|
|
|
Bill, Bill, Bill.........
We are all a product of our experiences. You flew a vehicle that was
built by the lowest bidder to gov't specs. You never fueled your own
plane. Your experience has left you a bitter faithless nail biter. ;<)
I also flew a plane built to gov't specs - built by hands of
many, uh, qualified people. It was called a Skymaster (C337G) with
extended range tanks - 6 in total and all connected to a state of the art brain
(well, that was 1970 or earlier technology). These were
analog gauges that didn't even read empty correctly. Fuel consumption
(gph) was measured by a magical conversion of fuel pressure and
displayed by a needle where even movement of its width
was significant (Don't ya just love Continental engines?). I had
1300 hours over many cross-country miles and never ran out of fuel.
Deeply imbedded in my persona is the use of the fourth dimension - time. I
used each fuel stop to estimate the amount consumed for the trip and topped her
up - after about 300 hours and many different flight regimes, I would be
within a gallon or two of the truck quantity. Gauges, I didn't need no
stink'n gauges or sticks - I used my own 1941 era brain.
Then came the building my Lancair 320 - what a joy as I could do
something about the miserable fuel management systems I had to experience with
Cessna products. No selector valves (a source of many accidents), header
always full automatic system for the emergency case of no electrical power plus
evenly emptying fuel from both wings to keep lateral balance, digital displays
accurately calibrated, idiot lights and audible warnings for low fuel states of
any tank and of the aggregate, independent accurate fuel flow
instrumentation and, finally, the mental set that makes a landing
more desirable than some animalistic urge to try to reach the
destination at any cost.
Oh, BTW I am still ingrained to make use of the fourth
dimension (that being time) so as not to run out of fuel and I still estimate
top-up fuel amounts accurately even if 3 or 4 intervening flights have taken
place. You know, another benefit of low winged aircraft is that I can see
all the fuel caps whilst flying (that's why they are shiny).
I certainly agree that an accident due to running out of fuel is one of the
more stupid ones. With respect to Darwin, it is too late - I have had all
the children I am going to have.
Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk
In a message dated 12/27/2009 11:51:27 A.M. Central Standard Time,
gt_phantom@hotmail.com writes:
I
received two responses to my post; I am responding to both in this post.
To both Grayhawk and Mike Easley I respectfully submit that you are
asking for needless trouble.
If you will refer to my original post, I
did not say that "Full" was not the only POSSIBLE "known quantity, but rather
that it was the only known quantity for each tank on most Lancairs. That
is a FACTUAL statement, your arguments about the reliability of your
respective fuel gauges notwithstanding.
Do you visually confirm that
the amount of fuel in each tank matches what the gauge says, and if so,
how? Capacitance gauges, while very accurate today, do have failure
modes. Do you know all of them? Do you know how to recognize them
in the cockpit? Is it even POSSIBLE to recognize them all in the
cockpit?
Fuel starvation is one of the leading causes of
accidents and is THE most preventable accident cause.
The same type of
gauges were used in the F-4 Phantoms I flew in my mis-spent youth. One
day on a training flight after the external tanks were dry, I started noticing
that my fuel quantity seemed to be going down more quickly than Lead's.
Too, the gauge was "bouncing around more than normal." After a brief
discussion with my back seater we decided we would rather be live sissies than
end up walking home or worse, so we told Lead we were heading home.
Lead, being a rather arrogant ass, asked us to repeat the diagnosis we had
already performed and, in level flight, the gauge seemed to level out just a
bit below Lead's reading. Logically, if we both started out with full
tanks and there was no leakage, our fuel remaining should be about the
same. Lead passed off the fluctuation as a simple gauge problem and
said, "let's continue the mission and just keep an eye on it;" however, I told
him to take the stick if he wanted to fly my airplane, otherwise we were going
home with or without him. He grudgingly "led us back."
On the way
home, the gauge started falling at an increased pace, so much so that we had
Lead drop back twice and look for fuel leaking. None. On short
initial the Fuel Low Level light (which was independent from the gauge system)
came on - this system was supposed to be "fool proof" and "absolutely
reliable" and was supposed to indicate 2200-2300 pounds of fuel remaining (a
good 10-12 minutes at reduced power setting). I pitched, throttled back,
dropped gear and flaps, turned base, and landed in minimum time with minimum
use of throttle. On touchdown I shut down one engine (standard
practice); rolled to the end of the runway, turned off and pulled into my
hanger (by happenstance the first hanger) all without touching the throttles
again and then wrote up the plane for a faulty fuel gauge system.
In
order to inspect the fuel system gauges, it was necessary to remove the
remaining fuel from the aircraft. Full internal fuel on the F-4 was
about 12,500 lbs, or about 1900 gallons which represents a bit over an hour of
flying time (~180 gallons = 6 minutes; 18 gallons = 0.6 minutes). When
they defueled the aircraft, they only got 6 gallons, or less than 20 seconds
of fuel remaining.
Complacency is the single biggest killer in aircraft
accidents. If you trust your newfangled gadgets without verifying, you
are an accident statistic waiting to happen - period, and I make no apology
for that statement.
Now, having said that there ARE legitimate ways to
insure there is a "KNOWN QUANTITY" of fuel. My particular Lancair has a
header tank, so I can fill that and know I have enough fuel to ferry the
aircraft to another airport for cheaper gas. I can (and have) fill a
single wing tank, and accept that it will be wing-heavy on takeoff (I lost a
gas cap on a cross country, and flew with two tanks rather than be stuck out
for a day or more). For those builders who plan ahead ( or a clever
person improvising after instruction), tabs can be installed inside the wing
fill caps ala' Piper, so that if you "fill to the tabs" you have both a
balanced and known quantity of fuel. Some people have carefully
calibrated dip sticks to determine exactly how much fuel is in a given
tank.
All of these are acceptable and reliable practices.
However, if you choose to steadfastly maintain that looking at your gauge is a
"reliable way to determine your fuel" then all I can say is that when the day
comes that I see "fuel starvation" as the cause of your accident, I will tell
everyone at your funeral that you were provided with information that could
have prevented it and that you knowingly chose to act in a dangerous
fashion. Oh, and I'll nominate you for a Darwin Award, too...
;-)
Best regards all,
Happy New Year, and fly safe!
Bill
Reister
__________________________________________
"GT,
You must not have seen my Lancair
320 since I do know the amount of fuel I have at any given time and the
amount is within 1-2 gallons (the tank displays do not show
fractions of gallons). It was an important capability for me
and I had no problem in installing and using a system that went beyond FAA
certification rules that only require the gauges be accurate when
they show empty.
On behalf of those 300 series
pilots that perform aerobatics, going out to compete or practice with
only a full header is prudent as fuel in the wings may upset the balance of
some maneuvers.
Grayhawk" ____________________________________________
mikeeasley
wrote:
I disagree with the concept that the only known
fuel quantity is FULL. Maybe in the old days in certified aircraft,
but my ES fuel gages are accurate.
Back when fuel planning was done with an E6B,
an estimated hourly fuel burn, one EGT analog gage; a very generous "fudge
factor" needed to be included in our flight planning. I even think the
winds aloft forecasts are better now than they were 20 years
ago.
With accurate fuel gages, fuel flow
transducers, GPS calculated ground speed, ETA, fuel remaining at
destination, and many of us have calculated winds aloft; we have a lot of
accurate data on board. Most of our Lancairs have superior fuel
management tools. I found Jeff's statistic surprising, unless pilots
have failed to properly calibrate the fuel instruments or maybe just ignored
them.
I flew one of my tanks down to .7 gallons on a
flight to Lancair to do some repair work on a wing. I had to
drain the tank for the repair and I wasn't confident enough to run it dry in
flight. I drained about 3/4 of a coffee can of fuel out on the ramp at
Lancair. I have very high confidence in my fuel gages. That
said, I have never landed with less than 20 gallons on board.
My home field is almost 7,000 MSL so
topping it off is at least something to think about, especially in the
summertime. I have much more runway than Gary Casey up the road at
Kelly Airpark.
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
Full tanks on a 320/360 is < 250 lbs, or a heavy passenger.
When
you calculate the theoretical savings you MIGHT obtain not filling the
tanks vs. the empirical evidence of greater safety from ALWAYS filling the
tanks, I'll have to say I'm quite willing to shell out a few extra dollars
on the side of safety. Too, in every Lancair I've seen there is only
one KNOWN quantity of gas for each tank - FULL. Every other
condition is "unknown." However, that still does allow having at
least one tank FULL and the wings "not full" and still know you have
enough gas for a local flight. I have taken off once with only a
full header tank - that was to go get cheaper gas at another
airport.
But don't let my caution stop you from taking of with an
unknown quantity of gas.
Merry Christmas, all!
:-)
--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
|
|