|
Not a bad idea, should also have a warning light telling you you're on reserve otherwise people will accidentally switch to reserve and fly around until they run out [like on a motorbike :D]
As mentioned a PA34 with less than full fuel means you cannot see any fuel. As one instructor told me, "If you can see fuel, you have loads"......Still better to be safe than sorry in my....experience:D |
Knobby,
The problem with that idea is that if the fuel in this "reserve" tank is never used, it will go stale, and by the time you need it, it won't work. The only aircraft I know of that uses this type of design is the Europa. In this case, the reserve fuel tank is on the right hand side of the aircraft, the main tank on the left and centre. The filler cap is on the right. As new fuel is added, it displaces the old fuel out of the reserve tank and into the main tank, thus ensuring that the fuel in the reserve tank is always fresh. It really needs to be designed in from the start, I can imagine it would be a real pain to add it on afterwards. FFF -------------- |
strafer,
Do I teach my students what? That a fuel miscalulation is stupid and careless, which is what I said? That they'll be prosecuted for it, and that in SOME cases I'd disagree with that? Anyway, I teach on the R22, which actually DOES have accurate fuel gauges,or so I've always been told. It also has a fuel warning light, which comes on when you have five minutes of fuel left, and the light is checked before each flight. And five minutes is enough to land a helicopter safely - we don't need runways. So your point is?? |
As many have pointed out, the geometry of the Seneca fuel tanks make a visual inspection prior to flight practically impossible if the aircraft is less than full.
However, the aircraft is fitted with fuel flow indicators and from memory at about 24/24 and leaned, the fuel flow will be about 10 USG per side making a total of 20USG per hour consumption. Thus unlike the C172 or C150 or similar types, the pilot has a direct readout of the actual fuel consumption as the flight progresses. Not having enough fuel to divert is absolutely no problem - Shoreham has several independent runways. However, that does not remove the 45 min final reserve. As to accurately knowing how much fuel is in the aircraft before departure - Weight is the answer. The aircraft has a certified empty weight. If simple electronic scales are available at the aerodrome then simply weighing the aircraft without people or baggage will reveal how much fuel is on board and 6 pounds per US Galon is a nice round figure to keep things simple. How about putting a weight platform on front of the pumps? Regards, DFC |
Whirlybird - My point (as I'm sure you are well aware) was to do with your blase, 'anyway can make a slip-up' comments
Can anyone here say they've never made a mistake? BTW, if someone has told you that the fuel guages on a R22 are always accurate, then no problem! And checking the fuel lights before each flight - well then there's no way they can fail during flight! Anyway, as you said, 5 minutes is enough to land a helicopter. However, I presume that one day you'd like to travel more than 5 minutes from the airfield? Over water say, or forests, or indeed, people's houses. |
How about putting a weight platform on front of the pumps? And, from my experience of dealing with manufacturers of weighing equipment, they would never certify the weights recorded by a device that was left outside and was available for public use. And nobody could really blame them for that. |
On some motorbikes the "reserve tank" is just a tap lower down the one and only tank, ie is a little bit of fuel in the bottom (and it'll get mixed in each time you refuel). I'd always assumed it was there as a cheaper alternative to providing a fuel guage - are there bikes with fuel guages, and if so do they have "reserve tanks"?
|
On the subject of auxillary tanks it should probably be noted that the Cessna twin series are equipped with just that and have been well presented in the accident stats due to mismanagement of the tanks.
Common threads on there are: 1. Failure to select a tank with fuel in it and making an off field landing with fuel on board; 2. Selecting an auxillary tank with the main tank still full. Excess unused fuel by the engine is then pumped back into the full mains and promptly vented overboard. Nah, the system used for the Seneca and Seminole is quite good as it is not necessary to fiddle with the fuel selector other than in an engine failure when you want to cross feed or emergency when you want to shut the valve. FD |
Just a couple of points following up all the interesting points raised.
Aztecs join the group of aircraft whose tanks appear to be dry when plenty of fuel remains, but how much exactly lurks in the tank is unknowable because you don't know how much more fuel was used after the initial 'dry' point, and who trusts aircraft gages to tell you. Fuel flow gages are fitted to injection engined aircraft, but like all other gages they are not reliable within a couple of gallons per hour, so not suitable for fuel planning. They can be cross checked by keeping a fuel log, and compared in a twin by referring to the EGT, however any gage can play up during the course of a flight, and leakage and theft can upset the log. Reserve fuel tanks. We all have reserve tanks, they are that portion of the fuel load that should be reserved for in fuel planning, and that sort of reserve doesn't go stale. Head winds, strong enough to throw marginal fuel planning out the window, can be overlooked, I was highly surprised at 90 kts ground speed in the Rhone valley one time, and that was with 160 kts airspeed. |
strafer,
My comment was not intended to be blase, more a case of "There but for the Grace of God...", "Let he who is without sin..." etc. We check the fuel before each flight, and the lights. Also, checking the gauges is part of the cruise checks, ie making sure you are burning fuel at the rate you think you should, and at the same time, that the gauges are working. You should never - unless it's completely unavoidable - be flying over large areas of forest anyway, unless at a height at which you could glide (autorotate) clear; if I did so during training I'd get given a PFL. Ditto if flying over towns;though most of them do have flat areas where you could land in an emergency, it's something that's always born in mind. Over water? Well, lots of people won't fly single engined helicopters over water; I'm not one of them, but it is indeed a calculated risk...but I'm talking of engine failure here, not fuel mismanagement. Would I like to travel more than five minutes from the airfield? Helicopters, as I said, don't require an airfield. "Fuel light coming on" is an emergency I've practised; you land as soon as possible, ie in a field, preferably close to a road. "Someone" hasn't told me the gauges are accurate; virtually everyone says they are. I don't believe it 100%, and always check as I fly, because that's the way I am, and that's what I was taught to do(and teach). The only point I'm making is that I'm a helicopter instructor, and helicopters are different in some ways. Now let's not highjack this very important and interesting thread. |
I think it was the Triumph Herald which had a 'reserve' cock on the fuel tank. Problem was, it was in the boot. So not much use in an aeroplane! Personally, I've no idea whether the 'low state' fuel caption works in my Prelude as I've always diverted to the nearest fuel station when I'm down to 1 segment on the LED fuel gauge.....and I apply the same logic in aeroplanes.
Surely there must be someone out there who can design an accurate, reliable fuel gauging system for light aeroplanes? The best one for a PA28 is a calibrated piece of wood to dip the tanks - the manufacturer's gauges are utterly useless. |
My Dad's old P5 Rover 3 litre had a reserve switch. There was a second fuel pump, with a lower inlet than the main one.
It worked fine. |
Do you really think that incidents due to fuel starvation will be a thing of the past with reliable gauges?
Come on........ Aviation's history is littered with incidents and accidents which occured despite people knowing exactly were they were in relation to limits and performance of their machines. What is suggested next? Weight sensitive squad switches whcih determine whether the aircraft is within weight and balance limits? And if not you can not start the engine? Did you use to stick your pet in the tumble dryer before they issued advice against such practice in the manual? FD |
I can think of very few aeroplanes where, if it was considered important enough, a small panel / filler-cap where a dipstick could be inserted into the deepest part of the tank couldn't be inserted with very little trouble at-all. Also a reasonably cheap totaliser could be inserted in the main fuel line very easily with a cockpit readout - so long as you know how much fuel you had to start with there's no particular problem. The CAA mod fees would probably be more than the device itself.
Incidentally, in a previous life I used to do flight testing on a British light twin called a Jaguar. That had an obscene number of tanks, and a largely automated fuel system. Fuel gauging was through a totaliser which worked on everything except the tailtank. Drill was not to take-off until it started going down because until it had, you were out of aft CG. If you've ever seen a Jag sat at the start of a runway for longer than seems sensible in reheat before taking the brakes off, that's probably why! G |
All this talk of invisible fueltanks - how about the DA-40 then? This has four tanks in total, two in each wing, joined by tubes so the outboard tank always drains into the inboard tank automatically. The outboards only hold 3USGal each... so anything beyond 6USGal (out of 40USGal) burnt makes the tank look completely empty.
Diamond thought this was stupid too - so they provided a fuel gauge which works like a manometer. Attach it to the fuel drain and you can SEE the fuel in a clear calibrated pipe. Works a dream, albeit a little soggy when you remove the gauge from the drain as the fuel in the pipe has to go somewhere! With a little practice you can make it "on the floor" rather than "up the sleeve" :D I'm sure a similar system could be made for the other aircraft mentioned with "invisible" fuel tanks. MD. |
are there bikes with fuel guages, and if so do they have "reserve tanks"?
My Honda Blackbird has an analogue fuel guage with a 'low fuel' light within the guage, just like my car. The Honda VFR I recently owned had a digital LCD fuel guage, and the last 'segment' would flash as a low fuel warning. I think it's a while since bikes had a physical 'reserve' tap. SSD |
I think it's a while since bikes had a physical 'reserve' tap.
It's a while since I've driven a bike. I just got too scared by all the car drivers pulling out in front of me "oh sorry, didn't see you". Plus I once had a girlfriend who was a speech therapist at a rehab unit - she said they never really managed to teach the motorcyclists who came in with head injuries to talk again. |
SSD - bikes still have physical reserve taps... at least, mine do! Good idea, although how well they would function on an aeroplane where a spluttering fuel-starved engine could cause more than a bit of embarressment at the traffic lights?!
A thought on some of the comments above about how the operator liked their aircraft returned and what equipment the operator provided - not wanting to sound pompous, but who gives a monkey's? If you are not happy with the state of the aircraft before flight (eg. you've been pressured into going with less fuel than you'd like or haven't been able to verify fuel levels to your satisfaction), don't take the aircraft at all, surely? Yes, this is a textbook utopia and yes, we all succumb to outside influences in the real world, but surely it's a fear for your own life that should stop you taking off in an aeroplane you are not happy with or sure of the condition of? Hersh |
SSD,
Yeah mbike bike has an amber warning light but no analogue guage, I never trust it, for one thing I would think its only accurate when the bike is in a straight line as otherwise the fuel is sloshing about. Unfortunately I dont have a reserve so I am ******ed if I run out. I use the milage method and refuel between 100-120 miles done. Julian. |
As reported by the Beeb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...es/3201561.stm |
This reminds me of the now deseaced Pop star Aaliyah who died in a plane crash coming from the Bahamas because;
1) The Pilot didn caculate the amount of fuel he would need for the journey bearing in mind weight he was carrying (Pop star, her stuff, her enotourage, their stuff, 2) Don't remember the details but the Piot had been convicted of some drug felon and was flying some sort of twin Engine Cessna Caravan with all the experience behind him of PPL without an IR (I'm starting to use these abbrevaitions like a pro) But of course these matters didn't mean much to the pop star until the Pilot said 'Uh Oh! The plane went down shorty after take off and as a result the victims familis families in compensation were entiled to the middle part of donut because the Pilot in question was only qualified to fly a singe engine aircrfat and probably a loawn mower. Pax beware |
Quote:
Also, let's not be too harsh on the pilot for arriving with a small amount of fuel on board. I seem to remember from the original AAIB report on this incident that the aircraft operators put some degree of pressure on pilots not to return the aircraft with too much fuel on board, so that the aircraft could if necessary take a full passenger load on its next flight. That doesn't excuse the error completely of course, but it is perhaps a mitigating factor. What the AAIB actually said was He was also aware that G-OMAR was occasionally used for charter flights and that in order to avoid potential weight problems the aircraft operator had an unwritten policy that the aircraft should not be returned with very high residual fuel loads. Now IMHO coming back with 60 minutes fuel remaining for example does not represent a 'high residual fuel load'. In any case if on the next future flight the aircraft weight allowed no more than 60 minutes of fuel to be loaded, the aircraft is effectively useless. No need to run it so close. |
If there is a reserve tank it is just another thing to go wrong, to be serviced and inspected etc.
Unfortunately the low fuel situation is normally learn't solo. This is due to the fact that most instructor s have been there done that and now are very careful about fuel required etc. In fact most I know would prefer to go over weight than have anything other than full tanks (this is training puddle hoppers not twins). I had my scare in FL, which now I have more experence wasn't proberly as bad as I thought, but it did focus my mind on the fuel issues. And it was nice and easy in FL with a airfield every10 miles which sold fuel. (the handel jammed on the fuel tank selector on a PA28) But it isn't uncommon enough that you see more fuel than the usable fuel getting put into a plane after a ppl hire has come back.(I have seen it 4 times in the last 2 years). The only method i can think of,is if a Fuel supplier fills up with more than x amount for a given type they have to put a report in. But that just generates more paper work which we have to pay for and smacks a bit of big brother. And its pretty easy to get round by only taking a half load. MJ |
Quote:
The only method i can think of,is if a Fuel supplier fills up with more than x amount for a given type they have to put a report in. But that just generates more paper work which we have to pay for and smacks a bit of big brother. And its pretty easy to get round by only taking a half load. Or alternatively saying to the fueller 'This aircraft is fitted with long-range tanks'! :D |
See there is not alot we can do about it.
MJ |
That article that NewsWatcher posted a link to is a bit strange.
Why would the instructor be commenting on his landings? Unless I'm missing something his (on airport) landings are completely irrelevant to this incident. In any case why did the instructor allow him to go solo if he wasn't happy that his landings were safe? They also mention that he mad numerious previous errors, including fuel errors. If they felt that these were serioius enough, then surely they were serious enough to require further training, until they were happy with him, before letting him hire the plane solo? Does the club not owe a duty of care to the public at large to make sure that they don't hire an aircraft to someone that they have serious concerns about their safety? If not, then surely they owe a duty of care to the aircraft insurers not to hire it to someone they has concerns about. dp |
Lorry driver or Brain surgeon, he/she who leaves the ground with too little fuel to get to his/her destination has made a mistake, not a small forgivable mistake, but a HUGE and unforgivable one, if the said Lorry driver or Brain Surgeon has not the ability to work out his fuel load and then DOUBLE check the tanks, then sorry, Unforgivable Mistake, do not pass go without paying severe funds to Mr Blair, or John Prescott(whoevers turn it is this week):mad:
|
dp,
That is the problem with these news snippets, they seem far detached from the issue, no doubt this was brought up in context. In court both parties will want to try and give a bit of background to a defendant's abilities, character etc. FD PS: Vfrpilotpb, did I miss something? Did anyone refer to this person's vocation being a factor or otherwise? |
Those who say that the CAA always prosecute in cases of fuel starvation are a little out of date. Earlier this year I attended a CAA safety evening at Fairoaks in which we were given a talk by the CAA's current head of enforcement. He mentioned that his predecessor had a particular penchant for prosecuting fuel starvation cases, but made it clear that he personally did not agree with that emphasis. I don't know about anyone else but my motivation goes more along the lines of "I'd better load enough fuel or I'll crash" rather than "I'd better load enough fuel or I'll be prosecuted". |
The incident took place in Apl 2001, what was the procedure regarding licence, insurance and willing hirers in the intervening period?
This is a generalised question, but based on this incident for ease of asking. |
But it isn't uncommon enough that you see more fuel than the usable fuel getting put into a plane after a ppl hire has come back. |
I have noted all the comments about the notorious inaccuracy of fuel gauges. I use to fly a 310Q and its gauges were dreadfully inaccurate - in fact almost worse than having no gauges at all. Not to be trusted.
However, the gauges in the Yak 50 and 52 are a different matter. They are excellent and surprisingly accurate. I recently took my 50 up to Sweden and back and reconfirmed that the gauges were accurate almost to the litre. Now if the Russians were able to make simple fuel gauges for their ("GA") aeroplanes in the 1970's, why couldn't the American or European manufacturers do likewise? Bear in mind that Yaks were not designed for cross country work either so accurate fuel gauges were perhaps less required than in say a Cessna, Piper or Beech. :confused: |
I don't know about anyone else but my motivation goes more along the lines of "I'd better load enough fuel or I'll crash" rather than "I'd better load enough fuel or I'll be prosecuted". |
Accurate fuel gauges, inacurate fuel gages or no fuel guages.
It is the responsibility of the pilot to ensure that there is sufficient fuel to fly the planned trip plus reserve, depending on if you are VFR or IFR. There is one thing certain if you do not have enough fuel you will have a forced landing. And then there is no excuse..... Unless you can show that the fuel leaked out or some other unusual mechanical problem. Chuck E. |
If you read the report then several facts become apparent.
1) This was a flight that could have been carried out safely, without loading up the aircraft, even if the fuel gauges were completely unserviceable - I'll explain how later. 2) This was a classic example of someone trying to be too clever by 'supposedly' calculating a fuel load and getting it wrong - like everything in aviation instead of deciding what was needed and then trying to convert it, he should have used the time honoured practice of KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid He wanted 60USG in the aircraft. In the Seneca that equates to approx 2:45 of flying and certainly isn't round trip fuel Shoreham Sheffield and Return. Where was the contingency fuel? Where was the holding fuel? Where was the Div Fuel? In short - his preflight planning wasn't up to the standard of someone who flies that class of aircraft. Next - the refuelling itself. Keep it simple like I said. You can't dip the tanks in a Seneca with less than 130 litres (approx) in the tank for reasons stated before. There is however a small rib in the tank just below the filler cap. Instead of asking for a set amount and doing a (wrong) conversion why didn't he do what most people would do and fill it to this step. It gives a visual check that there is fuel on board and, with the fuel up to it on both sides equates to 280 litres of fuel - 3:30 and plenty for the trip with contingency. It's not the refuellers responsibility for ensuring there's enough fuel - it's the aircraft commanders and if this is the only way to make sure there is sufficient then you damn well do it or pay the consequences. This is an incident that should never have happened - at least hopefully it's something that people will learn from. |
Gertrude, in the very first response to this post, wisely pointed out: "Well, that's a report of the prosecution case, it looks like the other side of the story hasn't been put yet. So we'll have to wait and see."
A few posts later, after some had seen fit to condemn the pilot on the basis of nothing more than newspaper reports of the prosecution's allegations :rolleyes: , Flyin 'Dutch' made a reasonable and sensible appeal: "Once this case has come to an end it may be useful to discuss fuel calcs on here but I think that it would be unhelpful at the moment to go into detail." A few posts later, FD tried again: "Should we not hold back until we have seen what the defence is?" Still no luck, so FD tried yet again, this time spelling out the very real dangers in simple terms: "However since this case is still in court it seemed prudent not to add comments which could influence people involved in the current case." Then, not surprisingly, he gave up. Wouldn't it be wonderful if a juror read this thread, or was told by a friend who does, that the majority of posters on the pilots website think the pilot is guilty. Just the sort of thing the pilot on trial needs. :mad: I only hope the jury will approach this case with more sense, and more fairly, than those who've condemned him here. Unwell_Raptor asks who's defending the pilot? Some barrister called Tudor Owen. Whirlybird: I agree with you 100%. Prosecutions are not an effective means of achieving flight safety. Got to go now. I've got a lot of work to do for a trial at Chichester Crown Court. My client says the allegations against him aren't true. FL |
Just my 2p's worth.
I read the original AAIB report on this (G-OMAR, I think) at the time it came out, and it (or something related I read at the time) mentioned that the firm he rented the plane from used it for charter work, and since in that line you never know if you will get five fat blokes with a load of golfing gear turning up, you don't keep much fuel in the tanks. Especially in a Seneca. This renter was told to not return the plane with too much fuel in the tanks, and he did his best to do as he was told. He made some fuel miscalculations on top of that. On a more general point, I did my whole PPL in Cessnas, and not once did anyone show me a physical fuel check. This would have involved bringing out a ladder. I was told to check the two documents back at the office and if they agree it must be OK. It was immediately obvious that they were filled in by the same person each time.... I have never flown a self fly hire plane with usable fuel gauges. I always filled the tanks right up (even if the CFI moaned about it, one does not get charged for time to/from the pumps) and knew that gave me say 4 hrs range, and if the trip would take 2 hrs that was fine. Then you didn't need working fuel gauges, dip the tanks, etc. I think the whole business of fuel calculations and conversions, as taught in the PPL, with that stupid ex-WW1 ex-Wehrmacht circular slide rule, is an accident looking for a place to happen. |
FL,
Thanks for your comments, as you say one can only try so much! Is there an update about the court case. Been looking on the Beeb site but could not find anything. Newswatcher? FD |
I did my whole PPL in Cessnas, and not once did anyone show me a physical fuel check. |
Tudor who?
;) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:21. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.