Biggin Emergency Landing or was it?

[akzah]

Hi,

Well the story begins with me being 2 hours into my PPL. Only had a the trial flight done and was on a 5 hour trial package.

Aircraft was a C152 and after the start up checks everything seemed normal and we taxyed to 21. I did the takeoff we climbed and everything seemed great. Instructor took control for about 20 seconds during the initial climb and then handed it back to me, 40 seconds later I was asked to turn left and just as I began to roll the engine shuddered and made some weird noises which caused some vibration. (almost similar to when your about to stall a car)

Instructor took control immediately and applied the carb heat and again the shudder and noise occurred. He contacted ATC and asked to come back. I was concerned at this stage though not scared as we began to turn back once again it did the same thing. By this stage we were facing back to the airport and at about 1000ft.

Instructor seemed a bit frantic at this stage and contacted ATC and said runway 29 was better suited. (Doing a proper circuit would be very risky). The next 1 minute or so was pretty scary for me, we quickly lost height to get into the approach for 29 in what was a very late final turn to line up and we past over the threshold doing about 85kts and the instructor landed the plane hard about half way down the runway.

As we left the runway I could see the fire brigade and other airport vehicles coming across to us. Instructor told them it wasn't an emergency and that during his first call he said it wasn't an emergency, I had heard this but people on the ground said there was some crackling.

Regardless considering what had happened I think this was pretty close to an emergency without actually saying it. I would not have been comfortable at all going back to 21 as the engine seemed like it was on its last legs (though it seemed fine on the ground).

So my questions to you guys is:

1.) Having only had a few hours this has been quite scary and really made me think about continuing, I have read lots of aibb reports and the amount of incidents does worry me, should I pack it in and let my parents sleep easy?

2.) What was wrong with the aircraft? Instructor said it was rough running. Seemed much more than to me.

3.) Without naming the flying school (though not hard to work out), is it common to fly aircraft when one of the fuel gauges is dodgy and/or the ammeter gauge is not working?

However big thanks to the instructor in landing in one piece.

I do have pics of the aftermath but here is a link to the gps on my phone during the flight. Not accurate but should help in explaining what happened.

Flying | Author Akzah | free Mobile GPS Tracking Service

[ronnie3585]

Possible carb ice?

What ever it was it mustn't have been a pleasant experience in only your second hour. Keep the faith and keep plugging away, it's well worth it.

[Lightning6]

akzah...

1) Don't let this incident put you off your flying, would you be put off driving because of the many accidents on the road? you may read of incidents on here but they are rare.

2) A rough running engine can be due to many reasons, IMHO I would not think it was carb icing, 25c temp and carb heat applied, still running rough, doubtful. The club needs to take it over to Singhs to have it looked at.

3) Personally I would not take an aircraft up with only one fuel gauge working, or/and the ammeter not working.

Just enjoy the rest of your training.

[LH2]

You mention the fuel gauge as being dodgy? Can you clarify what you mean by that?

Technically, it means that it does not read zero when the corresponding tank is empty of usable fuel, but I'm not sure if the OP would be aware of that, so perhaps he just means it wasn't accurate (as if )

A fuel gauge that misreads by say 3/4 of a tank is not dodgy as far as the rules as concerned (and in practical terms, well... anything that misreads by less than a couple of full tanks I'm very happy with--don't see those very often at the low end of GA )

Anyway, sounds like a great experience. Congratulations. I had to wait nearly 200 hours for my first engine failure.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Fuel gauges ?

Doesn't anyone dip the tanks anymore ?

The only time I believe the fuel gauge is when it hovers near the Empty end, at that stage, once back on the ground, I don't mind if I find that it was lying. Just never be optimistic about them, err on the safe side.

Recently did a consumption check, loaded 33 litres into the stbd tank, flew on that tank for precisely 1 hour @ a theoretical consumption of 22 litres / hr ( other tank only consumes at 17 ltr/hr ) and switched tanks, this was supposed to leave 11 Ltrs or 30 mins - the min. reserved for NZ Microlights. Flew on the other tank, switched on 'Both' for landing on finals - and dipped exactly 11 ltrs remaining in the stbd tank ( plenty left in the other one ). Science works better than fuel gauges.

If a gauge increased towards empty unreasonably, then I might think that I had a leak if my engine handling had been as planned for the fuel loaded, and land accordingly, so I guess they have their uses, but ........

Friend flying Cessna 182 ran out of fuel in inhospitable Borneo mountains.
Fuel cap not properly secured, fuel syphoned out, but - bladder tank 'rose' up from the bottom surface of the wing interior, and the fuel gauge float sensor still thought there was 1/2 tank remaining, and showed that - liar. He survived.

Even on the Boeing 747 we used to dip - actually 'drip' - the tanks then calculate fuel used by reference to the Totalisator - fuel fed into the engine subtracted from fuel at start = fuel remaining. But then we did have a Flt. Eng. ( Flt Eng's.have to be able to do sums, co-pilots have to be able to write, and Captains have to know someone who can read )

[Lightning6]

I agree with you there ExSp33db1rd, to "err on the safe side", always, I don't want to scare akzah off his flying training, but the whole idea of this forum is to learn from others, the problem was probably nothing to do with the amount of fuel on-board, it sounds to me like a mechanical issue, but as you say, it doesn't take long to dip the tanks. Bearing in mind your FI knew about the fuel gauge problem, I'm surprised he didn't do so.

It sounds to me like your club is penny pinching on maintenence.

[ExSp33db1rd]

.........as probably nothing to do with the amount of fuel on-board,

Quite, surprised if fuel quantity was an issue, I have had similar unhappy noises when a magneto decided to act funny, and also more recently, ran beautifully until full power was reached on take-off, which almost coincided with lift-off in the microlight, then all hell broke loose, sounded more like a bit of fuselage, maybe undercarriage, breaking up, banging and rattling something awful - had barely enough flying speed, so didn't touch ANYTHING, left gear and flaps as is and crept around the circuit at about 300' , but as I reduced power for landing it all came good again. No problem found, but then we didn't do a full power run, initially; finally did and discovered that full flow was blocked only when full power was demanded.

Mr. Murphy is always with us.

[oldpax]

first flights

One of my first flights was in a MK3 Shack on air test,after flogging around making sure everthing worked we returned to the circuit and strapped in to the galley bunks,went around twice,signaller comes to us and says "Nosewheel wont come down ,hold tight we will try and bounce it down!!" well,it worked OK and this didnt put me of one bit from doing many hours on Shacks!Also had two consecutive flights at all up wieght when we had to shut an engine down and circle for 4 hours burning of,no fuel dump in a MK 2 shack!! Mind you I was only a mech and had blind faith in the pilots!!Also remember a flight on a Brittania when the door seal popped after take of and filled the cabin fulll of fog!!

[Lightning6]

Let's not put the man off, incidences like this are rare! I could tell you some stories but I'm still here! akzah, keep up your training and enjoy, You will always here stories from here, but, in the end, it's a very safe sport/pastime or future career.

[S-Works]

I would suggest that if you have a fuel gauge that doesn’t give you a useful indication of the amount of fuel, it is not doing its job. If the gauge is so inaccurate that you prefer not to look at it, that’s a violation of the letter and spirit of the regulations.

The regs require the gauges only to read correctly when empty. The fuel gauges in my Cessna and most Cessna's only do that! They are renowned for being unreliable!! On Austers the belly tank has no gauge, you change tanks when the engine stops.

That's why we dip the tanks and calculate fuel burn. I also have a fuel computer connected to the GPS but that's a separate discussion.

[BackPacker]

akzah, the rough running can have multiple reasons. The run-up checks you perform before taking off won't necessarily cover them all, and even if you verify you have full power in the early stages of take-off, that's no guarantee that the engine won't fail, or partially fail, just after take-off. This whole situation is seriously enough to have gotten its own acronym: "EFATO" (Engine Failure After Take-Off). It is one of the most dangerous emergencies you can get because only very quick and decisive action can save you. So you'll get plenty more practice in this kind of emergency during your training. And apparently your instructor learned his lessons too, since you got back safely on the ground.

Further, the emergency services at an airport have virtually nothing to do all day, except possibly for things like training, cleaning and maintenance. As soon as something is happening that *might* lead to a distress situation or emergency, well, what would you do?

[DX Wombat]

At two hours into your training you probably wouldn't have been doing the preflight checks so may not have seen them done. Do you know if the actual fuel was checked? If it wasn't and this was the first flight of the day then maybe there was some water in there which for some reason didn't manifest itself until you turned. (Maybe a deformity in the bottom of the tank?)

[Hyperborean]

So the instructor, "seemed a bit frantic," he asked for 29 instead of 21 as a full circuit would be too risky, he crossed the threshold high and fast and then landed hard. OK some of this might be down to perception by an inexperienced observer but if I was in the tower I would certainly be calling out the fire crew.
It is almost axiomatic that you can send the emergency services back if they are not needed but they are useless if they are still in the fire station if they are required.

[akzah]

Ammeter wasn't working in another aircraft and there was nothing on the gauge to indicate it wasn't working.
Fuel gauge, left one was showing full while the right was showing between half to 3/4 full and moving between.

Instructor did check the quantity of the fuel using the stick, another instructor confirmed he had fueled the aircraft and hence it was full as well.

While I do only have 2-3 hours PPL training experience I can tell you I glanced at the airspeed as we passed over the threshold of 29 as I could feel we were fast and we were doing about 85kts. That was caused by the dive and certainally shows this was no normal approach. He had to level the aircraft to get rid of this speed and hence half the runway past before landing. Even at that point it was much heavier and quicker than any landing experienced before in a cessna.

At the moment still debating whether I should go back, have a months break for I need to decide.

To be honest I think the controller reacted to the second instruction from us that we were landing on 29 and then realised this was more serious if we weren't taking any risks to go for 21.

[Donalk]

Regardless considering what had happened I think this was pretty close to an emergency without actually saying it.

Of course it was an emergency. However it may be worthwhile to do a full debrief with your instructor during which you may realise that the situation, though serious, was at all times under control by virtue of his/her skills acquired during training.

You and your instructor were faced with, at best, an unreliable engine. Happily in your circumstance, it would appear you had sufficient height to return to the airfield.

Moreover, your instructor did a fine job in evaluating the situation and determining that a landing on 29 would be a better option.

You dont tell us whether he pulled full flap on short final once absoutely sure of making the runway, and if not, this may account for the high approach speed. Either way a landing at the runway mid point would indicate that he/she used good judgement in determining that there was sufficient runway to land on and stop safely.

It is most unfortunate that you experienced this situation so early in your training, however this is exactly the type of scenario that you will rehearse and simulate should you decide to proceed with your PPL. The fact that your instructor practised this during training should be sufficient evidence to you that the training works and is designed to equip you with the skills necessary to cope.

One of the most gratifying parts of my training was the opportunity to gradually develop and subsequently hone my abilities to make good judgement calls which, inside or outside aviation, is a useful skillset to possess.

My advice would be to treat this as a valuable experience and aim to acquire the skills and judgement which your instructor has demonstrated to you for real.

Safe flying

[S-Works]

Could well be a UK only reg. But then we are talking about a UK situation so probably a pertinent one?

[bjornhall]

Is there actually such a reg in the UK?

When people claim a fuel gauge only has to be accurate when indicating empty, they are usually referring to the green part below, while overlooking the blue part and completely missing the red part. What is being missed, in my view, is that 23.1337 (b) (1) only explains how the gauge should be calibrated (reading zero when there is no useable fuel, as opposed to reading zero when there is no fuel). 23.1337 (b) (1) does not imply the gauge need not be accurate when the tank contains fuel, as far as I read it.

But there may indeed be such a UK-only reg saying something else; what would I know (or care... )

(b) Fuel quantity indicator. There must be a means to indicate to the flightcrew members the quantity of usable fuel in each tank during flight. An indicator calibrated in appropriate units and clearly marked to indicate those units must be used. In addition--
(1) Each fuel quantity indicator must be calibrated to read "zero" during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply determined under [Sec. 23.959(a);]

In the generic ASEL-MMEL one fuel gauge can be inoperative, under certain restrictions, FWTW... If you don't have a MEL, and don't need a MEL, can one (or both...) gauges still be inoperative? There is no general answer to that question; it depends on what regulations apply to any given operation!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

It hardly matters what the regs say.

Fuel gauges in little aeroplaces are unreliable, fact of life. Rely on the regs and be dead right if you like, I won't thanks very much.

You know you've got enough fuel by some combination of:

- the log
- dipping the tanks
- just looking at the tanks
- filling up to a known level before take-off
- the gauges.

"Some combination" does not include just relying on the gauges. But if what they say agrees with the log and agrees with what you see when you look in the tank (eg all three agree that it's about two thirds full) then that'll do.

[Lightning6]

He had to level the aircraft to get rid of this speed and hence half the runway past before landing. Even at that point it was much heavier and quicker than any landing experienced before in a cessna.

There is a dip in the middle of 29 at Biggin, if he was making an approach too fast, he might have floated over the dip leading to a harder than normal landing on the upside of the dip.

[bjornhall]

Using the gauges as sole source of information is too idiotic to even consider. But if one only believes them when they agree with other sources one is not using them at all. They are there for a purpose, and they have something to say. What their purpose is, and what they have to say (and what their limitations are), is best realized by understanding the relevant regulations IMHO. Knowing the details of the fuel quantity indicating system in the aircraft one flies helps too (for instance, if a gauge shows a sub-zero reading with a Low Fuel warning light, what does that mean?).

But I don't think it is fair to dismiss them as "unreliable, fact of life". Then one does not avail oneself of an important situational awareness tool.

Plus, there is always that little issue of airworthiness, whether or not the gauges are malfunctioning if their readings are way of, and whether or not a flight in that condition is legal. In that regard, the regs certainly matter!