fuel was switched off. That was enough.

[Capt Fathom]

PA28 with it's 2 tanks can be a nightmare to manage! Why do they make it so hard? :E

[Lead Balloon]

I’d give you a like, but for the misused apostrophe…

[helispotter]

Quite a few pilots who flew AWS got a nasty fright when the fuel in the auxes ran out before they were supposed to... She also had a quirky port aux tank too - you could fill it to the brim then stand there & watch the fuel drop then top it off again. Nobody could ever figure that one out!

DF.

These comments must refer to Cessna 402A VH-AWS.

The need to top up after a pause had me intrigued. At first I thought perhaps due to trapped air not allowing fuel to fully fill the tanks initially. But found an archived Pprune thread on "C402B Fuel System" where a reasonable explanation is offered (assuming it can also be applied to VH-AWS):

"Towering Q
20th Jan 2008, 17:32
When refuelling...fill aux first then start on mains. By the time the main tank is full the level in the aux should have dropped. The fuel takes a little longer to flow through the pipe work and into the second aux tank."

Return of excess fuel to main tanks and risk of then venting it overboard is also described in some of the posts on that old thread.

[Capt Fathom]

The Cessna 310 & 402s had bladder type Aux’s. They took a little while to expand which is why if you wanted ‘full tanks’, you filled the aux’s first, then the mains and then topped up the aux’s. Most operators also left a small amount of fuel in the aux’s so the rubber bladders didn’t dry out, as they weren’t always used that often.
I have flown AWS. Don’t recall it being any better or worse than other 402’s of that vintage.

[EXDAC]

PA28 with it's 2 tanks can be a nightmare to manage! Why do they make it so hard? :E

I have never found it hard to manage and I like being able to run on one tank or the other. If I think I'm going to be tight on fuel I run one tank down to 5 gals indicated then run the other to zero but not to exhaustion. I know I have 5 gals left.

I like having Left, Right, Both, and Off selections on the fuel valve. However, some valves of that type allow cross feed when Off which means Left or Right must be selected if parked on a significant slope. Forget to do that and the high tank fills the low tank and fuel vents overboard.

[Lead Balloon]

I’m not aware of a low wing (certified) GA aircraft with a ‘both’ selection on the fuel selector.

[PiperCameron]

I’m not aware of a low wing (certified) GA aircraft with a ‘both’ selection on the fuel selector.

Couple that with a set of Aux tanks and it's not hard to work out why Cherokee 6's seem to feature in more 'off-airport landings' than other types.

[43Inches]

There's a few reasons for a good fuel log and regularly swapping tanks. First and foremost is to crosscheck that your usage vs the gauges makes sense. Used 30 minutes in a Pa28, the gauges should be down 12-18 liters (or USG equiv), swap tanks and run the other one and repeat the check, have a log to show you verified each time. Then you have in-flight evidence you are complying with whatever fuel burn you planned on, even the latest gadgets with fuel flow gauges showing used fuel/fuel remaining can be wrong and only show feed into the engine or what the engine has taken in, not accounting for things like leaks and so on. You also have verification your fuel gauges are remotely accurate, and some protection against identifying fuel leaks early on. In aircraft with bladder tanks and inter-tank connections/ baffles etc, it's important to check that what you expect to see on the gauge is verified, sudden or unexpected changes (or no change at all, ie using fuel but the gauge stays still) in indicated fuel load could be indications of blockages and problems inside the tanks, that is your tank is not capable of supplying the fuel it's supposed to have in it, if you are not regularly checking the fuel vs a log you will probably miss these things. Then there's the chance of stuff in the tanks blocking ports/filters/breathers and whatever other holes, regular swapping of tanks will mean you catch this problem with fuel still in the other tank, hopefully, if you ran one dry and then the other had a blockage at half capacity, you now have no fuel and it's paddock time.

Lateral balance goes without saying, if you enjoy driving with the brakes on then fly with an imbalance, obviously you don't mind paying for extra fuel and sector lengths.

[Mr Mossberg]

PA28 with it's 2 tanks can be a nightmare to manage! Why do they make it so hard? https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif

I have never found it hard to manage and I like being able to run on one tank or the other. If I think I'm going to be tight on fuel I run one tank down to 5 gals indicated then run the other to zero but not to exhaustion. I know I have 5 gals left.

Mate.......he's taking the piss!

[Runaway Gun]

I’m not aware of a low wing (certified) GA aircraft with a ‘both’ selection on the fuel selector.

Rockwell Commander 114 is an example of a ‘Both’ fuel selector.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/920x2000/25c0f225_bd92_4469_a87c_7cf30a0a5846_fb7d39f015dd4a2b927bdff e362e9a67f63b62fa.png

[Lead Balloon]

Thanks RG! I’ve learned something.

I’ll have to do some research into why it’s OK on that type.

[Mach E Avelli]

Thanks RG! I’ve learned something.

I’ll have to do some research into why it’s OK on that type.
‘cos it’s a better system?

[EXDAC]

14 CFR 23.993 Fuel valves and Controls does not mention wing position.

High wings typically gravity feed with no pump unless injected. Low wings need a pump (actually at least two) whether injected or not. Why would the wing position influence the available fuel valve selections? If not specified in 23.993 where would such a requirement be specified? Isn't it just a designer choice.

[43Inches]

14 CFR 23.993 Fuel valves and Controls does not mention wing position.

High wings typically gravity feed with no pump unless injected. Low wings need a pump (actually at least two) whether injected or not. Why would the wing position influence the available fuel valve selections? If not specified in 23.993 where would such a requirement be specified? Isn't it just a designer choice.

High positioned fuel tanks will provide a natural head of pressured fuel to the selector, via gravity. Fuel drawn through the system via pumps can result in air being drawn into the lines, so in order to have a both selector on say a PA-28, you would have to introduce some active protections in each fuel tank to prevent air being drawn in, or pumps in the tanks, therefore extra cost, complexity and weight.

[EXDAC]

High positioned fuel tanks will provide a natural head of pressured fuel to the selector, via gravity. Fuel drawn through the system via pumps can result in air being drawn into the lines, so in order to have a both selector on say a PA-28, you would have to introduce some active protections in each fuel tank to prevent air being drawn in, or pumps in the tanks, therefore extra cost, complexity and weight.

If this is a real risk why isn't it covered in 14 CFR 23.993. In what regulation is this risk addressed?

What special preventive measures are included in the Rockwell Commander design?

[43Inches]

If this is a real risk why isn't it covered in 14 CFR 23.993. In what regulation is this risk addressed?

What special preventive measures are included in the Rockwell Commander design?Sec. 23.951 — General.(a) Each fuel system must be constructed and arranged to ensure fuel flow at a rate and pressure established for proper engine and auxiliary power unit functioning under each likely operating condition, including any maneuver for which certification is requested and during which the engine or auxiliary power unit is permitted to be in operation.

(b) Each fuel system must be arranged so that—

(1) No fuel pump can draw fuel from more than one tank at a time; or

(2) There are means to prevent introducing air into the system.

(c) Each fuel system for a turbine engine must be capable of sustained operation throughout its flow and pressure range with fuel initially saturated with water at 80 °F and having 0.75cc of free water per gallon added and cooled to the most critical condition for icing likely to be encountered in operation.

(d) Each fuel system for a turbine engine powered airplane must meet the applicable fuel venting requirements of part 34 of this chapter.

I can't answer why the Rockwell design is allowed, it may have floated tank outlet covers that prevent air (simple method) or something else. Gravity pressure is the means to prevent air in the 'high wing' system, and they don't need fuel pumps so both (1) and (2) are satisfied. On more advanced systems then you might have an interconnect system or hopper tanks within the fuel tank etc...

A simple way to think about it, is that with gravity the fuller tank will provide higher pressure, so that will drain first, keeping balance. When you are 'sucking' the fuel through, the line that provides least resistance will get priority, so any air in the system will be sucked first.

[Clinton McKenzie]

That confirms my understanding, 43.

Interestingly, the report of this ATSB investigation (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1994/aair/199403176), following a fuel-related forced/precautionary landing involving a Rockwell International 114 at Phillip Island on 30 October 1994, says among other things:A study of the fuel system suggests that if one tank is empty and the other contains fuel, then it is possible that the engine will be supplied with a "fuel air cocktail" through the fuel selector if the selector is in the BOTH position. Tests done on another Rockwell 114 confirmed that this was probably the cause of the engine malfunction.One wonders how the type made it through certification. The ATSB report also says this:n the Emergency Procedures section of the Pilot's Operating Handbook, for the Engine Failure in Flight checklist, item 5 of the checklist says "Fuel Selector - FULLEST TANK (check other two positions)". In the Airstart checklist, item 2 of the checklist says "Fuel Selector - FULLER TANK". This item is followed by a note which says "To minimise restart time, select the fuller tank. Do not use the BOTH position". Although the pilot was not attempting an airstart, he did leave the selector in the BOTH position.But why have the BOTH position in the type in the first place, if it demonstrably results in air being introduced into the fuel system?

[EXDAC]

I'm still not understanding the high wing / low wing distinction here. Any high wing aircraft with a fuel injected engine will have at least two fuel pumps in series. How is the risk of air ingestion any different for such a high wing aircraft with a Both selection than it is for a low wing aircraft with a Both selection.

[43Inches]

I'm still not understanding the high wing / low wing distinction here. Any high wing aircraft with a fuel injected engine will have at least two fuel pumps in series. How is the risk of air ingestion any different for such a high wing aircraft with a Both selection than it is for a low wing aircraft with a Both selection.

Gravity pushes fuel into the system with high wings, meaning weight of fuel stops air from entering, so if one tank gets close to dry the full tank will still be pushing fuel to the selector. Without gravity, the fuel pump sucks fuel through the system, and most simple light singles will have both pumps forward of the firewall, not pushing from each tank. Thst means if one tank gets close to empty it will favor sucking air over fuel as nothing is pushing the fuel towards the selector from the fuller tank. Try take a drink from a cup using two straws, one in the liquid one outside in the air. You wont be sucking much fluid, unless you turn the cup so that the liquid flows into the straw.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Precisely!

[Clinton McKenzie]

Warning: Adult supervision required.

One fuel tank is the cup and the other could be an empty cup but is the open air because the other tank has no usable fuel. Note that both tanks are below the inlet to the 'fuel pump'.

https://youtu.be/O3Vn_MVWfmU?si=tw6HLDXVoTGqbjYI

Now imagine the cups were above the guy's head and the straws were pushed through a hole drilled in the bottom of each.

[EXDAC]

Gravity pushes fuel into the system with high wings, meaning weight of fuel stops air from entering, so if one tank gets close to dry the full tank will still be pushing fuel to the selector. Without gravity, the fuel pump sucks fuel through the system, and most simple light singles will have both pumps forward of the firewall, not pushing from each tank. Thst means if one tank gets close to empty it will favor sucking air over fuel as nothing is pushing the fuel towards the selector from the fuller tank. Try take a drink from a cup using two straws, one in the liquid one outside in the air. You wont be sucking much fluid, unless you turn the cup so that the liquid flows into the straw.

Yes, I understand that but you quoted 23.951 which says "(1) No fuel pump can draw fuel from more than one tank at a time;"

Are you saying that this regulation is not applicable to high wing tanks because the pump does not "draw" fuel but always has a gravity feed to the input port?

[Clinton McKenzie]

You omitted the "or" at the end of (1). Gravity is the "means to prevent introducing air into the [fuel] system" of an aircraft with the tanks higher than the fuel selector/EDP etc. That works, even if the fuel selector is able to select more than one of those tanks, simultaneously.

All fuel systems will eventually introduce air into the system, through exhaustion or starvation. That's not the point of 23.951.

The point of 23.951 is system design. An aircraft with the fuel tanks lower than a fuel selector that can select more than one of those tanks simultaneously is not designed in accordance with 23.951, unless there's some further component to overcome the laws of physics demonstrated in the video I posted and which 43 explained. Given the ATSB report I posted earlier, it seems to me the Commander 114 has a basic design flaw in the fuel system. I'd never fly one with the fuel selector in "BOTH".

[Dora-9]

I’m not aware of a low wing (certified) GA aircraft with a ‘both’ selection on the fuel selector.

How about the humble Chipmunk? Two tanks but (in its standard form) a simple ON/OFF selector.

[Lead Balloon]

I'll make a wild guess and say that the 'humble Chipmunk' wasn't designed and certified under the FARs (at least not the current FARs), but there may in any event be components in the fuel system that mitigate the risk of air being drawn into the fuel system due to one one tank emptying before the other.

What happens if a Chipmunk has one tank full and the other one empty, and is started and flown with the "simple ON/OFF selector" in the "ON" position?

[Cloudee]

I'll make a wild guess and say that the 'humble Chipmunk' wasn't designed and certified under the FARs (at least not the current FARs), but there may in any event be components in the fuel system that mitigate the risk of air being drawn into the fuel system due to one one tank emptying before the other.

What happens if a Chipmunk has one tank full and the other one empty, and is started and flown with the "simple ON/OFF selector" in the "ON" position?
The pilot manual says “if one tank empties before the other the latter will supply the engine provided the fuel cock is ON”. There are no warnings in relation to the fuel system.

[Lead Balloon]

Then...

It seems to me that there must be components in the fuel system on a Chipmunk that mitigate the risk of air being drawn into the fuel system due to one tank emptying before the other.

Either that or the design somehow manages to position the fuel selector and inlet to the fuel components of the engine below the outlets from the tanks.

Rather than endless, unproductive PPRuNe speculation, the answer can be given by someone with first-hand knowledge of the fuel system 'plumbing' and components on a Chipmunk.

[43Inches]

Then...

It seems to me that there must be components in the fuel system on a Chipmunk that mitigate the risk of air being drawn into the fuel system due to one tank emptying before the other.

Either that or the design somehow manages to position the fuel selector and inlet to the fuel components of the engine below the outlets from the tanks.

Rather than endless, unproductive PPRuNe speculation, the answer can be given by someone with first-hand knowledge of the fuel system 'plumbing' and components on a Chipmunk.

Looking at the fuel system schematics on the Chipmunk they do seem to have solved this by having the fuel selector position lower than the tanks. So there is still a gravity feed to where the lines join and the selector, from the sump outlet, as well as built in non return valves in the tank outlets.

[EXDAC]

Looking at the fuel system schematics on the Chipmunk they do seem to have solved this by having the fuel selector position lower than the tanks. So there is still a gravity feed to where the lines join and the selector, from the sump outlet, as well as built in non return valves in the tank outlets.

I think the fuel selector of the PA-28-180 is also below the tank outlets in level flight but it certainly is not at the highest sustainable pitch attitude.

I have found the discussion interesting and informative and wondered what addition guidance had been written by FAA. I found AC 23-16A which has some discussion of the subject in section "23.951 Fuel System General (Amendment 23-43)" which starts on page 43.

It includes the following -

"(Many in-service airplanes were certified under the Civil Air Regulations (CAR). For background, CAR § 3.430, which preceded § 23.951(b), required the fuel system arrangement to “permit any one fuel pump to draw fuel from only one tank at a time.” In the past, this has sometimes been interpreted (incorrectly) as “a fuel pump may only draw fuel from one tank at a time.” The CAR regulation is actually more permissive than § 23.951(b) as it did not address the possibility of introducing air into the fuel system.)"

ref https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_23-16A.pdf

edit to add text of CAR 3.340 -

"§ 3.430 Fuel system arrangement. Fuel systems shall be so arranged as to permit any one fuel pump to draw fuel from only one tank at a time. Gravity feed systems shall not supply fuel to any one engine from more than one tank at a time unless the tank air spaces are interconnected in such a manner as to assure that all interconnected tanks will feed equally. (See also § 3.439.)"

[PiperCameron]

Looking at the fuel system schematics on the Chipmunk they do seem to have solved this by having the fuel selector position lower than the tanks. So there is still a gravity feed to where the lines join and the selector, from the sump outlet, as well as built in non return valves in the tank outlets.

FWIW, here's the pic of the fuel system for the Chipmunk: They speak of a 'flexible fuel tank'.. presumably a bladder tank which may reduce the amount of air available to get into the system?

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1031x791/screenshot_2023_12_04_145143_ed417cdc28d30b192352a3e21f462f6 9ae081709.png

How I wish they drew detailed and clear diagrams like these in the AFM for the PA-28's.. but that's progress I suppose :(

[Clinton McKenzie]

Interesting. It may just be the perspective of the drawing, but as 43 noted it appears the fuel cock where the outlets of the tanks meet is below the level of the tank outlets. And the non-return valves may play a role.

[PiperCameron]

The issue I see in the Chippie though is if a non-return valve fails and you roll/bank the aircraft, you risk losing a tank-full overboard. With no "Both", this can't happen in a PA28.

For comparison to the above, this is what you get in a typical Archer POH:

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/593x696/screenshot_2023_12_04_170226_27f4e097f6e50efdde39eac8ecc3744 6b3c2644d.png

No non-return valves fitted in the PA28 series. I've also heard some say non-return valves can get stuck and get you in trouble but not sure how true that is.. Maybe it's simply a cost thing?

[Cloudee]

The issue I see in the Chippie though is if a non-return valve fails and you roll/bank the aircraft, you risk losing a tank-full overboard. With no "Both", this can't happen in a PA28.
If you fly in balance why would any fuel go overboard? Cessna fuel systems don’t have a non return valve and I’ve yet to lose fuel overboard even with prolonged circling on photographic flights.

[Dora-9]

Pipercameron,

Note that with your drawing the vent slot/fairing/pipe arrangement was a retrofit item introduced around 1953; so that all the original Chipmunks that came to Australian aero clubs did not have this (the RAF understandably didn't bother to install this on aircraft already ear-marked for disposal). This installation was intended to pressurize the tanks to ensure even feeding. Certainly the RVAC (at least) modified their Chipmunks without the vent to have a L/R/OFF selector.

If the fuel cock is lower than the tanks then it's only very very marginally so. On visual inspection I'd argue that it's at the same level.

And lastly, despite what the Pilot's Notes say, I know of at least one instance where with one tank empty and the other full (surely this evolving situation would have rung alarm bells to the pilot?) the engine failed.

[Clinton McKenzie]

That's some very telling (and expert) background, Dora-9.

We've therefore established that the two nominated low wing exceptions to the rule so far - Commander 114 and Chipmunk - have a basic flaw in the original fuel system design.

[PiperCameron]

Pipercameron,

Note that with your drawing the vent slot/fairing/pipe arrangement was a retrofit item introduced around 1953; so that all the original Chipmunks that came to Australian aero clubs did not have this (the RAF understandably didn't bother to install this on aircraft already ear-marked for disposal). This installation was intended to pressurize the tanks to ensure even feeding. Certainly the RVAC (at least) modified their Chipmunks without the vent to have a L/R/OFF selector.

That's interesting.. I was wondering what all that was for. Thanks for the info! :ok:

[PiperCameron]

If you fly in balance why would any fuel go overboard? Cessna fuel systems don’t have a non return valve and I’ve yet to lose fuel overboard even with prolonged circling on photographic flights.

Fair point.. but who would want to fly a fully-aerobatic aircraft like a Chipmunk in balance? Slips (especially slips to land) are all just part of the fun!! :)

I don't fly Cessnas but I have heard that, for the reason you mention, you do need to park them level to top off the tanks.. true?

[43Inches]

The Romans figured this stuff out over 2000 years ago, it's not that hard. Fluid likes to flow downhill with gravity, if the tank (inlet) is higher than the outlet it all works fantastically, if not, you have to wait until complicated 18th century steam pumping to make it all work, and that even just involved pumping it back to a height it could flow downhill again. So you pick it up from a single sump where gravity deposits it and pump it upwards to a point it flows down again. All extra complications and weight you don't need in a simple light aircraft. Any extra holes in the system between point A and B add complications where fluid will either leak out of or air leaks in.