Fxed Reserve Use.
CASA would be pretty hard pressed to get any substantial evidence to go for a prosecution if a pilot was short 1 litre (or even 10!) of the minimum fixed reserve. The pilot would have enough other alternative tools in the shed to provide for a reasonable defence if he/she were smart enough, i.e. inaccurate fuel gauges, dipstick calibration not correct, previous fuel uplift/usage not recorded accurately, fuel bowser/truck meter not accurate, aircraft may not have been parked on level ground, temperature variation, etc, etc, etc. However if the pilot ran the tanks dry during taxi post flight that would hold water for a potential prosecution.
If your payload won't allow you to carry enough fuel, simple answer is get a bigger aircraft that will, or split the trips and do two.
My fuel policy is not to run out of fuel, and part of the process I use is to work back from my fixed reserve, not into it.
If your payload won't allow you to carry enough fuel, simple answer is get a bigger aircraft that will, or split the trips and do two.
My fuel policy is not to run out of fuel, and part of the process I use is to work back from my fixed reserve, not into it.
Rubbish.
The digital flowmeter in my bugsmasher is calibrated to +/- 1 litre in 300. Either that, or all the fuel bowser flowmeters at all the aerodromes around Australia are as precisely inaccurate as the one in my bugsmasher.
I much prefer evidence based decision making, and the accident/incident evidence (both Australian and internationally) speaks for itself, hence the concept of fixed final reserve. You know, as well as I do, where to find said evidence.
As for the joker that thinks it doesn't go quiet, all I can say, from my experience, that there is a marked reduction in noise level when the engine is suddenly sucking a fuel/air ration of 0:1.
Tootle pip!!
You originally said "it all goes 'orribly quiet when you run out". In fact, it doesn't.
That's why you changed the story to "marked reduction". The only thing "marked" about it is how little the noise level changes.
You originally said that light aircraft fuel measurement systems, including flowmeters, are notoriously inaccurate; even more so than on heavy metal. In fact, good systems on bugsmashers are highly accurate.
That's why you did the usual trick of trying to confuse with irrelevancies.
You should try practising your preference in this case. 
That's why you changed the story to "marked reduction". The only thing "marked" about it is how little the noise level changes.
You originally said that light aircraft fuel measurement systems, including flowmeters, are notoriously inaccurate; even more so than on heavy metal. In fact, good systems on bugsmashers are highly accurate.
That's why you did the usual trick of trying to confuse with irrelevancies.
I much prefer evidence based decision making.
I'm confused at the comments where it says that when the motion lotion runs out, the prop keeps spinning at the same RPM... what the? Are we talking a PT6 or something?
Shouldn't be an issue in a single !
I'm confused at the comments where it says that when the motion lotion runs out, the prop keeps spinning at the same RPM... what the? Are we talking a PT6 or something?
Here's what happens to your RPM when you're cruising along, fat dumb and happy in your e.g. C210 with the RPM set to e.g. 2350 and the fuel runs out: The RPM stays at 2350.
Here's what happens to your RPM when you're cruising along, fat dumb and happy in your e.g. C152 with the RPM at 2200 and the fuel runs out: The RPM does NOT go to zero.
In neither case does it become "'orribly quiet".
I realise that's counter-intuitive and therefore breaches the rules of aviation folklore.
But facts are ... facts.
For anyone who's interested in facts rather than folklore: Pelican's Perch #7:<br>Run That Fuel Tank Dry! - AVweb Features Article.
We're talking about many thousands of typical piston/propellor combinations fitted to many thousands of typical GA aircraft.
Here's what happens to your RPM when you're cruising along, fat dumb and happy in your e.g. C210 with the RPM set to e.g. 2350 and the fuel runs out: The RPM stays at 2350.
Here's what happens to your RPM when you're cruising along, fat dumb and happy in your e.g. C152 with the RPM at 2200 and the fuel runs out: The RPM does NOT go to zero.
In neither case does it become "'orribly quiet".
I realise that's counter-intuitive and therefore breaches the rules of aviation folklore.
But facts are ... facts.
Here's what happens to your RPM when you're cruising along, fat dumb and happy in your e.g. C210 with the RPM set to e.g. 2350 and the fuel runs out: The RPM stays at 2350.
Here's what happens to your RPM when you're cruising along, fat dumb and happy in your e.g. C152 with the RPM at 2200 and the fuel runs out: The RPM does NOT go to zero.
In neither case does it become "'orribly quiet".
I realise that's counter-intuitive and therefore breaches the rules of aviation folklore.
But facts are ... facts.
The author of that article needs to realise that not all engines and aircraft perform equally.
Now please, folks. I'm not talking about running a tank dry when it's the only tank in the airplane! Nor when it's the last tank with fuel in it!
For example, in order to stop the prop on my Bonanza (IO-550, three bladed prop), I have to kill the mags, or stop the fuel (mixture or fuel valve), pull the prop control all the way back, extend full flaps, and fly very near the stall for many seconds with the throttle closed (makes the engine have to suck a little harder). Once the prop stops, I can fly at about 95 knots without the prop starting to windmill again.
The author of that article needs to realise that not all engines and aircraft perform equally.
Some readers have blasted me on the checklist columns about single-pilot operations, saying "Well, how about the A-26, or the single-pilot Citation?" Folks, there are exceptions to every rule, and if you haven't got the smarts to figure that out, you not only shouldn't be reading this column, you probably shouldn't be flying (or even walking).
But hopefully you've at least learnt that the prop on Mr Deakin's Bonanza doesn't stop just cause the motion lotion runs out? Now ask yourself how many thousands of GA aircraft have similar engine/prop combinations.
In what aircraft type/s have you had it "get quiet", Aero? The ones I've done it in don't.
PS: Yes Eddie. I think Squawk's being obtuse.
For anyone who's interested in facts rather than folklore: Pelican's Perch #7:<br>Run That Fuel Tank Dry! - AVweb Features Article.
Does this really need explaining?
Every piston engine of flown gets quiet just when I pull the power back idle.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....... When the power gets pulled back to idle.
is this in the air or on ground.
With headset on and flying, I can't detect any change other than on gauge.
On a direct drive engine there is no change in compression, alternator output or accessory drives. All indications and inherent noise levels stay the same.
But then I may be wrong just like John Deakin.
is this in the air or on ground.
With headset on and flying, I can't detect any change other than on gauge.
On a direct drive engine there is no change in compression, alternator output or accessory drives. All indications and inherent noise levels stay the same.
But then I may be wrong just like John Deakin.
Could this be due to noise cancelling headsets? I've never used one in a piston.
I've had three engines stop, two were in Tiger Moths and one was in a Victor Air Tourer. Two of the incidents were at very low speed and resulted in the prop stopping. The other, in a Tiger Moth, was at cruise speed and was caused by the passenger accidentally turning the fuel off. The prop kept turning of course but the change in noise from the engine was significant enough that it immediately caught my attention.
Are those of you saying the noise stays the same suggesting that an engine failure would go unnoticed if you weren't looking at the engine gauges?
Remember we are talking singles here so no second engine to mask the change in noise.
I've had three engines stop, two were in Tiger Moths and one was in a Victor Air Tourer. Two of the incidents were at very low speed and resulted in the prop stopping. The other, in a Tiger Moth, was at cruise speed and was caused by the passenger accidentally turning the fuel off. The prop kept turning of course but the change in noise from the engine was significant enough that it immediately caught my attention.
Are those of you saying the noise stays the same suggesting that an engine failure would go unnoticed if you weren't looking at the engine gauges?
Remember we are talking singles here so no second engine to mask the change in noise.
So, even if the fuel stops, the "suck, squeeze, bang, blow" of the normal internal combustion process continues.
Here's a clue for you, prop rpm isn't the only thing making a noise up the front.
Here's a clue for you. The combustion events are not the only source of noise up the front either.
Every piston engine of flown gets quiet just when I pull the power back idle.
When that C210 or Mr Deakin's Bonanza cruising at 2350 RPM runs a tank dry, there are lots of indications that it's happened, notwithstanding that the prop keeps turning at 2350. There will be a change in noise, but it ain't to "orribly quiet", and it will be mostly as a consequence of the prop fining up to maintain 2350 RPM. (The IAS, EGT, CHT and fuel flow indications might be dropping gentle hints too.)
This is wrong, slightly. There is no "bang" if there is no fuel.
I think we all knew what Lead Sled meant by "'orribly quiet". Less noise and an uncomfortable feeling in one's bowel end. To disagree with him because his definition of quiet doesn't match yours is taking the piss.
When an ATO simulates an engine failure by pulling the throttle on my aircraft, it gets 'orribly noisy. Undercarriage alarms.
When an ATO simulates an engine failure by pulling the mixture on my aircraft, the noise doesn't change that much at all. It's just like when I run a tank dry...
I'm not talking about the difference in noise when idling on the runway compared with full power for take off. I'm not talking about the difference in noise when 60 knots and idle RPM over the threshold on landing, compared with full power at take off.
I'm talking about the sound in the cockpit in the cruise at 160kts TAS and a CSU set to some RPM other than full, at cruise fuel flow, compared with the sound in the cockpit when the fuel runs out.
An astonishing number of pilots think the prop will stop. An astonishing number of pilots think the noise will stop.
Perhaps fewer pilots would be involved in fuel exhaustion and starvation incidents if there was a better (some?) understanding of how the engines and fuel systems on aircraft actually work, and their failure modes.
When an ATO simulates an engine failure by pulling the mixture on my aircraft, the noise doesn't change that much at all. It's just like when I run a tank dry...
I'm not talking about the difference in noise when idling on the runway compared with full power for take off. I'm not talking about the difference in noise when 60 knots and idle RPM over the threshold on landing, compared with full power at take off.
I'm talking about the sound in the cockpit in the cruise at 160kts TAS and a CSU set to some RPM other than full, at cruise fuel flow, compared with the sound in the cockpit when the fuel runs out.
An astonishing number of pilots think the prop will stop. An astonishing number of pilots think the noise will stop.
Perhaps fewer pilots would be involved in fuel exhaustion and starvation incidents if there was a better (some?) understanding of how the engines and fuel systems on aircraft actually work, and their failure modes.