G/A Light Aircraft ditches off Leighton Beach, WA
Sorry laziness or stupidness? Bet your punters love flying with you
The following 2 users liked this post by megan:
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Cloudee
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.
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.
Originally Posted by PiperCameron
Is this in a PA-28 - or something else? Maybe your aircraft has aileron trim??
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.
The following users liked this post:
I would be more nervous flying a brand new engine than an older, well maintained one.
or keep a written log of fuel consumed from each tank during the flight.
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
DF.
The following users liked this post:
The following 3 users liked this post by VH-MLE:
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.
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.
The following 3 users liked this post by 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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
“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.
This is a distinctly Piper challenge.. those in Textronland have other issues.
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?
The following 2 users liked this post by poteroo:
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?
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.
The following 2 users liked this post by Capt Fathom:
I’d give you a like, but for the misused apostrophe…
The following 6 users liked this post by Lead Balloon: