Police helicopter crashes onto Glasgow pub
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
The fuel was low, at best (the AAIB will have drained all fuel from the wreck before transporting it to Farnborough).
I disagree with the theory of the Glasgow crash being directly related to the Air Ambulance fuel display fault.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
ss
We do not know that as fact
I disagree with the theory of the Glasgow crash being directly related to the Air Ambulance fuel display fault.
Ttb
The fuel was low, at best (the AAIB will have drained all fuel from the wreck before transporting it to Farnborough).!
The fuel was low, at best (the AAIB will have drained all fuel from the wreck before transporting it to Farnborough).!
I disagree with the theory of the Glasgow crash being directly related to the Air Ambulance fuel display fault.
ttb
SS - do me a favour and ask them: 01252 510300
We do not know that as fact!
At the moment, anything else is purely conjecture.
As for you asking someone to call the AAIB in order to settle a disagreement on an Internet forum, what a ridiculous thing to say.
I agree, we carry a chart in our 135 tech log that converts litres to kg. Every refuel, I cross refer to check fuel loaded.
skadi
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
40odd2 ---
The kg/litres debacle has its history in charging for fuel, not flying. Higher temps in the tank farm lower the SG of the fuel so you get more litres for a given kg. It doesn't matter much for very small a/c like the 135, or light aviation but over a time, the difference is huge for the heavies. The last time I had involvement in pump metering was nearly 20 years ago, though I keep an eye on the technology, just for interest. I believe that all pump meters that dispense direct to a/c are of a volumetric design. If you want to convert to mass then you have to measure the temperature, look up the fuel characteristics being dispensed and calculate the mass. I can't think of any reason why the industry should burden pilots with the task of running two units of measurement alongside each other, some 20% apart in magnitude (SG = 0.81). Can anyone else offer an explanation other than for the convenience of bean-counters?
Lemain,
So, do you know where we can get a fuel pump that dispenses in kgs?
Only asking 'cos we've been told more than once that it's Gallons or Litres only - which is why, in the door pocket of the aircraft there's a laminated card with the Kgs to Litres conversion on it to make sure that we put the right amount in. Then, at the end of each month when the Senior Pilot does the QA checks on the tech logs, one of the items to be checked is that the litres vs kgs figures do actually reconcile and add up to a "normal" average fuel consumption.
So, do you know where we can get a fuel pump that dispenses in kgs?
Only asking 'cos we've been told more than once that it's Gallons or Litres only - which is why, in the door pocket of the aircraft there's a laminated card with the Kgs to Litres conversion on it to make sure that we put the right amount in. Then, at the end of each month when the Senior Pilot does the QA checks on the tech logs, one of the items to be checked is that the litres vs kgs figures do actually reconcile and add up to a "normal" average fuel consumption.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TTB --
Those are not the 'facts' as published thus far by the AAIB. Have you read the bulletin? The link has been repeatedly posted on this thread. http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...-SPAO%20v2.pdf
The report states:
That is quite, quite different from your version. As for the pilot, it is not stated whether or not he was incapacitated and your statement is an inference by you.
The facts:
There were no mechanical defects found in any part of the drive train during the initial investigation.
The engine showed no signs of failure.
The pilot was not incapacitated.
There were no mechanical defects found in any part of the drive train during the initial investigation.
The engine showed no signs of failure.
The pilot was not incapacitated.
The report states:
Initial assessment provided no evidence of major mechanical
disruption of either engine and indicated that the main
rotor gearbox was capable of providing drive from the
No 2 engine power turbine to the main rotor and to the
fenestron drive shaft.
Clear impact distortion of the
structure had caused a splined shaft on the drive train
from the No 1 engine to disengage, preventing a similar continuity check
disruption of either engine and indicated that the main
rotor gearbox was capable of providing drive from the
No 2 engine power turbine to the main rotor and to the
fenestron drive shaft.
Clear impact distortion of the
structure had caused a splined shaft on the drive train
from the No 1 engine to disengage, preventing a similar continuity check
SS - Do you think it is significant that the AAIB specifically stated how much fuel was removed from the aircraft in its initial bulletin? Do you think there would be any legal considerations when driving a freshly crashed aircraft 450 miles down the motorway from Glasgow to Farnborough with Jet A1 sloshing around in it? Do you think the risk of losing residual fuel through any (at that time) undiscovered damage might cause a hazard and/or directly affect the subsequent investigation?
Rather than spouting off all the time, try and think about what you want to say, before you say it. Call the AAIB and ask what its general policy is for draining fuel from crashed aircraft before recovery and we'll speak later.
Rather than spouting off all the time, try and think about what you want to say, before you say it. Call the AAIB and ask what its general policy is for draining fuel from crashed aircraft before recovery and we'll speak later.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
ttb;
Rather than spouting off all the time, try and think about what you want to say, before you say it. Call the AAIB and ask what its general policy is for draining fuel from crashed aircraft before recovery and we'll speak later.
Rather than spouting off all the time, try and think about what you want to say, before you say it. Call the AAIB and ask what its general policy is for draining fuel from crashed aircraft before recovery and we'll speak later.
What is the difference between;
"Once removed from the building, approximately 95 liters of fuel were drained from the fuel tank system."
and
"The fuselage tank was drained and contained 95 liters of fuel."
http://www.havarikommissionen.dk/da/...oreloebig.ashx
ttb, why don't you simply back up your statements about the drained fuel by telling us that you know, through experience or other immediate knowledge, that because of xyz, the drained 95 litres was all that remained in the aircrafts tanks?
Rather than follow your ridiculous request of making phone calls, I'll go along with my thought that perhaps that 95 litres was all they could access, both when it was on the strops and once level on the trailer.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
ttb;
SS .. Do you think there would be any legal considerations when driving a freshly crashed aircraft 450 miles down the motorway from Glasgow to Farnborough with Jet A1 sloshing around in it? Do you think the risk of losing residual fuel through any (at that time) undiscovered damage might cause a hazard and/or directly affect the subsequent investigation?
SS .. Do you think there would be any legal considerations when driving a freshly crashed aircraft 450 miles down the motorway from Glasgow to Farnborough with Jet A1 sloshing around in it? Do you think the risk of losing residual fuel through any (at that time) undiscovered damage might cause a hazard and/or directly affect the subsequent investigation?
"A significant quantity of fuel was drained from the aircraft at the accident site and, again, upon its arrival at the AAIB facilities at Farnborough. Approximately 107 litres of fuel were drained from the fuselage mounted tanks, but only 0.35 litres from the left wing tank.."
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...YD%2009-09.pdf
Llanfihangel Glyn Myfyr to Farnborough, 230 miles
Although to be fair that can be balanced with this:-
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...3%20G-CIAS.pdf
I think the interesting point in the report on the 135 accident is the specific value given to the amount of fuel recovered.
Initial examination of the aircraft
The aircraft was examined at the accident site. Both main fuel tanks were found almost full and the tip tanks were empty.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...3%20G-CIAS.pdf
I think the interesting point in the report on the 135 accident is the specific value given to the amount of fuel recovered.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Pitts, Your reference can hardly balance anything in this particular part of the thread as "The aircraft was examined at the accident site" and no transportation for further investigation was involved!
All the Glasgow report is stating, is the fact that 95 litres were drained from the ac. If people want a conspiracy or some other thing to look at, why don't you all ask the question, 'Why it is that exactly 95 litres were drained, not 94, not 96 but exactly 95!! 
Kind of backs up my previous thought that the 95l was all they either had access to, or the capability to take, at the initial examination;
Oooo, are those 3.5 litre sample jars they are using?
I think the interesting point in the report on the 135 accident is the specific value given to the amount of fuel recovered.
Kind of backs up my previous thought that the 95l was all they either had access to, or the capability to take, at the initial examination;
Oooo, are those 3.5 litre sample jars they are using?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
DAPT, surely you're not advocating the use of an app during the refuelling process are you ? 
(Yes I have seen mythbusters)
(Yes I have seen mythbusters)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Sid, 95 litres is a value very similar, give or take the SG for the OAT, to the 71-72 KGS of fuel that becomes unusable should both main tank transfer pumps fail or be selected off.
I think that makes the value of 95 litres interesting and could be significant. However it is the AAIBs job to determine the associated facts that would gives us a better insight into how this accident occurred.
I think that makes the value of 95 litres interesting and could be significant. However it is the AAIBs job to determine the associated facts that would gives us a better insight into how this accident occurred.
Lemain,
You said in your post #1683 above:
"I can't think of any reason why the industry should burden pilots with the task of running two units of measurement alongside each other, some 20% apart in magnitude (SG = 0.81). Can anyone else offer an explanation other than for the convenience of bean-counters?"
Well, actually, yes I can and it goes something like this.
When I land and shut down I look at the fuel gauge to tell me how much fuel I have left in the tanks. It is displayed in kgs because, when I do the performance calcs, I am interested solely in the weight of the fuel. I then work out the number of kgs I require to bring the total back to the required fuel load. Then, looking at the chart, I read off how many litres are needed and tell the crew member on the pump, the number of litres that they need to dispense before shutting off the flow. Once the refuel is done, I check to see that the expected number of kgs apprear on the gauge. It has absolutely nothing to do with keeping the bean counters happy - it has everything to do with ensuring that the aircraft is at the correct and expected weight which has everything to do with complying with PC1 operations.
You said in your post #1683 above:
"I can't think of any reason why the industry should burden pilots with the task of running two units of measurement alongside each other, some 20% apart in magnitude (SG = 0.81). Can anyone else offer an explanation other than for the convenience of bean-counters?"
Well, actually, yes I can and it goes something like this.
When I land and shut down I look at the fuel gauge to tell me how much fuel I have left in the tanks. It is displayed in kgs because, when I do the performance calcs, I am interested solely in the weight of the fuel. I then work out the number of kgs I require to bring the total back to the required fuel load. Then, looking at the chart, I read off how many litres are needed and tell the crew member on the pump, the number of litres that they need to dispense before shutting off the flow. Once the refuel is done, I check to see that the expected number of kgs apprear on the gauge. It has absolutely nothing to do with keeping the bean counters happy - it has everything to do with ensuring that the aircraft is at the correct and expected weight which has everything to do with complying with PC1 operations.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Auckland
Age: 81
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I see it there are three possibilities.
(1) The AAIB drained some fuel and left some but didn't bother to say because it's not important. (2) Drained more than 95L but stated less - any figure up to that quantity is not logically incorrect - to keep everyone guessing. (3) Drained and measured all the fuel remaining and made a simple unqualified statement to inform pilots and operators the fuel tanks contained close to 95L.
(1) The AAIB drained some fuel and left some but didn't bother to say because it's not important. (2) Drained more than 95L but stated less - any figure up to that quantity is not logically incorrect - to keep everyone guessing. (3) Drained and measured all the fuel remaining and made a simple unqualified statement to inform pilots and operators the fuel tanks contained close to 95L.