Running out of fuel (again)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Running out of fuel (again)
What is wrong with pilots and fuel management?
I have just read (in Flyer) about two accidents involving pilots running out of fuel.
Both Cessna 172s and it would appear both had older experienced drivers.
I just can't see any normal situation where this should happen, but it seems every year we have 2 or 3 pilots who let it.
Tony
I have just read (in Flyer) about two accidents involving pilots running out of fuel.
Both Cessna 172s and it would appear both had older experienced drivers.
I just can't see any normal situation where this should happen, but it seems every year we have 2 or 3 pilots who let it.
Tony
Last edited by TonyR; 1st Jul 2004 at 17:09.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TonyR - I agree. I fill the tanks for the duration of intended flight PLUS 1 hour.Unless weight dictates I FILL the tanks ( be it 50 litres or 500) so I know how much fuel is on board. Why would anyone do otherwise? Those of you who vary this routine please tell me where I am in error
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where people run out of fuel, it is rarely because they have some sort of "routine" as recommended by WorkingHard.
Normally, the running out of fuel is the endpoint in a set of other failures.
+ Assuming that fuel is onboard when it hasn't been loaded and can't be visually inspected
+ Assuming that gauges are incorrect
+ Not knowing how much fuel the aircraft actually burns (a common problem amongst renters)
+ Failing to convert from one fuel unit to another (pounds,.litres USG)
+ Being caught out by the early disappearance of the fueler and needing to get away before weather/night closes in.
+ Being caught out by headwinds and failing to take the decision to divert early enough.
Pilots deliberately loading inadequate amounts of fuel because they have a duff system of reckoning their fuel requirements is not the problem.
2D
Normally, the running out of fuel is the endpoint in a set of other failures.
+ Assuming that fuel is onboard when it hasn't been loaded and can't be visually inspected
+ Assuming that gauges are incorrect
+ Not knowing how much fuel the aircraft actually burns (a common problem amongst renters)
+ Failing to convert from one fuel unit to another (pounds,.litres USG)
+ Being caught out by the early disappearance of the fueler and needing to get away before weather/night closes in.
+ Being caught out by headwinds and failing to take the decision to divert early enough.
Pilots deliberately loading inadequate amounts of fuel because they have a duff system of reckoning their fuel requirements is not the problem.
2D
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: on the edge
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fuel management
It is a number one cause of accidents here in the US. I believe it is because most flight schools, and private flying lessons, never really teach fuel management. We always take-off with full tanks with just student and instructor aboard, fly for an hour or two, and land. We never worry much about how much fuel we have. Solo cross-countries are warned to make frequent fuel stops. So the student fies the planned trip with way more fuel than necessary, so running low on fuel never happens. Then he gets into the real world with longer trips, and a full boat, and...that's when it happens. Inadequate "real life" training.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dear old CAA don't exactly help much though - they make the fitting of proper flow measuring/logging devices such as the Shadin or EDM almost impossible. Having waded through the mountain of paperwork the end result is a huge additional bill and a stupid sticker on the panel that advises the pilot to not rely on this instrument for fuel planning ('cos it's only guaranteed to an accuracy of 2%!!!!).
"Use your watch" is often the cry - what rubbish. Given that we have huge changes in fuel flow across the operating envelope AND a mixture control to further complicate the issue the end result is often to HAVE to overestimate the fuel uplift. This means that we tend to operate heavier than planned.
The whole ridiculous scenario is almost worthy of a court case to expose our bonkers system as the fiasco it really is. I believe that the CAA have a policy of prosecuting anybody who runs out of gas; imagine if the hapless defendant had tried to fit a fuel flow device and had found it too difficult/impossible/prohibitively expensive...
I'm not saying that it's OK to run out of fuel (it's pretty dumb to let it happen - I've nearly done it twice) but I can see how i happens.
"Use your watch" is often the cry - what rubbish. Given that we have huge changes in fuel flow across the operating envelope AND a mixture control to further complicate the issue the end result is often to HAVE to overestimate the fuel uplift. This means that we tend to operate heavier than planned.
The whole ridiculous scenario is almost worthy of a court case to expose our bonkers system as the fiasco it really is. I believe that the CAA have a policy of prosecuting anybody who runs out of gas; imagine if the hapless defendant had tried to fit a fuel flow device and had found it too difficult/impossible/prohibitively expensive...
I'm not saying that it's OK to run out of fuel (it's pretty dumb to let it happen - I've nearly done it twice) but I can see how i happens.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Here and There
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(it's pretty dumb to let it happen - I've nearly done it twice) but I can see how i happens.
Forget about fuel gauges.
Flying an aircraft is just too important to rely on such things.
Know how much you have and how much you burn and have plenty to spare.
If in doubt DIVERT and fill up.
Ken
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Between Galaxies
Age: 39
Posts: 453
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always said this, and i'm FAR from an experienced pilot.
However, the whole US Gal. conversion factor in accidents involving running out of fuel because of this mistake always makes me think....... why dont the CAA and FAA issue a joint decision to require all new models of aircraft manufactured to use the same unit? Surely this would stop atleast some of the accidents from happening?
However, the whole US Gal. conversion factor in accidents involving running out of fuel because of this mistake always makes me think....... why dont the CAA and FAA issue a joint decision to require all new models of aircraft manufactured to use the same unit? Surely this would stop atleast some of the accidents from happening?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets forget about the "get prosecuted" bit and the CAA attitude.
Why do very experienced pilots take risks with fuel?
I would suggest that we should never plan a flight (even in the circuit) that would leave us with less than 1 hour fuel after our planned alternate.
We had a fly-in some years ago and an aircraft had a heavy landing and damaged it's landing gear. The runway was blocked for over 1 hour and a few a/c had to divert. (the nearest being 40 miles).
A C152 landed at the alternate and when the pilot filled the a/c he put the exact amount of total useable fuel in the tank. He admitted to me that he thought the engine was going to stop when turning final but was ok when he levelled the wings.
He will never do that again, but why does it take such an experience to make pilots take note of the danger?
In Europe we buy fuel in litres and we should calculate in litres, (in the USA, use gallons) no need to convert anything. Pilots only confuse themselves, nothing to do with the FAA or CAA
Tony
Why do very experienced pilots take risks with fuel?
I would suggest that we should never plan a flight (even in the circuit) that would leave us with less than 1 hour fuel after our planned alternate.
We had a fly-in some years ago and an aircraft had a heavy landing and damaged it's landing gear. The runway was blocked for over 1 hour and a few a/c had to divert. (the nearest being 40 miles).
A C152 landed at the alternate and when the pilot filled the a/c he put the exact amount of total useable fuel in the tank. He admitted to me that he thought the engine was going to stop when turning final but was ok when he levelled the wings.
He will never do that again, but why does it take such an experience to make pilots take note of the danger?
In Europe we buy fuel in litres and we should calculate in litres, (in the USA, use gallons) no need to convert anything. Pilots only confuse themselves, nothing to do with the FAA or CAA
Tony
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
As another inexperienced pilot, I too have trouble "seeing how it happens". I know the fuel burn because I've read the POH and talked to the owner; I check the log, then I check the fuel gauges (having ascertained from the owner how trustworthy they are), then I dip the tanks, and if all three don't agree that I've got more fuel than I need then I refuel. If I can't find the refueller, or I'm going to run out of time, then I don't fly.
But, people who know more about it, and must be being at least as careful as me, still run out of fuel. So, to avoid it happening to me, can someone tell me which bit of that am I doing wrong? What else should I do? And, if everybody else does the same, how come I've once or twice (no more often than that, let's be fair) picked up a rental plane and found only half an hour in the tanks?
But, people who know more about it, and must be being at least as careful as me, still run out of fuel. So, to avoid it happening to me, can someone tell me which bit of that am I doing wrong? What else should I do? And, if everybody else does the same, how come I've once or twice (no more often than that, let's be fair) picked up a rental plane and found only half an hour in the tanks?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Here and There
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read the news in Flyer
A few months ago we were all calling this old pilot a "hero".
He had 2520 hours and 900 on type.
How the hell???
Ex Fleet Air Arm crew ran out of fuel before ditching
He had 2520 hours and 900 on type.
How the hell???
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we just had a plane landing at a local airfield on the last drop of fuel... he had to be pulled to the ramp! Don't know the aircraft type, but he is a very experienced pilot, and was coming from a 6 hour(!!) flight..... and one of the fuel caps was missing (pre-flight check?)!! 
doesn't sound like a very responsible pilot to me....
Westy
doesn't sound like a very responsible pilot to me....
Westy
Guest
Posts: n/a
Reading some litrature on these things, it always seems to be the simplest things that snowball. Not knowing how much fuel you have is simply just forgetting to check. There are probably a host of reasons as to why the check(s) didn't take place.
One potentially lethal but essential characteristic of skill is that when you learn to do something well, it is often to the extent that you don't need to think about it anymore. For example landing - most of you probably don't think how to land you just do it. At the more procedural level, you would be a dangerous pilot if you had to think through everystep to complete it, you would not have the capacity remaining to complete other tasks such as listening and looking out. I think that, as you gain experience, you do more and more automatically, subconsiously and as part of the procedure and routine. The disadvantage of this is that if you get distracted then you may subconciously miss a step, or apply the right action to the wrong thing. In addition, if you do something routinely and very frequently you may well start to not use the checklist. You may have it in your hand but not follow it; I found myself doing this once or twice.
Personally, I think it is frighteningly easy to screw up in a major way. I am also convinced that believing this reduces the chance of screwing up.
The biggest problem with stuff is that we can't choose the mistakes that we make, we can only attempt to make the most dangerous ones the least likely.
One potentially lethal but essential characteristic of skill is that when you learn to do something well, it is often to the extent that you don't need to think about it anymore. For example landing - most of you probably don't think how to land you just do it. At the more procedural level, you would be a dangerous pilot if you had to think through everystep to complete it, you would not have the capacity remaining to complete other tasks such as listening and looking out. I think that, as you gain experience, you do more and more automatically, subconsiously and as part of the procedure and routine. The disadvantage of this is that if you get distracted then you may subconciously miss a step, or apply the right action to the wrong thing. In addition, if you do something routinely and very frequently you may well start to not use the checklist. You may have it in your hand but not follow it; I found myself doing this once or twice.
Personally, I think it is frighteningly easy to screw up in a major way. I am also convinced that believing this reduces the chance of screwing up.
The biggest problem with stuff is that we can't choose the mistakes that we make, we can only attempt to make the most dangerous ones the least likely.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An aeroplane in Australia runs out of fuel every 10 days! They are only the ones that are reported too....
The stats are wieghted only slightly more to the fuel starvation side of things than the fuel exhaustion side. Basically pilots are not getting the fuel from the tanks to the engine.
It used to be once every 8 days until we were hit with the fuel crisis of 2000.
TBT
The stats are wieghted only slightly more to the fuel starvation side of things than the fuel exhaustion side. Basically pilots are not getting the fuel from the tanks to the engine.
It used to be once every 8 days until we were hit with the fuel crisis of 2000.
TBT
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It can go wrong so it will!
Flying your own or a very small group aircraft it is probably much less likely - because you have a muc better awareness of how much fuel you put in..
But - my last aircraft had a fully approved CAA flight manual - which had no fuel consumptions figures at all. The third fuel tank - the largest one - had no fuel gauge and all this on a C of A aircraft. No this same aircraft has a fuel consumption varying from 12 gallons per hour at full throttle to 6 at a lazy cruise. So you do not need to be very imaginative to see just how easy it is to get it wrong.
No one plans to run out of fuel - it happens when other things impact upon the fuel state.
Two weeks ago I was undertaking a professional float flying course, at the end of a gruelling 2 hours session we started back for the home base. (For those who have not done this fuel consumption varies between about 2 and 14 gallons per hour for this aircraft).
We encountered severe turbulence and the gauges were virtually unreadable, but bouncing off the stops. After a review of what we had been doing we (the instructor and I) thought it prudent to return to the lake over the calm air and check. We did that and then assessed the wind versus remaining distance. It was not a comfortable thought and so after another couple of minutes of trying to think of an alternative we set down on the lake and tried to get some fuel delivered - which lead to a pleasant afternoon waiting....
But it does require real discipline and that is much easier in this sort of environment. End result was the aircraft had at least 75 minutes of fuel at cruise consumption more in it than the gauges and the dipstick suggested - which meant what we had done was compleely unnecessary......
Flying your own or a very small group aircraft it is probably much less likely - because you have a muc better awareness of how much fuel you put in..
But - my last aircraft had a fully approved CAA flight manual - which had no fuel consumptions figures at all. The third fuel tank - the largest one - had no fuel gauge and all this on a C of A aircraft. No this same aircraft has a fuel consumption varying from 12 gallons per hour at full throttle to 6 at a lazy cruise. So you do not need to be very imaginative to see just how easy it is to get it wrong.
No one plans to run out of fuel - it happens when other things impact upon the fuel state.
Two weeks ago I was undertaking a professional float flying course, at the end of a gruelling 2 hours session we started back for the home base. (For those who have not done this fuel consumption varies between about 2 and 14 gallons per hour for this aircraft).
We encountered severe turbulence and the gauges were virtually unreadable, but bouncing off the stops. After a review of what we had been doing we (the instructor and I) thought it prudent to return to the lake over the calm air and check. We did that and then assessed the wind versus remaining distance. It was not a comfortable thought and so after another couple of minutes of trying to think of an alternative we set down on the lake and tried to get some fuel delivered - which lead to a pleasant afternoon waiting....
But it does require real discipline and that is much easier in this sort of environment. End result was the aircraft had at least 75 minutes of fuel at cruise consumption more in it than the gauges and the dipstick suggested - which meant what we had done was compleely unnecessary......
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the cause is a combination of
1. Lousy PPL training (most students/renters don't know the fuel flow at various power settings, but most PPL instructors don't know the figures for various power settings either because there is nowhere to look that up)
2. Reliance on written records done by previous pilots, without a physical check. This is particularly stupid but after the recent highly publicised failed CAA prosecution case it appears to be entirely legal. It is very much common practice in the PPL training/rental scene.
3. Lack of accurate fuel flow measurement, which takes us back to 1. above, by ensuring that nobody knows what the actual flow rate is...
4. There are a lot of Cessnas without a step on the strut, so one has the hassle of carrying a ladder out to the aircraft, in order to physically see the fuel level. I did most of my PPL training in such, and not once did I see anyone do this. This is no excuse, just a big disincentive to do a physical check.
1. Lousy PPL training (most students/renters don't know the fuel flow at various power settings, but most PPL instructors don't know the figures for various power settings either because there is nowhere to look that up)
2. Reliance on written records done by previous pilots, without a physical check. This is particularly stupid but after the recent highly publicised failed CAA prosecution case it appears to be entirely legal. It is very much common practice in the PPL training/rental scene.
3. Lack of accurate fuel flow measurement, which takes us back to 1. above, by ensuring that nobody knows what the actual flow rate is...
4. There are a lot of Cessnas without a step on the strut, so one has the hassle of carrying a ladder out to the aircraft, in order to physically see the fuel level. I did most of my PPL training in such, and not once did I see anyone do this. This is no excuse, just a big disincentive to do a physical check.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daventry UK
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any factual basis to the impression that Cessnas are more likely to run out of fuel than other types? The 172's 4hr provides far less margin of error than the Warriors' 5hr for a typical 3Hr touring day, (based on gross simplifications all round!) given that many pilots seem to have a reluctance to refuel enroute.
I wonder if this reluctance relates to what seems to be a virtually universal FBO mantra about fuel. It seems as though the fuel is always "cheaper here than anywhere else" putting the pilot under pressure not to refuel en route because he will only be credited back the local rate.
I wonder if that's a factor in many of these incidents? I know of one personally where it was, and that chap (in a 172) ran out at night and survived!
I wonder if this reluctance relates to what seems to be a virtually universal FBO mantra about fuel. It seems as though the fuel is always "cheaper here than anywhere else" putting the pilot under pressure not to refuel en route because he will only be credited back the local rate.
I wonder if that's a factor in many of these incidents? I know of one personally where it was, and that chap (in a 172) ran out at night and survived!