X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:29:20 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from QMTA10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.17] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c4) with ESMTP id 4042832 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:24:23 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.30.17; envelope-from=j.hafen@comcast.net Received: from OMTA12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.44]) by QMTA10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id NJET1d0090x6nqcAAJPnFz; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:23:47 +0000 Received: from [10.71.44.92] ([166.205.11.5]) by OMTA12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id NJPa1d00406XwZi8YJPevK; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:23:45 +0000 References: X-Original-Message-Id: <32C02A8E-E4B7-4A29-A9FB-84A1B602A518@comcast.net> From: John Hafen X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-163169167 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning X-Original-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:23:30 -0700 X-Original-Cc: "lml@lancaironline.net" --Apple-Mail-2-163169167 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gary: Great post. Many thanks. Can you please help me with the procedure to dip-stick the fuel tanks on a IV-P? John Hafen IVP 413AJ 200 hours PS -- how often do you recommend we change oil if there is no reason to do it frequently?? PPS il On Dec 27, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Gary Casey wrote: > Many interesting comments of fuel planning. Here's a few "comments > on the comments:" > > Some said that more fuel equals more safety so they always fill to > the top. Okay, but I didn't hear them say they would also top the > tanks before the trip home - I suspect they wouldn't do that for the > 30-minute flight (I wouldn't). So how can safety be improved by NOT > filling the tanks? For me the most worrisome part of the flight is > the climb to altitude - the sooner I can get there the better. > Unnecessary fuel reduces the climb rate and increases the time > exposed to the risk of engine failure. Are there other safety > advantages to having LESS fuel? Might be, but that's the one I can > think of. > > I certainly agree that one doesn't ever want to take off with the > fuel quantity on board being "unknown" and there were a number of > posts that discussed ways to reduce the uncertainty. I would think, > however, one could dipstick the tanks before every flight to make > the fuel a "known" quantity. I dipstick the tanks and then check > the fuel gage readings against that known quantity and then sort of > triangulate the fuel with the initial known quantity, known fuel > burn rate and the fuel gage readings. If at any time the fuel gage > readings are less than I would expect it is time for a landing to > find out why(fuel leak?). If they are more than I expect I > certainly don't extend the flight, assuming there is more fuel than > I planned(bad gage?). Everything should match the prediction and > the only way to do that is to dipstick the tanks. > > Reminds me a little bit of the pilot who told me that he changed oil > every 25 hours because oil was "cheap insurance." Okay, if it > actually did improve the reliability or longevity of the engine, but > there is no proof of that. And all those oil changes increases the > chance that something will be done wrong. Does more fuel always > equate to more safety? If so, maybe it is "cheap insurance." > Problem is, I've heard the term "cheap insurance" used badly too > many times, so it makes me nervous when someone says that. > > Oh, yeah, and if you are going to make an off airport landing the > safest way to do that is with empty tanks......:-) > > The only absolute is that there are no absolutes. There are no > "safe" airplanes and no "dangerous" airplanes as well as no "safe" > flights - we can only operate somewhere in the range between safe > (don't go at all) and dangerous (don't do anything really stupid). > > Gary > > > --Apple-Mail-2-163169167 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Gary:

Great = post. Many thanks. 

Can you please help me = with the procedure to dip-stick the fuel tanks on a = IV-P?

John Hafen
IVP 413AJ 200 = hours

PS -- how often do you recommend we =  change oil if there is no reason to do it = frequently??

PPS il

On Dec 27, = 2009, at 10:51 AM, Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com> = wrote:

Many interesting comments of fuel planning. =  Here's a few "comments on the = comments:"

Some said that more fuel equals more = safety so they always fill to the top.  Okay, but I didn't hear = them say they would also top the tanks before the trip home - I suspect = they wouldn't do that for the 30-minute flight (I wouldn't).  So = how can safety be improved by NOT filling the tanks?  For me the = most worrisome part of the flight is the climb to altitude - the sooner = I can get there the better.  Unnecessary fuel reduces the climb = rate and increases the time exposed to the risk of engine failure. =  Are there other safety advantages to having LESS fuel?  Might = be, but that's the one I can think of.

I = certainly agree that one doesn't ever want to take off with the fuel quantity on board = being "unknown" and there were a number of posts that discussed ways to = reduce the uncertainty.  I would think, however, one could dipstick = the tanks before every flight to make the fuel a "known" quantity. =  I dipstick the tanks and then check the fuel gage readings against = that known quantity and then sort of triangulate the fuel with the = initial known quantity, known fuel burn rate and the fuel gage readings. =  If at any time the fuel gage readings are less than I would expect = it is time for a landing to find out why(fuel leak?).  If they are = more than I expect I certainly don't extend the flight, assuming there = is more fuel than I planned(bad gage?).  Everything should match = the prediction and the only way to do that is to dipstick the = tanks.

Reminds me a little bit of the pilot who = told me that he changed oil every 25 hours because oil was "cheap insurance."  Okay, if it actually did improve the = reliability or longevity of the engine, but there is no proof of that. =  And all those oil changes increases the chance that something will = be done wrong.  Does more fuel always equate to more safety? =  If so, maybe it is "cheap insurance."  Problem is, I've heard = the term "cheap insurance" used badly too many times, so it makes me = nervous when someone says that.

Oh, yeah, and = if you are going to make an off airport landing the safest way to do = that is with empty tanks......:-)

The only = absolute is that there are no absolutes.  There are no "safe" = airplanes and no "dangerous" airplanes as well as no "safe" flights - we = can only operate somewhere in the range between safe (don't go at all) = and dangerous (don't do anything really = stupid).

Gary



= --Apple-Mail-2-163169167--