X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 73 [XX] (80%) OBFUSCATED_WORD1_MONEY (20%) BODY: content type is strictly "text/html" Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:49:18 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from jrcda.com ([69.36.178.59] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.7) with ESMTP id 1934946 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:51:09 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.36.178.59; envelope-from=hwasti@starband.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (cbl-238-61.conceptcable.com [207.170.238.61] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by jrcda.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2LGo06I031497 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:50:12 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <46016236.8010309@starband.net> X-Original-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:49:58 -0700 From: "Hamid A. Wasti" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re; Unbalanced Fuel Load References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tom,

If you are talking about the Fall 1999 accident (he had another serious one in the 1960's), you have the facts complete wrong. The aircraft was undergoing first flight after engine replacement. The aircraft lost partial power on climbout and Paul tried to make it back to the runway. There was not enough altitude or power to do that and he crashed just short of the airport seriously injuring himself. The cause of the accident was a loose fuel line that was not properly torqued by the engine overhauler and came loose due to the runup and takeoff. When rescuers got there, the electric fuel pump was spewing fuel on the hot engine. He was really lucky that there was no fire.

There are many lessons here for anyone flying any airplane. The biggest lesson is one of my pet issues: Realistic training. Yes, we all know not to turn back to the runway if the engine quits on takeoff. But can you really tell when the engine has quit? You know that if the engine died you could not make it to the runway from that altitude/position. But the engine is still making noise and turning the prop. Has the engine really quit? Is this really happening to me? Is the engine putting out enough power that I can make it back? It can not be happening to me, can it? Maybe I should start the turn and see! It just can not be happening to me, I am just over-reacting to a minor engine hickup. Darn, things are not working out, where is that field that I always planned to land in the event of an engine failure. Oooppps. I can not make that either....... you get the picture. The person who knows and has taught others to land straight ahead is now lulled into turning back and giving up all his options and often his life because he was not sure that the engine really quit.

How do you realistically train for that? I do not have an answer for that one except increasing awareness of the fact that while a stopped prop and silence always means engine failure, the converse is usually not true.

Regards,

Hamid

Tom Sullivan wrote:

I didn't jump into this discussionthe first go round, as it seemed the original submitter accepted the unsafe nature of this endeavor. A factor that was not brought up was something that happened to Paul Loewen from Laser Plane Sales many years ago. He flight tested a Mooney with one tank completely dry (I beleave it was run dry so it could have the fuel tank resealed). During flight testing, he ended up with a fuel starvation that was determined later to be a slight leakage of the fuel selector valve. Air has much less resistance for the fuel pump than fuel does. The ensuing accident nearly killed him. I think he broke his back, and know he spent a lot of time in the hopsital. My recollection of the details may not be exactly correct, but my mind is still burned with the memory that I will never fly an airplane with one tank dry.

Tom Sullivan

KIMT