Crash Landing in Cunnamulla - two hurt.
Bottums Up
It's about 27 years since I've flown a PA28 but as best I can recall they TAS at about 110ish-120ish.
Straight line Lillydale Cunamulla is about 585nm, so I'd be guessing 5ish hours.
Straight line Lillydale Cunamulla is about 585nm, so I'd be guessing 5ish hours.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Those who have attended the Advanced Pilot Seminar course will know how highly animated....(zealot like) I get about a few very important engine management topics.
Two things stand out in this report, and I bet Aussie Bob, Jack Ranga, Rutan Around, Forkie, Ultralights, outnabout and a few others could easily work this out. ATSB of course missed them.
Just for the educational value, (for free-
) can anyone guess the things that we insist pilots and owners (yes this was rented) should do? And what any well educated pilot could have done to ensure this did not happen?
And I will be talking about this one in Perth in may you can be sure of it!
If you fly piston aircraft and can't answer this off the top of your head you need to PM me.
PS: The fuel burn information given to the pilot is surprisingly very accurate, and slightly better than the POH says, but that was not being achieved evidently. I wonder how this pilot was taught? My guess just like I was....badly.
Ohhh dear me, just been re-reading.....this report is yet another shocking report. I will be in CB tomorrow and will be looking for someone!!! This is a waste.
Two things stand out in this report, and I bet Aussie Bob, Jack Ranga, Rutan Around, Forkie, Ultralights, outnabout and a few others could easily work this out. ATSB of course missed them.
Just for the educational value, (for free-
) can anyone guess the things that we insist pilots and owners (yes this was rented) should do? And what any well educated pilot could have done to ensure this did not happen?And I will be talking about this one in Perth in may you can be sure of it!
If you fly piston aircraft and can't answer this off the top of your head you need to PM me.
PS: The fuel burn information given to the pilot is surprisingly very accurate, and slightly better than the POH says, but that was not being achieved evidently. I wonder how this pilot was taught? My guess just like I was....badly.
Ohhh dear me, just been re-reading.....this report is yet another shocking report. I will be in CB tomorrow and will be looking for someone!!! This is a waste.
Jaba I'm waiting with bated breath for your revelations on this deep dark mystery.
A pilot ran out of fuel in the dark in the middle of nowhere.
Fascinated to learn what the ATSB could have said above and beyond that report.
A pilot ran out of fuel in the dark in the middle of nowhere.
Fascinated to learn what the ATSB could have said above and beyond that report.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Blue Yonder
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the report Investigation: AO-2013-168 - Total power loss involving a Piper PA-28-161, VH-CCQ, 9 km N of Cunnamulla aerodrome, Qld on 1 October 2013
By the operator's numbers, 180L @ 30 LPH should have given 6 hours of fuel, yet they ran out after 4 hours 40 mins?? Either the tanks weren't really full, or the actual fuel burn was more like 38 LPH...
By the operator's numbers, 180L @ 30 LPH should have given 6 hours of fuel, yet they ran out after 4 hours 40 mins?? Either the tanks weren't really full, or the actual fuel burn was more like 38 LPH...
30 l/hr doesn't equate to 75% power which is what I would expect most pilots to use on a cross country flight.
From the dim distant past 33 to 35 l/hr comes to mind for 75% power and 115 KTAS for the Warrior. This gives a tad over 5 hours total, less reserves giving around 4 hours 40 safe endurance. Taking Capt Carets distance and assuming an average of 110 knots G/S (that's probably being generous unless there was a good tailwind most of the way) the flight time is around 5 hours 20. 125 knots G/S is still 4 hours 40.
Why, why, why, would you plan a flight likely to exceed your fuel limits. I suspect that since they were landing after last light (and perhaps running later than planned) there might have been a bit of throttle bashing going on as well. This does wonders for the fuel burn, NOT!!!!!!
I'd say he had it pretty well leaned as per the manufacturers figures for the powers setting he was using. It's my guess he was relying on poor information i.e. 30 l/hr which lead him to think he had 6 hours endurance and he was never taught or didn't remember that as you push the big black knob closer to the firewall the fuel consumption climbs.
From the dim distant past 33 to 35 l/hr comes to mind for 75% power and 115 KTAS for the Warrior. This gives a tad over 5 hours total, less reserves giving around 4 hours 40 safe endurance. Taking Capt Carets distance and assuming an average of 110 knots G/S (that's probably being generous unless there was a good tailwind most of the way) the flight time is around 5 hours 20. 125 knots G/S is still 4 hours 40.
Why, why, why, would you plan a flight likely to exceed your fuel limits. I suspect that since they were landing after last light (and perhaps running later than planned) there might have been a bit of throttle bashing going on as well. This does wonders for the fuel burn, NOT!!!!!!
I'd say he had it pretty well leaned as per the manufacturers figures for the powers setting he was using. It's my guess he was relying on poor information i.e. 30 l/hr which lead him to think he had 6 hours endurance and he was never taught or didn't remember that as you push the big black knob closer to the firewall the fuel consumption climbs.
Last edited by 27/09; 24th Mar 2014 at 22:22.
The PA28-140 i used to instruct on used to burn 32 lph and although I haven't flown a PA-28-161 for about 20 years I seem to recall 36lph.
Jaba will probably tell you if old mate had a JPI engine monitor he could have run it LOPTOPPOPCOPDOPFLOPPROPDROP with no VDOP at 3 lph.
Jaba will probably tell you if old mate had a JPI engine monitor he could have run it LOPTOPPOPCOPDOPFLOPPROPDROP with no VDOP at 3 lph.
Sorry, Jaba, I'm not with you on this one.
You are correct - an EDM, functioning and with a pilot who understands its use, is a wonderful piece of kit. I don't know if it was fitted to this aircraft.
However, in remote areas, I find it almost physically impossible to fly past a known source of avgas (in this case, Bourke? Griffith?) - with or without an EDM.
Beach King, to my mind, you are bang on the money. I believe this applies to IFR flights as well.
PS: 4 - 6 hours without a wee stop? Well done, those two on board!
You are correct - an EDM, functioning and with a pilot who understands its use, is a wonderful piece of kit. I don't know if it was fitted to this aircraft.
However, in remote areas, I find it almost physically impossible to fly past a known source of avgas (in this case, Bourke? Griffith?) - with or without an EDM.
Beach King, to my mind, you are bang on the money. I believe this applies to IFR flights as well.
PS: 4 - 6 hours without a wee stop? Well done, those two on board!
Bet he didn't need a wee stop (or a poo stop) once that engine went quiet in the dark.
[T]he pilot selected an engine power setting of 65% and leaned the fuel mixture. …
How do you ‘select an engine power setting of 65%’ on a PA28?
There is no analysis or discussion of the variable that would have had the greatest impact on fuel consumption on a trip that long: What was the pilot’s leaning technique?
… He reported that the aircraft’s groundspeed and fuel flow correlated with the true airspeed (TAS) and fuel flow specified in the aircraft operating manual. …
The ‘pilot enroute fuel calculations’ table shows only 14 litres consumed during the period from take-off at 1420 until 1500. There’s no way that baby consumed only 14 litres during the 40 minutes that included a climb from around sea level to 8,500’. Even at a (wrongly) assumed cruise consumption rate of 27 LPH for the climb phase, that’s 18 litres not 14. Depending on leaning technique during the climb (in this case, probably the ‘do nothing with the red knob’ method), I reckon she would have burnt at least twice that during that phase.
If the aircraft indeed had 180 litres useable before taxi, I reckon at 1500 she would have had only about 140 litres usable left (around 5 litres taxi and around 35 litres for the climb to 8,500’ plus some cruise time). If your leaning method is ‘lean until the engine runs ‘rough’ and enrich until ‘smooth’, plus a twist for Mum and the kids’, you could be burning 35 litres an hour rather than the assumed 27. Around 4 hours later ….
Calculating actual fuel consumed based on a constant ‘nominal’ rate is always going to produce hit-and-miss results, especially on long trips and especially if mixture isn’t managed meticulously. On this occasion it appears to have produced a ‘miss’.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much to add, except to note that my sanity check number for cross-country in a similar aircraft was 36 lph. And it'd be 38 lph for a local flight, with the need to have some flexibility in the Sunday afternoon pie run, or whatever.
The nice gear (fuel flow etc) and fancy leaning is good to have and do, but in the end it's the sanity check number, based on experience with a particular aircraft, which would dictate my fuel stop policy. If I didn't know the aircraft, I'm afraid the ultra-conservative fuel burn would have to be my default. After all, even with a fuel flow meter, how do you know the calibration is good until you've checked it yourself with a dipstick or bowser total over a few trips?
I'm finding it hard to imagine not stopping at Bourke - like Outnabout, my antennas would have been twitching at that point. And to cap it all off, it was NVFR for the last segment. I know that it's easy to fall into the holier than thou mode but this one does leave me wondering. I guess it is a version of the press-on-itis syndrome. In the end, the only positive is that the injuries were minor.
It reminds me to do another check of my FS450, but I'm afraid the dipstick remains king! (And I do mean the wooden dipstick....).
The nice gear (fuel flow etc) and fancy leaning is good to have and do, but in the end it's the sanity check number, based on experience with a particular aircraft, which would dictate my fuel stop policy. If I didn't know the aircraft, I'm afraid the ultra-conservative fuel burn would have to be my default. After all, even with a fuel flow meter, how do you know the calibration is good until you've checked it yourself with a dipstick or bowser total over a few trips?
I'm finding it hard to imagine not stopping at Bourke - like Outnabout, my antennas would have been twitching at that point. And to cap it all off, it was NVFR for the last segment. I know that it's easy to fall into the holier than thou mode but this one does leave me wondering. I guess it is a version of the press-on-itis syndrome. In the end, the only positive is that the injuries were minor.
It reminds me to do another check of my FS450, but I'm afraid the dipstick remains king! (And I do mean the wooden dipstick....).
Some things never seem to change, do they!
Back in the 70's, a PA28 crashed into a house just short of Archerfield aerodrome after a flight from Bankstown, with fatal consequences for some members of the family on board. At the time we could not understand how the pilot could have flown past Cooly with the fuel gages near empty, and not stop for fuel.
I am only writing this in the hope that it might save someone from finding themselves in the same predicament as outlined in this thread.
Its a good few years since I have flown a Warrior, but I seem to recall working on 5 hrs endurance.
I have flown a number of aeroplanes for maximum normal operating range, including the PA28. How do you do it safely? Well one way is to take-off with full fuel (obviously!), climb out and set up for cruise on one tank and then fly on that tank until it runs dry. Note the time that takes and then compare it to you remaining estimate to your destination plus reserves. If the numbers don't compute - have a fall-back plan to land and refuel. Ignore the extra fuel taken for the climb cause that will give you a hidden margin for error.
Dr
Back in the 70's, a PA28 crashed into a house just short of Archerfield aerodrome after a flight from Bankstown, with fatal consequences for some members of the family on board. At the time we could not understand how the pilot could have flown past Cooly with the fuel gages near empty, and not stop for fuel.
I am only writing this in the hope that it might save someone from finding themselves in the same predicament as outlined in this thread.
Its a good few years since I have flown a Warrior, but I seem to recall working on 5 hrs endurance.
I have flown a number of aeroplanes for maximum normal operating range, including the PA28. How do you do it safely? Well one way is to take-off with full fuel (obviously!), climb out and set up for cruise on one tank and then fly on that tank until it runs dry. Note the time that takes and then compare it to you remaining estimate to your destination plus reserves. If the numbers don't compute - have a fall-back plan to land and refuel. Ignore the extra fuel taken for the climb cause that will give you a hidden margin for error.
Dr
Creampuff
THe following:
....and the rest of your post is absolutely correct and well teased out. I fell into the trap of reading the BASI report as though the footnotes were pointing out the pilot's errors.
The report would have been far more useful and understandable to the lay person and other pilots alike if it was written along the lines of your post.
Are they deliberately phrasing it in a non-confrontational non-accusatory tone to avoid legal action?
...is the ATSB required to be non-defamatory?
What on earth does that mean?
How do you ‘select an engine power setting of 65%’ on a PA28?
There is no analysis or discussion of the variable that would have had the greatest impact on fuel consumption on a trip that long: What was the pilot’s leaning technique?
How do you ‘select an engine power setting of 65%’ on a PA28?
There is no analysis or discussion of the variable that would have had the greatest impact on fuel consumption on a trip that long: What was the pilot’s leaning technique?
Errrrm … the corresponding footnote says “the aircraft was not fitted with a fuel flow gauge”. How would the pilot have known what the actual fuel flow was in-flight?
The ‘pilot enroute fuel calculations’ table shows only 14 litres consumed during the period from take-off at 1420 until 1500. There’s no way that baby consumed only 14 litres during the 40 minutes that included a climb from around sea level to 8,500’. Even at a (wrongly) assumed cruise consumption rate of 27 LPH for the climb phase, that’s 18 litres not 14. Depending on leaning technique during the climb (in this case, probably the ‘do nothing with the red knob’ method), I reckon she would have burnt at least twice that during that phase.
The ‘pilot enroute fuel calculations’ table shows only 14 litres consumed during the period from take-off at 1420 until 1500. There’s no way that baby consumed only 14 litres during the 40 minutes that included a climb from around sea level to 8,500’. Even at a (wrongly) assumed cruise consumption rate of 27 LPH for the climb phase, that’s 18 litres not 14. Depending on leaning technique during the climb (in this case, probably the ‘do nothing with the red knob’ method), I reckon she would have burnt at least twice that during that phase.
The report would have been far more useful and understandable to the lay person and other pilots alike if it was written along the lines of your post.
Are they deliberately phrasing it in a non-confrontational non-accusatory tone to avoid legal action?
...is the ATSB required to be non-defamatory?
Select 65% power? Been a long time since I was in that Warrior but my recollection is that the relevant instructions are on the sun visor in front of the pilot. Look up the table then move lever to get the specified RPM.
A similar table in the POM of my old Decathlon with similar engine/prop combination.
A similar table in the POM of my old Decathlon with similar engine/prop combination.
For a few years I was involved with a fleet of PA28-161, we calculated average fuel burns every month as the fuel bills came in. The average consumption rates varied between about 28lph and 34lph. Strange enough the lower figure was for aircraft that spent most of the month in the circuit, mostly navex aircraft tended to be at the higher end. We set the published typical fuel burn for the type at 36lph for students to use.
Most of the fleet would get around 105ktas at 65%, which was the preferred power setting for navex, a few were faster and a few slower.
From the POH some figures, Best power - 75% = 10gph (38lph) 65% = 8.8gph (34lph) and the burn from sea level to 8500 from the climb chart indicates a burn of around 5usg which is just under 20lt over 20-25minutes.
Assuming the first 25 minutes was climb burning 20lt, and the a further 15 minutes at 34lph (65% leaned for piper "best power" benefit of the doubt), that would be a total of of around 29lts, not 14.
Most of the fleet would get around 105ktas at 65%, which was the preferred power setting for navex, a few were faster and a few slower.
From the POH some figures, Best power - 75% = 10gph (38lph) 65% = 8.8gph (34lph) and the burn from sea level to 8500 from the climb chart indicates a burn of around 5usg which is just under 20lt over 20-25minutes.
Assuming the first 25 minutes was climb burning 20lt, and the a further 15 minutes at 34lph (65% leaned for piper "best power" benefit of the doubt), that would be a total of of around 29lts, not 14.
Last edited by 43Inches; 25th Mar 2014 at 07:38.
The 161 I flew many hours in, had the power setting tables on the sunvisor.
From the performance tables I managed to dig up online 65% best power cruise, fuel consumption is 8.8 US GPH or about 33 l/hr and TAS at 9000 PAlt varies from 110 to 113 KTAS depending on model.
For 65% best economy cruise consumption is 7.5 US GPH or nearly 29 l/hr and TAS at 9000 PAlt 108 to 112 KTAS.
Best power range 45 mn reserve 515 nm to 535 nm no wind
Best economy range 45 reserve 585 nm to 615 nm no wind.
It doesn't matter which way you dice it, there's no way that flight could safely be done on one tank full without the aid of a decent and reliable tailwind and we all know how often that happens.
Edit: I went and had a read of the report. That aircraft must have had updated vastly improved fuel gauges, ....... he based his decision to carry on on the fuel guage readings. There's no light aircraft I know of except for perhaps the likes of a Piper Cub where I'd be that trusting on the guages and even then........
From the performance tables I managed to dig up online 65% best power cruise, fuel consumption is 8.8 US GPH or about 33 l/hr and TAS at 9000 PAlt varies from 110 to 113 KTAS depending on model.
For 65% best economy cruise consumption is 7.5 US GPH or nearly 29 l/hr and TAS at 9000 PAlt 108 to 112 KTAS.
Best power range 45 mn reserve 515 nm to 535 nm no wind
Best economy range 45 reserve 585 nm to 615 nm no wind.
It doesn't matter which way you dice it, there's no way that flight could safely be done on one tank full without the aid of a decent and reliable tailwind and we all know how often that happens.
Edit: I went and had a read of the report. That aircraft must have had updated vastly improved fuel gauges, ....... he based his decision to carry on on the fuel guage readings. There's no light aircraft I know of except for perhaps the likes of a Piper Cub where I'd be that trusting on the guages and even then........
Last edited by 27/09; 25th Mar 2014 at 07:53.