Quality of ATSB reports getting worse?
If the aircraft was being run full rich all the time, that's a dangerous practice that should have been highlighted as such by the ATSB.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bendigo, Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see what's wrong with the report - what's missing?
You really don't get it, do you!
Fuel gauge indicating 50% in Right Hand tank = 25% fuel available and the noise stops..... and you don't want to know why.
The planned fuel consumption, the electronic gadgetry and the fuel indication were probably in close alignment with the expected endurance remaining - which is how we operate aeroplanes.
Over different terrain, this could have been a fatal accident.
full rich all the time, that's a dangerous practice - What?!
Fuel gauge indicating 50% in Right Hand tank = 25% fuel available and the noise stops..... and you don't want to know why.
The planned fuel consumption, the electronic gadgetry and the fuel indication were probably in close alignment with the expected endurance remaining - which is how we operate aeroplanes.
Over different terrain, this could have been a fatal accident.
full rich all the time, that's a dangerous practice - What?!
I think people should take another look at First Principals post because it is the most sensible I have read. The 75ltr/min figure was what the pilot planned on, there is no mention of what the inflight figure was. From my point of view the report is all about being aware of how much fuel you actually have before departure and being aware at all times how much is left. Who in their right mind relies on the fuel gauges of light aircraft anyway?
All of that points to the fact that the assumptions made were obviously incorrect. Unless there was a fuel leak somewhere, if the pilot overestimated how much fuel was on board then all the other assumptions are incorrect. The electronic wizardy is only as ggod as the information put into it. It applies to airliners as much as light aircraft.
The planned fuel consumption, the electronic gadgetry and the fuel indication were probably in close alignment with the expected endurance remaining
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who in their right mind relies on the fuel gauges of light aircraft anyway?
If the gauges are not reliable, the aircraft is unairworthy. Write them up and get them fixed, whether or not the aircraft is 'light'.
One of the more well known is Air Canada 143, aka the Gimli Glider. As I recall this new 767 had a fault with all of the fuel gauges but was still able to operate if the fuel quantities were calculated as sufficient for the proposed flight. While in this instance the ensuing miscalculations resulted in a major incident the point first of all is that 'light' or not, gauges are not necessarily required, nor are they infallible.
This is why I return to my earlier comment - dipping the tanks prior to a flight, particularly of any duration, is a no-brainer. It costs a couple of minutes of time perhaps, but could save an awful lot of grief. And if there's any lingering question, do it en route if/when you land - something else that could be taken from this report if you'd care to, the data is there...
FP.
This is why I return to my earlier comment - dipping the tanks prior to a flight, particularly of any duration, is a no-brainer. It costs a couple of minutes of time perhaps, but could save an awful lot of grief.
right
Aircraft owners have the moral responsibility to do their bit and supply fuel tank dip sticks. After all, it is in their financial interest to keep the fuel gauges serviceable and thus lessen the chance of someone running out of fuel due to a defective fuel gauge. Having said that, if dip sticks are part of the aircraft equipment it would be good airmanship (Non technical Skills, if you prefer that buzz-word) for pilots to use them.
Last edited by Centaurus; 27th Aug 2017 at 02:13.
full rich all the time, that's a dangerous practice - What?!
Ironically in this case, the actual hourly fuel consumption was probably higher than the (very rich-for-cruise) 75 litres per hour assumed for planning. By my count, there were 5 take offs and a number of very short legs. During all of those take-offs and climbs I'm assuming it was 'balls to the wall', in which case the engine was gobbling in the order of 100 litres per hour (unless the pilot was using the target EGT leaning during climb technique, but even then the fuel consumption would have been much higher than 75 litres per hour during take off and climb.
For example, I'm pretty confident that during the 30 minute flight from Katalpa to Pine View Station the aircraft consumed more (a lot more) than 37.5 litres.
Fuel consumption for a 4.5 hour trip with one take off and landing is vastly different than a 4.5 hour trip with 5 take-offs and landings (including manoeuvring in the circuit and taxiing at each).
Furthermore, the thinking owner / pilot will be doing periodic cross checks of refuel quantities with gauge readings.
I have tabled every fuel tank calibration that out Seneca has had in its life and there is very little variation. In fact I would suggest that the major variotiin is caused by LAME's who don't know how to do it properly.
Then of course there is the $2 piece of wood Dowling that every aircraft should have as a calibrated dipstick. Once again, it probably only takes 6-10 refuels to draw a calibration line.
Gee - maybe it would be a safety enhancement if the ATSB published some tips about this??
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were they always this bad?
A few examples from that report linked to by MagnumPI:
Passing 12 NM (22 km) on approach to Mildura, the pilot made a broadcast to advise that they
were approaching the airport. The pilot reported that during the approach, the AWIS indicated that
the cloud base was varying between 1,000 ft and 3,000 ft. Therefore, the pilot decided to
approach Mildura overhead to observe the conditions.
were approaching the airport. The pilot reported that during the approach, the AWIS indicated that
the cloud base was varying between 1,000 ft and 3,000 ft. Therefore, the pilot decided to
approach Mildura overhead to observe the conditions.
Approaching Mildura, and with the AWIS now indicated a cloud base varying between 1,000 ft and 3,000 ft, the decision was made to observe the conditions from overhead the aerodrome.
Note that this simpler form has avoided the dreadful "the pilot" altogether.
Yes, the ATSB are politically correct too, and will go to whatever lengths it takes to avoid divulging genders, but this attitude has been taken to ridiculous lengths in this report. The phrase "the pilot" appears 31 times in this short report. The gender-neutral "they" also appears an excessive number of times, and on many of these occasions, the usage is wrong. Wrong because "they" means "more than one".
Examples:
The pilot reported that the aircraft was parked with the left wing low at the fuel point and when they
refuelled the fuel tanks in the wings, so they might have stopped before the tanks were full.
refuelled the fuel tanks in the wings, so they might have stopped before the tanks were full.
On approach,
they noticed there were powerlines on both sides of the road and changed their landing site to a
nearby paddock.
they noticed there were powerlines on both sides of the road and changed their landing site to a
nearby paddock.
A poorly written report. Makes one long for the Macarthur Job days. Now don't get me started on the quality of their investigations.
I have had only one inaccurate fuel gauge indication, on one flight, in 32 years of flying GA aircraft.
And did you rely on the other fuel gauges to determine how much fuel you considered was remaining in the tanks?
The ATSB reports are not written for pilots but for the "man on the Clapham omnibus" Literacy skills are not that good in society genarally so the report serves its purpose. Even newspapers are written for the reading ability of a 12 year old. If the message of the report was to inform Joe average that pilots should be certain of how much fuel is in the fuel tanks instead of assuming how much there is, then job done from what I can tell. All the other discussion on the number of times the word pilot appears is just intellectual pontificating!
The ATSB reports are not written for pilots but for the "man on the Clapham omnibus" Literacy skills are not that good in society genarally so the report serves its purpose. Even newspapers are written for the reading ability of a 12 year old. If the message of the report was to inform Joe average that pilots should be certain of how much fuel is in the fuel tanks instead of assuming how much there is, then job done from what I can tell. All the other discussion on the number of times the word pilot appears is just intellectual pontificating!
And did you rely on the other fuel gauges to determine how much fuel you considered was remaining in the tanks?
As to whether the report serves its purpose, unnecessary waffle distracts and therefore detracts from the effectiveness of safety messages.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the other discussion on the number of times the word pilot appears is just intellectual pontificating!
It appears that, since the days of the Macarthur Job and the Aviation Safety Digest there has already been considerable dumbing down in the area of ATSB reports and investigations.
The problem with dumbing down is that there is no end to it. You either accept a standard, and work to maintain that standard, or allow the open-ended dumbing down, resulting in wordy reports that fail to convey the message effectively.
I'm no more in favour of dumbing down writing skills than you are but I have noticed a continuing trend for people to attack any report emanating from the ATSB instead of discussing the incident reported on. Are you saying that you are confused about what happened? Do you not understand the significance of being aware of your fuel state at all times? That's the message I took from the report. If you are getting bogged down in where the full stop should be or how many times the word pilot appears then you might as well stop reading any report the ATSB publishes.
There is nothing new under the sun so if you want to learn from other people's misfortune then just re-read the ASD. Running out of fuel is nothing new.
There is nothing new under the sun so if you want to learn from other people's misfortune then just re-read the ASD. Running out of fuel is nothing new.