PA-28-161 Engine failure
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Small dot in the Caribbean
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I find a bit amazing here is that
a) with an instructor on board is appears they were trying to attempt a flight that is 506 NM in a direct line and would simply not be doable in a standard -161, even in perfect conditions (at least not with legal reserves)
a) with an instructor on board is appears they were trying to attempt a flight that is 506 NM in a direct line and would simply not be doable in a standard -161, even in perfect conditions (at least not with legal reserves)
Ratings: ATP, Multi, CFI, CFII, MEI.
Hours: 6800+
Education: Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical Science Embry Riddle Aeronautical University
I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt though.
Just found this, this is posted on their website about the plane:
Fuel Capacity
Fuel Capacity (Standard Tanks):
Toatal Capacity: 50 gallons.
Total Usable: 48 gallons.
Range Profile
Conditions:2300 pounds
Recommended lean mixture for cruise
Standard temperature
Zero wind
Proformance @ Sea Level
No Reserve (Best Economy Range)
75% power: 555 NM
65% power: 585 NM
55% power: 605 NM
http://www.silverexpress.com/
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Malmesbury VRP
Age: 49
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nano404
Education: Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical Science Embry Riddle Aeronautical University
They cant do tight circuits/patterns thats for sure!! They can't be bothered to make radio calls at non controlled airfields, and they can't be bothered to give way or hold short while you are on finals.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My calcs suggest a glide range of 16nm......at 65 kts which from memory is best glide in a PA28-161 and ~600fpm fpm decent.
(9000/600 = 15min; 0.25*65nm = 16.25)
Of course, knocking off a few nm for a head wind and a few more for initial re-starting and messing around below 2000' could easily put glide at <10nm.
(9000/600 = 15min; 0.25*65nm = 16.25)
Of course, knocking off a few nm for a head wind and a few more for initial re-starting and messing around below 2000' could easily put glide at <10nm.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Reserve (Best Economy Range)
The words in brackets are familiar to me; I think they appear in the Lyco documentation.
They refer to operation at peak EGT. This is authorised, in general, at 75% or lower power settings.
Now, how many people know how to lean to this power setting? How many have the instrumentation to do it accurately? How many can even do it without excessive vibration?
If you fly "UK PPL training style" i.e. full rich, the fuel flow is going to be about 30% higher.
The words in brackets are familiar to me; I think they appear in the Lyco documentation.
They refer to operation at peak EGT. This is authorised, in general, at 75% or lower power settings.
Now, how many people know how to lean to this power setting? How many have the instrumentation to do it accurately? How many can even do it without excessive vibration?
If you fly "UK PPL training style" i.e. full rich, the fuel flow is going to be about 30% higher.
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Malmesbury VRP
Age: 49
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
If you fly "UK PPL training style" i.e. full rich, the fuel flow is going to be about 30% higher.
Same with stalls. In the US i was taught power on and power of stalls both with clean and dirty airframe. Every club check I have back in the UK I have always asked "what stall config do you want" when they reply "what" and I take the time to explain, they almost want to jump out of the plane.
Strange
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Small dot in the Caribbean
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah why is this???? I think it is so stupid. When I came back from the states and done a "UK" club checkout I leaned up whilst in the cruise. The instructor just about exploded.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I ever have an engine failure (which I hope I never do) I have a neumonic that I would carry out straight away. CFC
C-carb heat
F-fuel pump(s)
C-change tanks
I know its not taught but I always have it in mind when doing a PFL.
C-carb heat
F-fuel pump(s)
C-change tanks
I know its not taught but I always have it in mind when doing a PFL.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York City
Age: 38
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi! I was the pilot in the crash (female as the posts said, and I appreciate the correction from the newspaper). I wanted to correct the information on gliding- the crash was 11 miles offshore but I actually was around 22 miles from shore at 7,000 feet when the failure occured. The engine was making a tapping noise, which sounded like a mechanical issue, but I guess we will never know. Thanks for your interest, and fly safely!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York City
Age: 38
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, you may be interested that we did burn calculations from a cross-country the day before of similar length to and fro. The engine failed before we would have encroached on the 45 minutes reserve at 4 hours out. I am grateful to be alive but it's really frustrating not to know what happened!
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi cbabcock1000,
Welcome to PPRuNe, and I'm really glad you're here and safe and able to talk to us.
Do you feel up to telling all these armchair pilots what really happened...as far as you know anyway (I gather you don't know why etc). And I for one won't criticise no matter what, since I know it's really easy to make the right decisions when seated at your PC, and horribly difficult when you're up there and know your life may depend on getting it right...and I haven't had to do that over water.
Edited since I posted at the same time as cbabcock1000's second post
Welcome to PPRuNe, and I'm really glad you're here and safe and able to talk to us.
Do you feel up to telling all these armchair pilots what really happened...as far as you know anyway (I gather you don't know why etc). And I for one won't criticise no matter what, since I know it's really easy to make the right decisions when seated at your PC, and horribly difficult when you're up there and know your life may depend on getting it right...and I haven't had to do that over water.
Edited since I posted at the same time as cbabcock1000's second post
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cbabcock1000, first of all congrats to walking (or rather - swimming) away from it Glad you made it !
I am, however, really curious as to the fuel burn. Would you mind sharing these figures here with us and how you arrived at an obviously very low flow rate ?
Again - good to have you here and welcome to Pprune !
Glad you made it !I am, however, really curious as to the fuel burn. Would you mind sharing these figures here with us and how you arrived at an obviously very low flow rate ?
Again - good to have you here and welcome to Pprune !
Death Cruiser Flight Crew
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vaucluse, France.
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reference nano404's posting 17: " ...and it was only 3 persons but the more weight would decrease the glide distance by at least a little? in comparison to just the pilot?"
Given the quoted best glide IAS of 65 kt., is the above supposition correct or incorrect?
Given the quoted best glide IAS of 65 kt., is the above supposition correct or incorrect?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe more weight (within reason) just makes your best glide speed higher so you come down faster, but wind up gliding the same distance (shorter time at higher speed). V speeds generally change by half the weight change percentage so being 10% lighter means going 5% slower (and parasitic drag is a function of the square of the velocity so only decreases by 2.5%), induced drag doesn't change because your angle of attack for best glide remains unchanged hence induced drag doesn't change.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Small dot in the Caribbean
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cbabcock1000, Good to see your all well, and your sister is fine?
The paper didn't get it wrong, they never got the notification, only the AAIB, ICAO, FAA and a few others got it. Thats where it was stated. So they didn't know all of that, paper did get the gender wrong, so did the news So cbabcock1000 I guess we'll have to get that changed, How long are/were you on island?
Quote:
the crash was 11 miles offshore but I actually was around 22 miles from shore at 7,000 feet
i can't believe the paper got it wrong!
the crash was 11 miles offshore but I actually was around 22 miles from shore at 7,000 feet
i can't believe the paper got it wrong!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Miami
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello to all. I am the instuctor on the flight. First off let me just say that the female pilot of this plane did a great job. Not only with the emergency, but also the flight leading up to it and the days after.
It seems that a lot of the information on this forum are assumptions or misinformation. There are two points that bother me most. The debate about the glide, and the fuel issue. I will address them both
The airplane lost power 22 nm offshore (30 nm from the airport) @7000 feet. Anyone who has time in a piper cherokee should know that this is not a realist glide. A water landing was inevitable. We were able to glide within 11 nm of the airport, which I believe is quite respectable.
As for fuel. The Piper burns 8.8 gph at 65% power. At 9000ft (our altitude for this flight), the aiplane is not able tho produce 75% as some have suggested. I have flown this airplanes for many years, and understand that most pilots dont know how to properly set power and lean the mixture. I assure you I am not one of them. With our calculated burn, we should have reached our destination with one hour of fuel to spare. Also no indications in the cockpit, or during restart (switching tanks) indicates fuel starvation.
I hope this clears up some points. For those of us in the airplane, the cause seems obvious, and we are just glad to be here to tell the story.
It seems that a lot of the information on this forum are assumptions or misinformation. There are two points that bother me most. The debate about the glide, and the fuel issue. I will address them both
The airplane lost power 22 nm offshore (30 nm from the airport) @7000 feet. Anyone who has time in a piper cherokee should know that this is not a realist glide. A water landing was inevitable. We were able to glide within 11 nm of the airport, which I believe is quite respectable.
As for fuel. The Piper burns 8.8 gph at 65% power. At 9000ft (our altitude for this flight), the aiplane is not able tho produce 75% as some have suggested. I have flown this airplanes for many years, and understand that most pilots dont know how to properly set power and lean the mixture. I assure you I am not one of them. With our calculated burn, we should have reached our destination with one hour of fuel to spare. Also no indications in the cockpit, or during restart (switching tanks) indicates fuel starvation.
I hope this clears up some points. For those of us in the airplane, the cause seems obvious, and we are just glad to be here to tell the story.
Death Cruiser Flight Crew
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vaucluse, France.
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry sir.pratt, but with regard to the effect of weight (now known as mass) mm_flynn's is the correct answer.
I have dusted off my thirty-five year old copy of the BLAC Manual of Flying and Ground Training, and turned to the chapter on Descending. Section 2.5 reads: "Effect of Weight on the Glide. Variation in the weight does not affect the gliding angle, provided that the speed is adjusted to fit the A.U.W." It then shows the vector diagram to prove that the increased speed vector, acting down the inclined plane, is balanced by the increased weight vector, acting vertically.
The obverse side of this is the fact that, for any fixed airspeed, a heavier aeroplane will have a lesser gliding angle. This is why high performance sailplanes carry water ballast and a lightly loaded jet transport aircraft will take considerably less distance to descend from altitude compared with when it is heavy, given the same speed profile.
The lucky people in the Cherokee were therefore slightly better placed by being three up, the opposite of what some people might think!
I have dusted off my thirty-five year old copy of the BLAC Manual of Flying and Ground Training, and turned to the chapter on Descending. Section 2.5 reads: "Effect of Weight on the Glide. Variation in the weight does not affect the gliding angle, provided that the speed is adjusted to fit the A.U.W." It then shows the vector diagram to prove that the increased speed vector, acting down the inclined plane, is balanced by the increased weight vector, acting vertically.
The obverse side of this is the fact that, for any fixed airspeed, a heavier aeroplane will have a lesser gliding angle. This is why high performance sailplanes carry water ballast and a lightly loaded jet transport aircraft will take considerably less distance to descend from altitude compared with when it is heavy, given the same speed profile.
The lucky people in the Cherokee were therefore slightly better placed by being three up, the opposite of what some people might think!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can the pilots involved tell us anything about the ditching process, or anything they learnt from the process?
What was the sea state at the time, and how did it affect the ditching?
Did the aircraft stay upright? Anything to be learnt from the evacuation proceedures? Difficulties getting into the life raft?
Anything done right, and anything you'd do differently in future?
Just seeing to learn a little, in the hope that I never have to use that knowledge!
dp
What was the sea state at the time, and how did it affect the ditching?
Did the aircraft stay upright? Anything to be learnt from the evacuation proceedures? Difficulties getting into the life raft?
Anything done right, and anything you'd do differently in future?
Just seeing to learn a little, in the hope that I never have to use that knowledge!
dp
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York City
Age: 38
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi dublin! Thanks for your interest- I would say it's great to have an experienced pilot on board, like Kamal. He saved our lives with an amazing landing- he leveled the wings to prevent the plane from flipping, which is really important. He also slowed down the plane to a stall just as we hit to lessen impact. Definitely wear your seatbelts. I don't think anything was wrong with the planning, although maybe having a multiengine over the last water stretch could have been better.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Miami
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nano404. I assume you are either an official, relation to an official, or friend of an official. Otherwise, I am not sure how you know what our statement was. Regardless of which one of the three you are, you have your facts wrong. I suggest you read over our statements again.
