Plane ditches off Brampton Island
Even the Queenairs i used to fly(remember the Mercedes of the Sky's) had a simple on-off-crossfeed system even you grasshoppers would get it right.
I know of at least one "grasshopper" who got it wrong - had a double engine failure - thus ending his life cycle!
Dr
Can one of the Moderators please close this thread. It's turned into a pi55ing contest between drivers that flew a similar type sometimes over 5 years ago.
Instead We should just get it over and done with and have a thread entitled "MINE'S BIGGER THAN YOURS!"
Instead We should just get it over and done with and have a thread entitled "MINE'S BIGGER THAN YOURS!"
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad all you guys know the fuel system so well. Is that that went wrong? I will wait for the outcome, but in the interim, well done to the Captain for handeling a very crappy situation so well, whatever the outcome
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting
I think there have been at least two pipers ditched in the Pacific ocean sucessfully, and now this one. The occupants survived in every case.
I think tricycle gear aircraft which touch down on the mainwheels first would behave better than taildraggers which have the wheels ahead of the C of G. Just theory though. I have never done it.
I flew Cherokee sixes when they were new, and my memory tells me that we took off and landed using ANY tank, and used the fuel tanks in any order. I was a bit concerned about the ability of the aileron to hold up a full tip tank if the opposite one was empty, so I gradually experimented with it until I had proved that it could. We had no limiting Zero fuel weight, and one of the aircraft could carry 50 pounds less than it's own weight. We could actually fill all the seats and all the fuel tanks. (pax were considered to weigh 170 pounds each in those days. They weren't so fat)
I just dug out the piper "information manual" and I note that it recommends taking off and landing using the "fullest tank". It recommends using fuel out of left and right main tanks alternately, and then the tips in the same way to maintain balance. It seems that this was changed later as another chapter states that you should fill tips first, and use mains first. The PA32 fuel system is simple, but you have four tanks to choose from, and it is easy to select an empty one.
I cannot remember, but I think the flight manual now has different data, and I wondered if this is another "unique Australian" requirement.
CASA insists that the wing spars in the PA32 must be changed after 11,000 hours, althoygh Piper says they should be inspected at 70,000 hours. CASA will not even accept the pipoer inspection system.
I think tricycle gear aircraft which touch down on the mainwheels first would behave better than taildraggers which have the wheels ahead of the C of G. Just theory though. I have never done it.
I flew Cherokee sixes when they were new, and my memory tells me that we took off and landed using ANY tank, and used the fuel tanks in any order. I was a bit concerned about the ability of the aileron to hold up a full tip tank if the opposite one was empty, so I gradually experimented with it until I had proved that it could. We had no limiting Zero fuel weight, and one of the aircraft could carry 50 pounds less than it's own weight. We could actually fill all the seats and all the fuel tanks. (pax were considered to weigh 170 pounds each in those days. They weren't so fat)
I just dug out the piper "information manual" and I note that it recommends taking off and landing using the "fullest tank". It recommends using fuel out of left and right main tanks alternately, and then the tips in the same way to maintain balance. It seems that this was changed later as another chapter states that you should fill tips first, and use mains first. The PA32 fuel system is simple, but you have four tanks to choose from, and it is easy to select an empty one.
I cannot remember, but I think the flight manual now has different data, and I wondered if this is another "unique Australian" requirement.
CASA insists that the wing spars in the PA32 must be changed after 11,000 hours, althoygh Piper says they should be inspected at 70,000 hours. CASA will not even accept the pipoer inspection system.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: W.A
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy,
All PA-32 Cherokee Six aircraft have a ZFW and always have! If you have any doubt read the TCDS 'Type Certifcate Data Sheet' as published by the FAA.
Read AD PA-32/42 re Wing Spar issues. The figure is based on predictive anyalsis of fatigue testing. The spar has been tested and found wanting.
When carrying out a 'predictive analysis', no account is taken into consideration for poor maintenance, heavy or abnormal landings, over gross ops, abuse of ZFW limits, corrossion, manufacturing defects. If you want 70,000 hrs on the spar then leave the aircraft in the hangar and never fly it.
The problem is that early aircraft in this series were very hard to inspect and more often than not problems with the spar were detected by simply placing a small 'straight edge' against the main spar in the vicinity of the lightning holes. In hundreds of cases this has shown a bent or deformed spar, not recogniseable externally.
The safety of these aircraft is dependent upon correct operating techniques and maintenance. CASA have a lot to answer for when they scrapped the 3 yearly major inspection. Fortunately there are operators who 'slip' the cables every three years at most and also remove the wing tanks and tip tanks (if fitted) every few years. But then again there are those that don't.
All PA-32 Cherokee Six aircraft have a ZFW and always have! If you have any doubt read the TCDS 'Type Certifcate Data Sheet' as published by the FAA.
Read AD PA-32/42 re Wing Spar issues. The figure is based on predictive anyalsis of fatigue testing. The spar has been tested and found wanting.
When carrying out a 'predictive analysis', no account is taken into consideration for poor maintenance, heavy or abnormal landings, over gross ops, abuse of ZFW limits, corrossion, manufacturing defects. If you want 70,000 hrs on the spar then leave the aircraft in the hangar and never fly it.
The problem is that early aircraft in this series were very hard to inspect and more often than not problems with the spar were detected by simply placing a small 'straight edge' against the main spar in the vicinity of the lightning holes. In hundreds of cases this has shown a bent or deformed spar, not recogniseable externally.
The safety of these aircraft is dependent upon correct operating techniques and maintenance. CASA have a lot to answer for when they scrapped the 3 yearly major inspection. Fortunately there are operators who 'slip' the cables every three years at most and also remove the wing tanks and tip tanks (if fitted) every few years. But then again there are those that don't.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
????
It's strange that Piper, who made the aircraft don't seem to know about some of these things. The Piper information manual (Report VB-830) states that the zero fuel weight limitation applies to aircraft serial numbers 32 7740001 through 32-7840202.
Last time I checked, Australia was the only place where the wing spar was considered such a problem. A "unique Australian" AD. I did check with people in the USA and no one knew about any such AD there. I flew, owned and operated these air craft for quit e few years. I never heard of any that had wing spar problems, except for the AD.
Last time I checked, Australia was the only place where the wing spar was considered such a problem. A "unique Australian" AD. I did check with people in the USA and no one knew about any such AD there. I flew, owned and operated these air craft for quit e few years. I never heard of any that had wing spar problems, except for the AD.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cairns
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Axtec and Cherokee drivers out there that like to use "tips as mains" instead of the inners.
Try this
Taxy down runway and do rolling takeoff out of the 180 degree turn.
A partially filled tip will uncover the fuel line and affected engine will give you the silent treatment at 150-200 feet for quite a few seconds.
This very aircraft gave onlookers a fright at Hamilton Is. the friday before the ditching. 3-4 seconds of silence after t/O at 150 feet above runway.
Some very gun shy people in that hangar.
Try this
Taxy down runway and do rolling takeoff out of the 180 degree turn.
A partially filled tip will uncover the fuel line and affected engine will give you the silent treatment at 150-200 feet for quite a few seconds.
This very aircraft gave onlookers a fright at Hamilton Is. the friday before the ditching. 3-4 seconds of silence after t/O at 150 feet above runway.
Some very gun shy people in that hangar.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: AMONGST BRIGALOW SUCKERS
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Bushy...CASA insists that the wing spars in the PA32 must be changed after 11,000 hours, although Piper says they should be inspected at 70,000 hours. CASA will not even accept the piper inspection system.
Be careful saying that sort of stuff on here.... or you will encounter the ire of GAUNTY.
Be careful saying that sort of stuff on here.... or you will encounter the ire of GAUNTY.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nth Qld
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been a lot of emotionally attached people talking about the lack of professionalism in this thread. Id like to suggest that the true professional pilot can sit and theorise about what may or may not have happened. Think about how much the aviation industry and policies have changed through examining aviation accidents and incidents. Even if discussing a scenario that never happened brings the attention of some new pilot to the possibilities of what can happen then this tread has been of value. I know the theory of the fuel system has come up and caused some controversy but id like some feed back along the lines of this possibility.
I have found it alarming that at least 2 ATO’s and a hand full of instructors I have met refuse to teach trouble checks after having an engine failure. Checks like these MAY save “Possible” situations like this (if fuel system orientated). Also the number of pilots that are taught to flick the fuel pump on as a first response to any engine problem. How ever if fuel starvation is the cause turning the fuel pump on will just cause the ingestion of air into the system and take longer for the engine to come back to life when the tanks are changed causing loss of valuable altitude.
I have found it alarming that at least 2 ATO’s and a hand full of instructors I have met refuse to teach trouble checks after having an engine failure. Checks like these MAY save “Possible” situations like this (if fuel system orientated). Also the number of pilots that are taught to flick the fuel pump on as a first response to any engine problem. How ever if fuel starvation is the cause turning the fuel pump on will just cause the ingestion of air into the system and take longer for the engine to come back to life when the tanks are changed causing loss of valuable altitude.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel starvation
A 260 HP cherokee six has enough fuel in the carburettor to get airbourne. If the selected tank is empty, the engine quits shortly after becoming airbourne. (I know this) If you have a long taxi to the runway, it will probably quit before takeoff. We used to take advantage of the fuel in the carburettor (when cruising at height) to give us time to change tanks when we emptied one. (the 260 hp machines had a fuel pressure guage which would tell you exactly when the tank was empty) and you could change tanks after that with no interuption to the power.
The 300 hp models are fuel injected, and will quit quickly if you select an empty tank, or run one dry.
I never heard of any problems with power interuptions after a quick 180 degree turn although this is possible, and quick turns immediately before takeoff are not good practise.
This is not meant to be criticism of the aircraft or personell involved in the Brampton Island incident.
The 300 hp models are fuel injected, and will quit quickly if you select an empty tank, or run one dry.
I never heard of any problems with power interuptions after a quick 180 degree turn although this is possible, and quick turns immediately before takeoff are not good practise.
This is not meant to be criticism of the aircraft or personell involved in the Brampton Island incident.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have found it alarming that at least 2 ATO’s and a hand full of instructors I have met refuse to teach trouble checks after having an engine failure. Checks like these MAY save “Possible” situations like this (if fuel system orientated). Also the number of pilots that are taught to flick the fuel pump on as a first response to any engine problem. How ever if fuel starvation is the cause turning the fuel pump on will just cause the ingestion of air into the system and take longer for the engine to come back to life when the tanks are changed causing loss of valuable altitude.
Chas, I see this is your first post - full marks - I think you may be spot on here.
IMHO selection of alternate fuel tank before switching on aux pump should be taught - not the other way around!
Di
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Axtec and Cherokee drivers out there that like to use "tips as mains" instead of the inners.
Rolling, turning take-offs are prohibited in many aircraft and a bad idea in most.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ATSB have allocated an occurrence number (200802048) and the report can be found here:
200802048
However all it says at this stage is "The investigation is continuing"
Di
200802048
However all it says at this stage is "The investigation is continuing"
Di
In a nutshell this unfamiliar PA32 Cherokee Six CPL failed to study his fuel system in it's entirety and went into the drink after a tank ran dry, having insufficient time to reselect and get her going again.
Fantome,
In a nutshell, you're a peanut! Did you read the companies fuel management policies?
They were opposite to what Piper recommend and kept the reserves in a different tank?
Yep, peanut. With a fuel policy like that Ausjet are lucky it hasn't happenned before
Interesting to see how they changed their fuel policy after the ditching,, an admission of fault if I ever heard of one
J3
In a nutshell, you're a peanut! Did you read the companies fuel management policies?
They were opposite to what Piper recommend and kept the reserves in a different tank?
Yep, peanut. With a fuel policy like that Ausjet are lucky it hasn't happenned before
Interesting to see how they changed their fuel policy after the ditching,, an admission of fault if I ever heard of one
J3
Following the event, the aircraft operator amended Cherokee Six fuel procedures to require a minimum of 30 L of fuel in the selected fuel tank for any take off
Been a while since I flew one but I figure a 300hp Lyc has got to be chewing a similar amount of juice to a Conti, so 30 L is about 30 min flying at a high power setting. Doesn't leave much margin for error.
I have landed a couple of times with 30 min in a tank but I would never consider taking off on a tank with so little in it.
Doesn't "fill the tips and drain the mains" suggest anything.
Whatever happened to taking off on the fullest tank as a SOP?
Dr
PS: ..... and yes, as a matter of fact I have drained a tank dry in a PA32 - twice!