Piston Plane Refueled with Jet Fuel Kills Pilot
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: yankton, sd
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piston Plane Refueled with Jet Fuel Kills Pilot
One more in a long line of lives lost to misfueling.
The FAA recognized and reacted to the problem decades ago by requiring placards (part 23, 25, 27 and 29) next to the fuel filler openings on all aircraft. Another amendment to the certification regs requires a smaller filler opening for Avgas burners than for those aircraft requiring Jet fuel. Further, fuel service providers were "encouraged" to use "duckbill" nozzles (of a size larger than the maximum 2.36" diameter of an Avgas filler opening) and provide more comprehensive training to line service personnel. Some FBOs won't even fuel your aircraft without a signed service request detailing the type and amount of fuel you want.
These measures appear to have helped to some degree, along with a widely promoted pilot awareness campaign. but still the problem persists. It happens less often perhaps, but it still happens. After losing both engines on takeoff and landing off airport due to his Shrike Commander being serviced with Jet-A, well known airshow pilot Bob Hoover pitched in with the FAA in a safety initiative intended to reduce or prevent misfueling related accidents. Yeah Bob knew he screwed up and admitted it. He knew he should have monitored the fueling and should have sampled the fuel. Yet the carnage continues...
Even with all the layers of safety and error catching available, there is apparently still a lack of awareness in the pilot and line service community regarding fueling error prevention and detection. This kind of accident is so easily preventable by what most pilots would consider normal precaution or what lawyers call "ordinary care" in their lawsuit filings. Routine stuff for most. But apparently still not all.
If a single root cause for these kind of accidents can be identified, I believe that root cause is complacency. Laziness and misplaced priorities contribute in many cases as well. In a hurry, distracted by other factors, etc... The pilot is the last line of defense against, is the one responsible and the one who (along with any pax and/or innocent people on the ground) will pay the ultimate price. The chump who put the fuel in will/should feel guilty but the pilot was responsible.
With this in mind, why don't we pilots care to supervise the fueling and sample/inspect fuel from the sump drains EVERY time we refuel our Avgas burners when they are so intolerant of Jet fuel or water contamination? Is it a lack of understanding or just pure complacency?
Sorry for long rant but these kinds of accidents just make me angry!
I see from the above posted news article that one of the big aviation law practices in already on the case, so to speak. If pilots supervise the fueling, ensure the correct fuel goes in and drain/inspect fuel samples from the tank sumps after fueling, the law industry would have to look elsewhere for their parasitic sustenance. Let's all do our part to send those lawyers back to working penny-anty supermarket slip & fall cases!
westhawk
The FAA recognized and reacted to the problem decades ago by requiring placards (part 23, 25, 27 and 29) next to the fuel filler openings on all aircraft. Another amendment to the certification regs requires a smaller filler opening for Avgas burners than for those aircraft requiring Jet fuel. Further, fuel service providers were "encouraged" to use "duckbill" nozzles (of a size larger than the maximum 2.36" diameter of an Avgas filler opening) and provide more comprehensive training to line service personnel. Some FBOs won't even fuel your aircraft without a signed service request detailing the type and amount of fuel you want.
These measures appear to have helped to some degree, along with a widely promoted pilot awareness campaign. but still the problem persists. It happens less often perhaps, but it still happens. After losing both engines on takeoff and landing off airport due to his Shrike Commander being serviced with Jet-A, well known airshow pilot Bob Hoover pitched in with the FAA in a safety initiative intended to reduce or prevent misfueling related accidents. Yeah Bob knew he screwed up and admitted it. He knew he should have monitored the fueling and should have sampled the fuel. Yet the carnage continues...
Even with all the layers of safety and error catching available, there is apparently still a lack of awareness in the pilot and line service community regarding fueling error prevention and detection. This kind of accident is so easily preventable by what most pilots would consider normal precaution or what lawyers call "ordinary care" in their lawsuit filings. Routine stuff for most. But apparently still not all.
If a single root cause for these kind of accidents can be identified, I believe that root cause is complacency. Laziness and misplaced priorities contribute in many cases as well. In a hurry, distracted by other factors, etc... The pilot is the last line of defense against, is the one responsible and the one who (along with any pax and/or innocent people on the ground) will pay the ultimate price. The chump who put the fuel in will/should feel guilty but the pilot was responsible.
With this in mind, why don't we pilots care to supervise the fueling and sample/inspect fuel from the sump drains EVERY time we refuel our Avgas burners when they are so intolerant of Jet fuel or water contamination? Is it a lack of understanding or just pure complacency?
Sorry for long rant but these kinds of accidents just make me angry!
I see from the above posted news article that one of the big aviation law practices in already on the case, so to speak. If pilots supervise the fueling, ensure the correct fuel goes in and drain/inspect fuel samples from the tank sumps after fueling, the law industry would have to look elsewhere for their parasitic sustenance. Let's all do our part to send those lawyers back to working penny-anty supermarket slip & fall cases!
westhawk
Your title is highly misleading, for this once the media title is much more correct.
The pilot was not killed by the wrong fuel having been used - he suffered an EFATO which can happen to all us, and which we must always be prepared for. Obviously this EFATO did not work out, I will not speculate on why.
R.I.P.
The pilot was not killed by the wrong fuel having been used - he suffered an EFATO which can happen to all us, and which we must always be prepared for. Obviously this EFATO did not work out, I will not speculate on why.
R.I.P.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: yankton, sd
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA28181
thanks for stating what we were all thinking about Jan's comment.
The purpose of a headline is to get your attention to read the story.
Most likely if the plane had gas instead of jet fuel the engine would not have failed and we would have never heard of this guy.
We don't even use the term: EFATO . I suppose it means Engine Failure After Takeoff.
We would just say engine failure. Saves words. And isn't a cruise descent engine failure still an engine failure after takeoff?
Sheesh.
An engine failure can happen when the plane is not maintained properly and wrong fuel certainly is part of the equation. Engine failure does not just happen , it happens because someone screws up, somewhere. OK, sure , sucking birds is a little tough on the engine, or ingesting hail, but come on.
This plane crashed because someone put JET A into a GASOLINE ENGINE>
Funny, if it had been a jet engine and someone put gas into it, it would have run ok.
Some of the headlines on pprune are less than perfect , but it got you to read the article jan.
thanks for stating what we were all thinking about Jan's comment.
The purpose of a headline is to get your attention to read the story.
Most likely if the plane had gas instead of jet fuel the engine would not have failed and we would have never heard of this guy.
We don't even use the term: EFATO . I suppose it means Engine Failure After Takeoff.
We would just say engine failure. Saves words. And isn't a cruise descent engine failure still an engine failure after takeoff?
Sheesh.
An engine failure can happen when the plane is not maintained properly and wrong fuel certainly is part of the equation. Engine failure does not just happen , it happens because someone screws up, somewhere. OK, sure , sucking birds is a little tough on the engine, or ingesting hail, but come on.
This plane crashed because someone put JET A into a GASOLINE ENGINE>
Funny, if it had been a jet engine and someone put gas into it, it would have run ok.
Some of the headlines on pprune are less than perfect , but it got you to read the article jan.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jan is making a perfectly valid point. Mis-fuelling was only one of the lined up holes in the swiss-cheese that led to this accident. Others were that the mis-fuelling was not noticed, and that the EFATO when it occurred led to a fatal crash. There were probably other swiss-cheese holes in there too.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of curiosity, if you put Jet-A in a tank half filled with Avgas (or vice versa), will the two mix, or will they stay separate, even after sloshing about for a bit?
And if they stay separate, I presume the Jet-A will sink to the bottom (from higher SG) so in a plane designed to fly on Avgas, you would notice the Jet-A when you drain. That's good.
But in a plane designed to fly on Jet-A (Diamond & other diesels for instance), when you sample the tank from the bottom drain, I presume you'll be drawing straight Jet-A? Which is as you would expect. So how do you detect the presence of Avgas?
Got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?
Obviously EFATO is an engine failure. But it's just about the worst possible moment to have an engine failure: You're nose high, at low altitude and low speed. If you don't lower the nose immediately you'll stall. And you have only seconds to determine where you are going to point the nose to make a successful landing. This means that there is no time to run through the normal engine failure drills (trim for best glide, switch tanks, fuel pump on, check carb heat, check magnetos, whatnot). So handling an engine failure just after take-off requires a different drill than handling an engine failure in the cruise. That is a good enough reason for me to give that situation a unique name.
Heck, even gliders have a special drill, and a special name, for when the cable snaps during a winch launch. Two even, depending on altitude gained. And they don't even have engines!
And if they stay separate, I presume the Jet-A will sink to the bottom (from higher SG) so in a plane designed to fly on Avgas, you would notice the Jet-A when you drain. That's good.
But in a plane designed to fly on Jet-A (Diamond & other diesels for instance), when you sample the tank from the bottom drain, I presume you'll be drawing straight Jet-A? Which is as you would expect. So how do you detect the presence of Avgas?
We don't even use the term: EFATO . I suppose it means Engine Failure After Takeoff.
We would just say engine failure. Saves words. And isn't a cruise descent engine failure still an engine failure after takeoff?
Sheesh.
We would just say engine failure. Saves words. And isn't a cruise descent engine failure still an engine failure after takeoff?
Sheesh.
Obviously EFATO is an engine failure. But it's just about the worst possible moment to have an engine failure: You're nose high, at low altitude and low speed. If you don't lower the nose immediately you'll stall. And you have only seconds to determine where you are going to point the nose to make a successful landing. This means that there is no time to run through the normal engine failure drills (trim for best glide, switch tanks, fuel pump on, check carb heat, check magnetos, whatnot). So handling an engine failure just after take-off requires a different drill than handling an engine failure in the cruise. That is a good enough reason for me to give that situation a unique name.
Heck, even gliders have a special drill, and a special name, for when the cable snaps during a winch launch. Two even, depending on altitude gained. And they don't even have engines!
Last edited by BackPacker; 12th Mar 2015 at 09:48.
On the contrary. It would be more useful to know how the wrong fuel was put into the tanks in the first place.
This is a fundamental and inexcusable ****-up. No excuses whatsoever!
This is a fundamental and inexcusable ****-up. No excuses whatsoever!
There is a lot of bickering taking place here.
Thank you for the orginal poster highlighting something any of us could fall foul of. Hopefully we will all monitor our refuelling a little better.
Thank you for the orginal poster highlighting something any of us could fall foul of. Hopefully we will all monitor our refuelling a little better.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A factor in the history of misfueling jet fuel into piston aircraft was the word "Turbo" appearing on fancy stickers on the side of the engine. Fueling people were understandably confused. The requirement for the identity of the required fuel has been in place for a long time, but some people still overlook it. Unfortunately, some aircraft types lend themselves more to this error, as a very similar version of the aircraft is available both gasoline and jet fuel. While flying the Lycoming powered DA-42, I paid extreme attention to what fuel was being put in.
Sadly, the pilot had multiple opportunities to detect this error, and not fly the plane that way. I've been as guilty as the next pilot of sometimes just jumping into a fueled plane, without confirming what was put in. More recently, I've been simply looking at what the label on the supply of fuel says is there. You also have a super opportunity when you pay for it.
That said, it seems to me that it was a crash shortly after takeoff associate with an engine failure which was the fatal event. Misfueling was a large causal factor in that crash, one which was a failing on several people's part, detectable and preventable. But it left the pilot as being the sole person who affect the outcome, and it did not work out well. I accept that an EFATO (as opposed to an EFA cruise flight) will nearly always result in a damaging off airport landing, but few need to be fatal.
How pilots handle and preplan for EFATO is a separate and worthy topic as to misfueling. Every now and again, I'll be taking off, knowing that that takeoff has a much less good possible outcome in the case of EFATO. I'll usually adjust my technique to optimize things. I certainly witness takeoffs where I think that the pilot missed opportunities to make the takeoff more safe and survivable were an EFATO occur.
This sad event is a good reminder on two topics of airmanship....
Sadly, the pilot had multiple opportunities to detect this error, and not fly the plane that way. I've been as guilty as the next pilot of sometimes just jumping into a fueled plane, without confirming what was put in. More recently, I've been simply looking at what the label on the supply of fuel says is there. You also have a super opportunity when you pay for it.
That said, it seems to me that it was a crash shortly after takeoff associate with an engine failure which was the fatal event. Misfueling was a large causal factor in that crash, one which was a failing on several people's part, detectable and preventable. But it left the pilot as being the sole person who affect the outcome, and it did not work out well. I accept that an EFATO (as opposed to an EFA cruise flight) will nearly always result in a damaging off airport landing, but few need to be fatal.
How pilots handle and preplan for EFATO is a separate and worthy topic as to misfueling. Every now and again, I'll be taking off, knowing that that takeoff has a much less good possible outcome in the case of EFATO. I'll usually adjust my technique to optimize things. I certainly witness takeoffs where I think that the pilot missed opportunities to make the takeoff more safe and survivable were an EFATO occur.
This sad event is a good reminder on two topics of airmanship....
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with step. the mis-fuelling was unfortunate and led to the EFATO, but it would be interesting to know more about how the pilot handled the EFATO.
Those on here who say that does not matter as if the misfuelling hadn't happened there'd have been no EFATO should have good long think about their flying.
EFATOs can happen for all sorts of reasons, some not pilot induced. You should consider every take off to be a potential EFATO because one day it might be. It was once for me, and it was once for a bloke I knew. He is no longer with us because he didn't get the nose down and keep the machine flying and therefore under control.
Are you ready for yours?
Those on here who say that does not matter as if the misfuelling hadn't happened there'd have been no EFATO should have good long think about their flying.
EFATOs can happen for all sorts of reasons, some not pilot induced. You should consider every take off to be a potential EFATO because one day it might be. It was once for me, and it was once for a bloke I knew. He is no longer with us because he didn't get the nose down and keep the machine flying and therefore under control.
Are you ready for yours?
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is common practice NOT to Sample the tanks after fueling, also NOT to take fuel from a field's supply after that supply has been re-stocked.
This is because, when transferring fuel, it gets all stirred up in the process. So you need to wait for about an hour for the water and contamination to settle, before taking a sample. Most small planes are sampled first thing in the morning, after an overnight stop, in the 'A' test.
This is because, when transferring fuel, it gets all stirred up in the process. So you need to wait for about an hour for the water and contamination to settle, before taking a sample. Most small planes are sampled first thing in the morning, after an overnight stop, in the 'A' test.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you need to wait for about an hour for the water and contamination to settle, before taking a sample.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: yankton, sd
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off, ROBERT A "BOB" HOOVER lost BOTH engines in his Shrike Commander because it had been fueled with Jet A. He landed safely.
A device, fitted to the filler cap, was supposed to work in conjunction with fuel nozzles so as to NOT allow JET A fuel nozzle to enter an AVGAS filler.
I guess that didn't happen here.
All the planes I have flown that use AVGAS have a placcard around the filler cap with fuel requirement like: 100LL ONLY and is quite noticeable.
AS far as EFATO, I guess we do things differently on this side of the pond. An engine failure at anytime requires heading towards your PRE SELECTED emergency landing field, ESTABLISHING and trimming for BEst GLIDE SPEED, and then using any restart procedures like: mixture rich, fuel pump on,carb heat on, alternate air select, select another fuel tank, etc.
Now if it happens at 40', you probably don't have time for more than the first 2. And Best rate of climb is usually close enough to best glide speed as to be almost satisfactory. ( a warrior for example, best glide is: 73 and best rate is 79).
AS far as the headline, I ask you all this. When the lawsuit happens (and it will), what will the jury find? That this crash was avoidable if the proper fuel had been used.
Certainly a pilot should always check the fuel by the known methods, but firstly by looking at the fuel truck and seeing what is written on the side: 100LL or JET A.
BACKPACKER, I wrote the post at night and had not just awoken. AS I mentioned above, you should be close to best glide speed if you are trimmed for best rate of climb. And anyone that hasn't taken the time to examine possible landing sites prior to takeoff hasn't done his homework.
It would be nice if someone would post what happens to mixed fuel , but if memory serves, if the fuel looks clear there is danger.
A device, fitted to the filler cap, was supposed to work in conjunction with fuel nozzles so as to NOT allow JET A fuel nozzle to enter an AVGAS filler.
I guess that didn't happen here.
All the planes I have flown that use AVGAS have a placcard around the filler cap with fuel requirement like: 100LL ONLY and is quite noticeable.
AS far as EFATO, I guess we do things differently on this side of the pond. An engine failure at anytime requires heading towards your PRE SELECTED emergency landing field, ESTABLISHING and trimming for BEst GLIDE SPEED, and then using any restart procedures like: mixture rich, fuel pump on,carb heat on, alternate air select, select another fuel tank, etc.
Now if it happens at 40', you probably don't have time for more than the first 2. And Best rate of climb is usually close enough to best glide speed as to be almost satisfactory. ( a warrior for example, best glide is: 73 and best rate is 79).
AS far as the headline, I ask you all this. When the lawsuit happens (and it will), what will the jury find? That this crash was avoidable if the proper fuel had been used.
Certainly a pilot should always check the fuel by the known methods, but firstly by looking at the fuel truck and seeing what is written on the side: 100LL or JET A.
BACKPACKER, I wrote the post at night and had not just awoken. AS I mentioned above, you should be close to best glide speed if you are trimmed for best rate of climb. And anyone that hasn't taken the time to examine possible landing sites prior to takeoff hasn't done his homework.
It would be nice if someone would post what happens to mixed fuel , but if memory serves, if the fuel looks clear there is danger.
Last edited by skyhighfallguy; 12th Mar 2015 at 23:42.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding, from reading about this incident just after it happened on a US forum, was that the aircraft was in transit back to Canada. The airfield he took off from was very urban, and he actually impacted a bridge parapet. He had limited options. That is my understanding. I think he was also in his early seventies, and had a long transit prior to his fuel stop.
So, a number of things, starting with the wrong fuel being put in whilst he grabbed a coffee. Take it from there.....I assume most of us may not think, Christ, an idiot put the wrong fuel in the plane. But wait, it was a Malibu, the fueler may have looked at it and thought, that is a turbine, and so it goes on. Tired pilot, jumps in, and the engine quits on climb out. Very limited options in front. Bad luck he hit the bridge.....
So, a number of things, starting with the wrong fuel being put in whilst he grabbed a coffee. Take it from there.....I assume most of us may not think, Christ, an idiot put the wrong fuel in the plane. But wait, it was a Malibu, the fueler may have looked at it and thought, that is a turbine, and so it goes on. Tired pilot, jumps in, and the engine quits on climb out. Very limited options in front. Bad luck he hit the bridge.....
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was working in engineering in the transport industry, we always looked for the "root cause" of failure of a component or system. This took some weeks in fact to solve some of the more complicated faults, so what is the "root" cause here, I would say without a doubt the wrong fuel was loaded, without that, all the other factors, ie: tired pilot, long trip, etc etc are irrelevant. As no accident would have occurred.
This is based on the headline cause for the crash and nothing else...
This is based on the headline cause for the crash and nothing else...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was getting the impression from previous posts that the engine failure, the pilots failure to check prior to flight, how tired he might have been, and the subsequent fatal was more of a factor as to the cause than the mis-fuelling.
you could have a small vote to see which of theses factors were the cause,
1: mis-fueling.
2: Failing to supervise the re-fueling?
you could have a small vote to see which of theses factors were the cause,
1: mis-fueling.
2: Failing to supervise the re-fueling?
Last edited by PA28181; 12th Mar 2015 at 16:43.
