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. :ooh:

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-:E) 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.

link to the report please jaba.

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.

Guessing hear, being a total noob. But would mixture have anything to do with it?

This is stuff I need to learn.

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...

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.

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.

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!

Bet he didn't need a wee stop (or a poo stop) once that engine went quiet in the dark.

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?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.

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’. :(

The Jab has higher END & range doesn't it?

Could the JC-160 plan/figures have been used for the PA-28?
Surely not.

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....).

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 :8

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? :confused: :eek:

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.

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.

a question.
where could the pilot have refuelled on this flight?

Cobar?
Bourke?
Griffith?
Hay?
Deniliquin?
Tocumwal?
Shepparton?

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........

Don't forget to remove 7ktas for aircraft without wheel fairings, as this one looked like it at least had no nose wheel fairing.

Correct, I was trying to be generous.

So help me out here.

I've decided I want to cruise at "65% power". Is that a "best power" setting or a "best economy" setting?

How do I set "best power" and what percentages of power can I get there?

How do I set "best economy" and what percentages of power can I get there?

Leafie, Mate I had hoped not to have the smarty posts on this, ;) but I guess I am guilty of that too so, touché! I deliberatley wanted folk to think about it, and maybe not so much you but all the lurkers and noobe's out there that could learn from this.

Creamie is on the trail and I feel is holding back, or just lazy.

I was up at 3am, been to Canberra and back and just got home.....so will try to do this justice in the morning some time so that a sensible discussion can be had so we can all learn something. Because from the ATSB report we are learning nothing, well apart from a bunch of things that we should not be learning. :}

Considering these sums;

Aircraft ran out of fuel at 1900, departed at 1420, that's 4 hours 40 minutes flight time.

4.7 hrs burn at 36lph = 170ltrs
Add 5-10lt for additional climb fuel, 5lt for taxi and you have exceeded your 180ltrs available.

180 litres is the maximum usable fuel, 190 litres is the total including unusable fuel.

The aircraft ran out of fuel almost exactly at the point it should having followed the recommended (Piper POH) procedure for leaning for 65%-75% "best power".

If the operator had another way of leaning the aircraft to achieve 25-27lph or even 30lph, was the individual involved advised of this method. These are basically the cruise flows for 55% and 65% "best economy" setting, and I have rarely seen pilots that know how to do this properly.

Was the 30lph figure derived from airswitch, tacho or block time. Using block times for trainers results in very low actual fuel burn on short flights due to .3 spent taxiing around at very low fuel flow.

We never divulged the actual burn rates for our fleet as they were used for financial reasons, not flying maximum range in one day. The averages again depended greatly on what type of flying the aircraft had done. Students were given a conservative block rate at 36lph at 65%, basic leaning technique applied as per the piper manual. This figure being the POH 65% rate (for "best power" with a small margin), this also fitted in conservatively with actual records of usage. Further they should understand that higher power settings will result in more fuel burn, sounds simple.

In any case the report as stated previously does not reference to how the aircraft was leaned (or supposed to be leaned to achieve company stated burn). There is no mention of what instrumentation was available. There was no test done or results of such test published of the aircraft fuel gauges. The only fuel log appears to reflect just writing what was on the indicator.

Awwww, OK Jabba

From the inestimable John Deakin (here: Pelican's Perch #65<br>Where Should I Run My Engine?<br>(Part 3 -- Cruise) - AVweb Features Article)[Bolding added]

I think that this is all bollocks.
I did a 100km round trip to the airfield last night to sit in the piper warrior I did my cross country navs in.
we flew at 2500rpm leaned to peak rpm then tweaked back rich a turn or two.

straight forward physics says that this rpm for endurance is nonsense.
if you move a mass from point A to point B in a straight line in still air and you repeat the exercise at different speeds, you will use the same fuel in each case.
the only difference is that you burn the fuel at different rates.

if you set out to fly somewhere with insufficient fuel; changing your rpm settings will get you the same result just at a different time.

all sensible flying is done at best cruise speed which is usually the 2500rpm speed. the only time you need to be concerned to achieve the slowest fuel burn rate is when your destination airfield is socked in by some weather moving through and you need to loiter in the air to wait for clear landing conditions.

gods there is some dribble that passes for expertise these days. anyone would think you all worked for CASA.

I don't think the pilot involved was flying for maximum range in this instance. His original plan was to refuel at Bourke and then continue. When approaching Bourke the use of fuel gauges and an obviously wrong concept of the fuel flow and fuel remaining led him to the decision to continue.

2500rpm will work for best range at 12000ft, if you lean it by opening the throttle wide allow the engine to go past 2500rpm then lean the mixture back to 2500rpm. If you do that you may just make it to 700nm in still air (including descent into where ever you end up). I'm not going to get into where the egt lies relative to peak on this one, and don't forget to take off 7% if your wheel fairings are off for maintenance.

Really????? Need an explanation for that theory. Drag polars and the V squared thing have a role to play I would have thought.

W8

You are correct in some ways, as far as energy content required however, using ROP powers and pick any number but in this case 65% power you can have a fuel flow of anywhere from around 30LPH to maybe 45LPH just by pushing the mixture knob all the way in.

You are still making the same HP (within a few fractions of a HP albeit slightly less) and wasting a lot of fuel. In other words the BSFC is going up rapidly for no extra torque produced.

The next issue is to go faster you need more and more power, as Brian has just posted.

I have to say this, some of the posts so far have been of very high quality for pprune standards indeed. :)

Chocky from to 43" and well Creamie....he gets one but I expect him to be on the ball. :ok:

I did some notes while I had my muesli this morning, just need a few minutes to turn it into a post. Stand by. ;)

Wrong (and potentially fatally wrong) if the ‘mass’ of which you speak is an aircraft.

You need to go back to Basic Aeronautical Knowledge and revise the concepts of maximum range (distance travelled) and maximum endurance (time aloft).

If you want to ‘go far’ without running out of fuel, you have to fly the aircraft in the most aerodynamically efficient condition. That’s about minimising drag, which is (to the extent the pilot is in control of the variables) primarily about controlling airspeed.

Glider pilots are keenly aware of the concepts and the differences. (Why do you learn the glide speed for engine failures?)

Take two aircraft – let’s call them Warriors – and put the same fuel and other loads on board. They take off at the same time, at the same weight, and climb to the same altitude and head to the same destination 500nms away. One is cruising at the highest speed it can achieve, the other is cruising at the speed that minimises drag. Both have leaned the EGT to the same delta from peak.

The ‘fast’ aircraft will run out of fuel before the destination. The other aircraft will make it safely.

OK, this took 25 minutes (perp notes and calculations) while having breakky and a phone call interruption.

My point here is, and I am formally addressing this with ATSB is that with a little specialist knowledge these things can be given a much higher quality safety message. The current report is a lowly level 5, so it does not get any serious analysis and its nothing more than a rporting of information sent in.

My thought is that is a waste of time unless the report spells out the flaws or the reasons in what led to the accident so others can learn from it.

The ATSB is under financial pressure to reduce expenses, and they do not have any piston specialists anyway, so a priority is applied, and these reports get done as simple as they are. My frustration is it would not be hard to gain some knowledge in house or at least seek out where that specialist help is externally.

So lets begin with my back of beer coaster study (no beer was consumed with my muesli :) )

Departure was from Lilydale at 2.20pm and the exhaustion occured at 7pm abeam Cunnamulla some 580 miles north. The average speed was around 124 knots, and safe to assume a bit of tail wind was enjoyed.

Using fuel flows as a prudent well educated pilot would I believe the following would be a fair assessment. Take off flow Approx 59LPH and using a target EGT leaning in the climb a final flow rate would be around 40LPH. If left alone the volumetric flow rate change during the climb would have the FCU delivering maybe 10% more as the DA increased, so the effect of not leaning very well in the climb Vs doing it well is only going to be a few litres. Note this is for a Lycoming and a TCM is different.

With a climb of around 90 knots TAS average and say 20 minutes approximately this would yield a climb stage of 30 miles and 17 litres. Again subtle changes would have little affect. This means 550 to run from TOC to abeam CMU.

Guesstimate of TAS at the claimed 65% power and with know spats, based on POH performance data would yield about 115 plus or minus for spats etc. or lets say 110. Not that it matters much as GS is the critical key here, which was in the early 120's.

Using a best range fuel flow for the selected power/speed required, the engine would be set to 10dF LOP and burning 26-26.5 LPH. This is pretty much what the pilot claims he was told when he rented it. I believe the value to be correct advice, provided you knew how to operate the engine.

The range then would be calculated roughly as 30 miles for climb and a further 6.33 hours at 124kts GS as 790NM. YBCV is 678NM so this was achievable with a bit over over 55 min. reserve. But it had to be done right.

However, 65% power with Poor mixture control could be anything at that height ranging from say 33LPH at 75dF ROP to around 45LPH. I do not have the actual data but I do not think you can get any more than that into the engine at that height.

Based on 45LPH the range would be down to 480 miles or even at 33LPH around 660 miles. The pilot managed a distance of 580 miles so less the climb, that was 550 miles of cruise in 4.34 hrs (4.67-0.33 hrs), for an average of 38.7LPH.

The pilot seemed to be a Jabiru flyer so perhaps not much mixture knob experience and that would explain a lot when he claimed he leaned it, but who knows how much. And with so many pilots afraid of the red knob I can believe it. Heck I think back to when I was learning to fly.....nothing of value in the red knob education at all.

So it is all very believable how he got to where he was, and without an accurate fuel flow gauge or a very good margin for error, this was a bad decision passing Bourke.

Important to note that no pilot can trust the POH of any aircraft manufacturer when it comes to engine matters. Seriously they can't be trusted. So many are found to be either contradictory from one page to another or completely wrong. There is nothing to argue here, this is fact. The problem is which ones can you trust? And which parts can you trust, and the only safe assumption is trust none. They may well be accurate for take off charts and other procedures, and I am not in a position to critique them there, but in engine performance related sections you are foolish to believe everything you read. The secret here is to know how to critically appraise them. About 1-2% of pilots are. That leaves 98%, and very few instructors if any are in the 1-2%.

Case in pont in the Piper Warrior POH there are graphs that show performance for 55/65/75% Best Power Mixture, and for this example lets say the 75%
power as shown in the example. There are 75% best power and 75% Best Economy with two different TAS (122 & 118).......WTF?? :confused: 75% of 160HP is 120HP and iff you apply 120HP to that plane with the same prop, you get XXX.X knots TAS. How is it possible to get two different numbers? Simple answer it is not.

What is more they supply two different fuel flows to achieve each of these power settings, and that is fine but if you take the 65% power setting the Best Power which one can only assume means around 75dF ROP is 8.8GPH or 33.3LPH. They also show a 65% power Best Economy flow of 7.5GPH or 28.4LPH. Well the best BSFC for the engine will be slightly LOP, and at these powers around 10-20dF LOP which typically on the O-320 is found at 6.98 GPH or 26.4LPH.

Is it any wonder pilots have no idea? Given all the expertise has long gone from most organisations and it is all turbine/jet focussed is it any wonder ATSB are no better when it comes to good reports.

Last of all, and this pilot did not have the luxury of time to do this, but how often is the usable quantity IN FLIGHT tested? How do you know that the supposed 185 litres claimed to be usable is actually usable. The POH suggests 181-182 litres, but even then how can you trust this. The only way to know is at least once a year just prior to its annual is run a tank dry and refill. Best not to do both during the same flight if you only have two :uhoh:.

None of this is taught for PPL or CPL at any school I am aware of and it is certainly not in any texts.

The reason we do not have more of these problems is possibly through good luck than good training.

The Safety messages that should come out of the ATSB report are;
1. The importance of having accurately and regularly proven usable in flight fuel checks.
2. Having a decent engine monitor fitted and fuel flow with totalisation.
3. Pilots educated in proper engine management techniques and to be able to critically think when reading a POH. Having the understanding of engine fuel requirements and what the real leaning techniques are and how they should be applied.

Happy to take questions. Disclaimer: The above calculations are based on a very quick study over brekky and using my iphone calculator. I have not allowed for known weather, descent and any other small impact factors as they probably have no significant effect on the outcome. I could have made mistakes too as I have not double checked anything.

Had you considered that at best economy mixture on those graphs that max power is no longer 160 HP? Is it not true that at LOP the mixture can be used like the throttle?

who the hell ever flies at 65% power on a cross country?

2500 rpm, leaned and know the fuel flow.

back in the old days :E it wasn't that hard and no one ran out of fuel.

what is the limit of usable fuel??? who gives a fcuk. ever heard of 45 minutes reserve???

if the last two litres of usable fuel in the tank worry you then sonny jim you are incompetent. you are worrying about all the wrong things.

anyway I won't comment further other than to say that flying my aircraft between forest and ceduna at 120knots in still air then back the other way at 65 to 70 knots as safety for a warbird cub saw exactly the same fuel burn.
it was gawd awful slow though.
for the record the computed minimum drag speed for my aircraft is 80 knots.

you guys can be the experts from hell as far as I am concerned.
I fly the way I fly and that is it.

Very informative post Jaba.

Couldn't agree more about fuel flowmeters/totalisers. But, they should be crosschecked against actual tank fills every so often. They can be calibrated down to +/- 1%

Another point to watch is the accuracy of tachometers. Running an optical tacho over the panel top every so often might be revealing of errors in the panel tacho.

happy days,

Hey Dubbleyew, tis fine, you do it your way, we will do it the correct way! :ok:

Seriously, I think you know what you are doing. Fact is as Jabba pointed out, most pilots have very little understanding of the mixture knob and don't know what they are doing (with it). The crap I hear around the traps about mixture use makes me cringe. Jabba seems to have analyzed the event rather well.

27/09

Thanks for asking. :ok:I am not sure your question is making sense, but let me have a go and see if I clear it up for you. 75% power at any point on the graph is meant to be 75% of 160HP. Nothing else.

It is possible to create 75% ROP or LOP. Say you had 24.5" and 2500 RPM as a rough guess, this will be 75% power, and the mixture can be varied a lot while on the rich side of peak (and more the point from 75dF ROP and richer as power drops off once you are less than 75dF ROP) and the power is fundamentally unchanged.

It is also possible to achieve that same 120HP while LOP by having say 26.5" and 2500RPM and a fuel flow of 30.5 LPH which as a guess is going to be around 40dF LOP.

But no matter how you produce the 120HP, the airframe should do the same speed. It can't have two different TAS.

The laws of physics apply equally to all men/women and things!

By the way when you look at these POH graphs for the Piper (most models if not all, and many others, they say Best Economy, well that is completely false they are nowhere near it. And that I guess is determined by what you call close.

We spend an hour Sunday after lunch teaching critical thinking on POH's, as once the bulk of the class is taught, then critical thinking can be applied. You would be surprised if not alarmed at the examples we provide. :eek:

Your last question, yes once on the lean side of peak EGT, the fuel flow determines power so yes it is the power lever. The throttle is still throttling the air flow, and it is most efficient WOT. Think of a diesel engine, it operates LOP all the time, and it is fuel flow that determines HP. ;)

Hope that helps.

This graph below details the principals you need to understand to determine most things.

Courtesy of Advanced Pilot Seminars.
http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/a...psbfb07cbb.gif

Aint that the truth! :D:D

Plenty of folk, can tell some scary almost fatal experiences about this and LAME's refusing to fix what they think is not broken.

Calling Beach King......Exhibit A. He is lucky to be alive......

Good point.

On cross countries I fly at 78.372% power.All days in GA seem to be ‘old days’, because people keep running out of fuel in GA aircraft.And the laws of physics are the laws of physics and that is it.I can hear the hairs growing on your chest from here, W8!

Your mission is to fly as far as you can and land with 2 litres usable left in your tanks.

It’s an ISA day and there’s nil wind.

How far can you go? Prove it with data to support your choice of altitude, cruise IAS, RPM, throttle and mixture settings.

If you rarely fly ranges at the edge of your aircraft’s performance envelope and your planning and in-flight management capability, not running out of fuel may not be the product of superior knowledge or superior judgment.

?????????

I do!

Most of the time! You will rarely find me below A090 on a X-country!

Dr :8