X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:07:32 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from bosmailout13.eigbox.net ([66.96.189.13] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.1) with ESMTP id 4084027 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:38:36 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.96.189.13; envelope-from=SRS0=m4Lhj1=JA=mwheli.com=bjburr@eigbox.net Received: from bosmailscan19.eigbox.net ([10.20.15.19]) by bosmailout13.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1NVq7U-0005VW-4T for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:38:00 -0500 Received: from bosimpout02.eigbox.net ([10.20.55.2]) by bosmailscan19.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1NVq7U-0004G5-1N for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:38:00 -0500 Received: from bosauthsmtp15.eigbox.net ([10.20.18.15]) by bosimpout02.eigbox.net with NO UCE id Vtd21d00E0KWaAJ01td2Nn; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:37:02 -0500 X-EN-OrigOutIP: 10.20.18.15 X-EN-IMPSID: Vtd21d00E0KWaAJ01td2Nn Received: from rrcs-74-87-62-154.west.biz.rr.com ([74.87.62.154] helo=[10.10.103.72]) by bosauthsmtp15.eigbox.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1NVq7S-0004cP-WB for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:38:00 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <6E39890E-06B2-400F-B4D1-8C1857F4A1D2@mwheli.com> From: Burr Bryan X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-24--345448925 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning, Bryan Burr X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:37:56 -0700 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-EN-UserInfo: afb066d8b4230608b04b264cad72a5d8:59efd05c4346593dae8a30875e4d072b X-EN-AuthUser: bjburr@mwheli.com X-Original-Sender: Burr Bryan X-EN-OrigIP: 74.87.62.154 X-EN-OrigHost: rrcs-74-87-62-154.west.biz.rr.com --Apple-Mail-24--345448925 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John, It was a pleasure. You can certainly understand my enthusiasm for the =20= Lancair products. I know you found it frustrating during the building =20= process. It is long, tedious, expensive. But in the end it is all =20 worth it. Especially when it is time for maintenance and repairs. =20 Knowing that you can do anything on this airplane is rewarding as =20 finishing and flying as well. Hopefully Amy is pleased with it too. =20= My wife has yet to even look inside let alone sit or ride in it. My =20 sons received their Private Pilots License in December after enrolling =20= in the UVU college program. So they will be flying it soon. Thanks for your email. Bryan Burr N132BB Super ES On Jan 15, 2010, at 5:38 AM, John Hafen wrote: > Bryan: > > I don=92t think I ever adequately thanked you for the ride you gave =20= > Amy and me a few years back. Amy loved your plane and the ride over =20= > Utah lake and etc. That fired her jets enough to allow me to buy a =20= > kit and get started. > > As you know, aerodynamics of flight have nothing to do with keeping =20= > an airplane airborne. It all boils down to kitchen clearance. If a =20= > guy has that, he can make anything fly. Therefore N413AJ flies. =20 > And I have you to thank for that. > > Hope all is well and many thanks. > > John Hafen > IVP N413AJ 200+hours > > > On 1/3/10 2:07 PM, "Bryan Burr" wrote: > > I don't think the fuel level in a Lancair ES can be accurately =20 > determined using a dip stick. The fuel is mainly stored towards the =20= > wing root and away from the filler port. It doesn't take much =20 > flight time for the fuel to disappear from sight when looking into =20 > the filler port but there is still a significant amount remaining. =20= > Therefore, the sole source of fuel quantity is the gauge. Which =20 > leads me to top off before each flight. I then know exactly how =20 > much is onboard. The only true source of fuel information is =20 > starting with a known quantity and time. Gauges are a great backup =20= > until they go blank as can be the case with the electronic screen =20 > displays installed in so many of our airplanes. > > Personally I always start topped off. Fly 30 minutes on the left =20 > (climb power) 1 hour on the right, 1 hour on the left, then back to =20= > 30 minute tank switches to a total of 4 flight hours. Then I am =20 > looking to land. By that time I am well over 800 miles, needing a =20 > rest, wanting to check my airplane mechanically, check in with =20 > business and family etc. > > Good? Bad? or indifferent? That is my routine. I am used to it, it =20= > is the same every flight, it is proven as I have never run out of =20 > fuel, the time works for me, I can routinely verify my fuel flow =20 > rates, I usually am where I need to be well within 4 flight hours, =20 > the airplane handles the weight just fine, my climb rates are more =20 > than acceptable (900 fpm), TAS is more than acceptable at higher =20 > weight (210+ knots). Am I being inefficient? Probably. Am I =20 > putting additional stress on the airplane? Most Likely. Is it =20 > worrisome to me? No. The airplane was designed to be flown with the =20= > fuel capacity intended. And it is only at this capacity for a =20 > portion of the time as fuel is burned. > > Bryan Burr > N132BB > > On Jan 1, 2010, at 8:40 AM, mikeeasley wrote: > > Bill, > > I saw a quote the other day on a T-shirt in a store: > > "Confidence is the feeling you have before you fully understand the =20= > situation." > > I definitely think it applies here. I think we are on the same =20 > page. Just looking at the fuel gages is taking additional risk =20 > that's not necessary. I would say that about 20% of my flights take =20= > place with less than full fuel at takeoff. On most of those =20 > partially fueled flights, I have done the "mental math" to confirm =20 > what's left in the tanks based on fuel flow and time, and I compare =20= > that to the fuel quantity gages. Buy I must admit a few times where =20= > my plane has been sitting in the hangar for a while, and I don't =20 > remember exactly what the previous flight fuel situation was, and I =20= > just look in the tanks, trust the fuel quantity gages and go fly. > > Your points are well taken. > > Mike > > > > In a message dated 12/30/09 17:14:07 Mountain Standard Time, = gt_phantom@hotmail.com=20 > writes: > Hi Mike, > > Do you pre-flight your airplane each time before you fly? Do you =20 > have SOME system to confirm that what your fuel gauge says is =20 > accurate before take-off (e.g. dip stick, full, or even "educated =20 > eyeball")? And, can you reliably tell when fuel transfer is not =20 > working? > > If you answer "Yes" to the above, then I would submit that you are =20 > starting each flight with a known quantity of fuel and have a =20 > reliable system for determining if there is a problem requiring you =20= > to land early. I applaud any such a solution. > > If any of those answers are "no," then you have an opportunity to =20 > improve your process. Perhaps the risk is "low," but why take it if =20= > a better way takes only seconds? > > My biggest concern on these forums is that there are folks who have =20= > been doing things for decades in a way which works "most of the =20 > time" and they've "never had a problem." By posting "advice" that =20 > is either incomplete (leaves out an important confirmation step) or =20= > is actually they way they do things and leaves out important =20 > confirmation, it is possible to leave younger pilots with ideas that =20= > can end them up in needless trouble. > > There are often many "right" ways to do things. The criteria for =20 > determining a "right" way is simple: does it insure that you KNOW =20 > the condition of your plan before you fly so that you are making =20 > planning decisions based on facts rather than assumptions. > > I had one fellow reply privately to me that he never performs pre-=20 > flights. Rather, he post-flights before putting his plane in his =20 > hanger after fueling and is the only person who flies the plane. =20 > This is the sort of solution that works "most of the time" and =20 > "sounds reasonable." However, life isn't reasonable. Things =20 > break. Fuel can leak out on the hanger floor, evaporate, and leave =20= > no sign. A slowly leaking tire can cause a deadly accident if not =20 > checked before flying, rather than after. Etc. > > In a recent thread, I avoided being critical of people's personal =20 > choices - saying only that choosing to fly faster than Vne is a =20 > "risk" and noting that apparently no one in a 320/360 has died from =20= > this alone (leaving out the T-storms). I am absolutely fine with =20 > people taking risks with their own lives that they know that they =20 > are taking - it is THEIR life. I am not so good with people taking =20= > risks on behalf of others (passengers, people to whom they give =20 > advice) who may be trusting them to exercise superior judgment, and =20= > when I think I see such behavior I tend to speak up. > > So to everyone out here - I would ask that you please consider the =20 > impact of your "suggestions" on these forums. If you knowingly take =20= > risks, then please either don't recommend that technique or make it =20= > clear that you know there is a possibility that your system could =20 > "fail" at an inopportune time but that you personally find the risk =20= > acceptable. > > Happy New Years All! > > Bill Reister > > > mikeeasley wrote: > I'll give you the "known quantity" definition. But just because the =20= > fuel is in your wing doesn't mean you are 100% sure it's available =20 > to burn, right? > > And a properly functioning, accurately calibrated capacitance probe =20= > and digital gage is significantly more accurate than the GA standard =20= > fuel gages I had in my 201. > > A couple things I do to confirm the functionality of my fuel gages =20 > is to do the math between the fuel flow reading, fuel tank levels, =20 > and how much fuel it takes to fill the tanks when I'm at the pump. =20= > Those little mental math exercises give me a reality check on a =20 > regular basis. For example: > > If I switch tanks in an hour, my left tank should be down to 30 =20 > gallons by then... > > If I switch tanks now, I should land with about 22 gallons in each =20 > tank... > > It should take about 35 gallons to fill the left tank and 30 gallons =20= > to fill the right tank... > > I completely lost my JPI EDM 900 a few years back, just went black =20 > about an hour into a flight. I landed and got it repaired before =20 > flying home. I knew I had a bunch of fuel on board and how long I'd =20= > been flying on the current tank because I keep good ol' tank =20 > switching notes on my flight plan sheet on my lap board. And I do =20 > visually check the fuel quantity in my tanks during my preflight, =20 > although I can't really tell very accurately how much I have unless =20= > the tanks are pretty full. > > Maybe a paint stick with some Sharpie marks might be a good thing to =20= > have for partially fueled flights. > > Mike Easley > Colorado Springs > > > > > > In a message dated 12/27/09 10:51:27 Mountain Standard Time, = gt_phantom@hotmail.com=20 > writes: > I received two responses to my post; I am responding to both in this =20= > post. > > To both Grayhawk and Mike Easley I respectfully submit that you are =20= > asking for needless trouble. > > If you will refer to my original post, I did not say that "Full" was =20= > not the only POSSIBLE "known quantity, but rather that it was the =20 > only known quantity for each tank on most Lancairs. That is a =20 > FACTUAL statement, your arguments about the reliability of your =20 > respective fuel gauges notwithstanding. > > Do you visually confirm that the amount of fuel in each tank matches =20= > what the gauge says, and if so, how? Capacitance gauges, while very =20= > accurate today, do have failure modes. Do you know all of them? Do =20= > you know how to recognize them in the cockpit? Is it even POSSIBLE =20= > to recognize them all in the cockpit? > > Fuel starvation is one of the leading causes of accidents and is THE =20= > most preventable accident cause. > > The same type of gauges were used in the F-4 Phantoms I flew in my =20 > mis-spent youth. One day on a training flight after the external =20 > tanks were dry, I started noticing that my fuel quantity seemed to =20 > be going down more quickly than Lead's. Too, the gauge was =20 > "bouncing around more than normal." After a brief discussion with =20 > my back seater we decided we would rather be live sissies than end =20 > up walking home or worse, so we told Lead we were heading home. =20 > Lead, being a rather arrogant ass, asked us to repeat the diagnosis =20= > we had already performed and, in level flight, the gauge seemed to =20 > level out just a bit below Lead's reading. Logically, if we both =20 > started out with full tanks and there was no leakage, our fuel =20 > remaining should be about the same. Lead passed off the fluctuation =20= > as a simple gauge problem and said, "let's continue the mission and =20= > just keep an eye on it;" however, I told him to take the stick if he =20= > wanted to fly my airplane, otherwise we were going home with or =20 > without him. He grudgingly "led us back." > > On the way home, the gauge started falling at an increased pace, so =20= > much so that we had Lead drop back twice and look for fuel leaking. =20= > None. On short initial the Fuel Low Level light (which was =20 > independent from the gauge system) came on - this system was =20 > supposed to be "fool proof" and "absolutely reliable" and was =20 > supposed to indicate 2200-2300 pounds of fuel remaining (a good =20 > 10-12 minutes at reduced power setting). I pitched, throttled back, =20= > dropped gear and flaps, turned base, and landed in minimum time with =20= > minimum use of throttle. On touchdown I shut down one engine =20 > (standard practice); rolled to the end of the runway, turned off and =20= > pulled into my hanger (by happenstance the first hanger) all without =20= > touching the throttles again and then wrote up the plane for a =20 > faulty fuel gauge system. > > In order to inspect the fuel system gauges, it was necessary to =20 > remove the remaining fuel from the aircraft. Full internal fuel on =20= > the F-4 was about 12,500 lbs, or about 1900 gallons which represents =20= > a bit over an hour of flying time (~180 gallons =3D 6 minutes; 18 =20 > gallons =3D 0.6 minutes). When they defueled the aircraft, they only =20= > got 6 gallons, or less than 20 seconds of fuel remaining. > > Complacency is the single biggest killer in aircraft accidents. If =20= > you trust your newfangled gadgets without verifying, you are an =20 > accident statistic waiting to happen - period, and I make no apology =20= > for that statement. > > Now, having said that there ARE legitimate ways to insure there is a =20= > "KNOWN QUANTITY" of fuel. My particular Lancair has a header tank, =20= > so I can fill that and know I have enough fuel to ferry the aircraft =20= > to another airport for cheaper gas. I can (and have) fill a single =20= > wing tank, and accept that it will be wing-heavy on takeoff (I lost =20= > a gas cap on a cross country, and flew with two tanks rather than be =20= > stuck out for a day or more). For those builders who plan ahead =20 > ( or a clever person improvising after instruction), tabs can be =20 > installed inside t he wing fill caps ala' Piper, so that if you =20 > "fill to the tabs" you have both a balanced and known quantity of =20 > fuel. Some people have carefully calibrated dip sticks to determine =20= > exactly how much fuel is in a given tank. > > All of these are acceptable and reliable practices. However, if you =20= > choose to steadfastly maintain that looking at your gauge is a =20 > "reliable way to determine your fuel" then all I can say is that =20 > when the day comes that I see "fuel starvation" as the cause of your =20= > accident, I will tell everyone at your funeral that you were =20 > provided with information that could have prevented it and that you =20= > knowingly chose to act in a dangerous fashion. Oh, and I'll =20 > nominate you for a Darwin Award, too... ;-) > > Best regards all, Happy New Year, and fly safe! > > Bill Reister > > -- > > For archives and unsub = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html > > > --Apple-Mail-24--345448925 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John,
It was a pleasure. =  You can certainly understand my enthusiasm for the Lancair = products.  I know you found it frustrating during the building = process.  It is long, tedious, expensive.  But in the end it = is all worth it.  Especially when it is time for maintenance and = repairs.  Knowing that you can do anything on this airplane is = rewarding as finishing and flying as well.  Hopefully Amy is = pleased with it too.  My wife has yet to even look inside let alone = sit or ride in it.  My sons received their Private Pilots License = in December after enrolling in the UVU college program.  So they = will be flying it soon.

Thanks for your = email.

Bryan = Burr
N132BB
Super ES
On Jan 15, 2010, = at 5:38 AM, John Hafen wrote:

= Bryan:

I don=92t think I ever = adequately thanked you for the ride you gave Amy and me a few years = back.  Amy loved your plane and the ride over Utah lake and etc. =  That fired her jets enough to allow me to buy a kit and get = started.  

As you know, aerodynamics of flight have = nothing to do with keeping an airplane airborne.  It all boils down = to kitchen clearance.  If a guy has that, he can make anything fly. =  Therefore N413AJ flies.  And I have you to thank for = that.

Hope all is well and many thanks.

John Hafen
= IVP N413AJ 200+hours


On 1/3/10 2:07 PM, "Bryan Burr" = <bjburr@mwheli.com> wrote:
=
I don't think the fuel = level in a Lancair ES can be accurately determined using a dip stick. =  The fuel is mainly stored towards the wing root and away from the = filler port.  It doesn't take much flight time for the fuel to = disappear from sight when looking into the filler port but there is = still a significant amount remaining.  Therefore, the sole source = of fuel quantity is the gauge.  Which leads me to top off before = each flight.  I then know exactly how much is onboard. The only = true source of fuel information is starting with a known quantity and = time.  Gauges are a great backup until they go blank as can be the = case with the electronic screen displays installed in so many of our = airplanes.   

Personally I always start topped off. =  Fly 30 minutes on the left (climb power) 1 hour on the right, 1 = hour on the left, then back to 30 minute tank switches to a total of 4 = flight hours.  Then I am looking to land.  By that time I am = well over 800 miles, needing a rest, wanting to check my airplane = mechanically, check in with business and family etc.  

= Good? Bad? or indifferent?  That is my routine.  I am used to = it, it is the same every flight, it is proven as I have never run out of = fuel, the time works for me, I can routinely verify my fuel flow rates, = I usually am where I need to be well within 4 flight hours, the airplane = handles the weight just fine, my climb rates are more than acceptable = (900 fpm), TAS is more than acceptable at higher weight (210+ knots). =  Am I being inefficient?  Probably.  Am I putting = additional stress on the airplane? Most Likely.  Is it worrisome to = me?  No. The airplane was designed to be flown with the fuel = capacity intended.  And it is only at this capacity for a portion = of the time as fuel is burned.

Bryan Burr
N132BB

= On Jan 1, 2010, at 8:40 AM, mikeeasley wrote:

=
Bill,
I saw a quote the other = day on a T-shirt in a store:
"Confidence is the feeling = you have before you fully understand the situation."
=
I definitely think it applies here.  I = think we are on the same page.  Just looking at the fuel gages is = taking additional risk that's not necessary.  I would say that = about 20% of my flights take place with less than full fuel at takeoff. =  On most of those partially fueled flights, I have done the "mental = math" to confirm what's left in the tanks based on fuel flow and time, = and I compare that to the fuel quantity gages.  Buy I must admit a = few times where my plane has been sitting in the hangar for a while, and = I don't remember exactly what the previous flight fuel situation was, = and I just look in the tanks, trust the fuel quantity gages and go = fly.
Your points are well taken.
=
Mike
 
=  
In a message dated 12/30/09 17:14:07 Mountain Standard Time, = gt_phantom@hotmail.com = writes:
Hi Mike,

Do you = pre-flight your airplane each time before you fly?  Do you have = SOME system to confirm that what your fuel gauge says is accurate before = take-off (e.g. dip stick, full, or even "educated eyeball")?  And, = can you reliably tell when fuel transfer is not working?

If you = answer "Yes" to the above, then I would submit that you are starting = each flight with a known quantity of fuel and have a reliable system for = determining if there is a problem requiring you to land early.  I = applaud any such a solution.

If any of those answers are "no," = then you have an opportunity to improve your process.  Perhaps the = risk is "low," but why take it if a better way takes only seconds?
=
My biggest concern on these forums is that there are folks who have = been doing things for decades in a way which works "most of the time" = and they've "never had a problem."  By posting "advice" that is = either incomplete (leaves out an important confirmation step) or is = actually they way they do things and leaves out important confirmation, = it is possible to leave younger pilots with ideas that can end them up = in needless trouble.

There are often many "right" ways to do = things.  The criteria for determining a "right" way is simple: =  does it insure that you KNOW the condition of your plan before you = fly so that you are making planning decisions based on facts rather than = assumptions.  

I had one fellow reply privately to me that = he never performs pre-flights.  Rather, he post-flights before = putting his plane in his hanger after fueling and is the only person who = flies the plane.  This is the sort of solution that works "most of = the time" and "sounds reasonable."  However, life isn't reasonable. =  Things break.  Fuel can leak out on the hanger floor, = evaporate, and leave no sign.  A slowly leaking tire can cause a = deadly accident if not checked before flying, rather than after. =  Etc.

In a recent thread, I avoided being critical of = people's personal choices - saying only that choosing to fly faster than = Vne is a "risk" and noting that apparently no one in a 320/360 has died = from this alone (leaving out the T-storms).  I am absolutely fine = with people taking risks with their own lives that they know that they = are taking - it is THEIR life.  I am not so good with people taking = risks on behalf of others (passengers, people to whom they give advice) = who may be trusting them to exercise superior judgment, and when I think = I see such behavior I tend to speak up.

So to everyone out here = - I would ask that you please consider the impact of your "suggestions" = on these forums.  If you knowingly take risks, then please either = don't recommend that technique or make it clear that you know there is a = possibility that your system could "fail" at an inopportune time but = that you personally find the risk acceptable.

Happy New Years = All!

Bill Reister


mikeeasley wrote:
=
I'll give you the "known quantity" definition. =  But just because the fuel is in your wing doesn't mean you are = 100% sure it's available to burn, right?
= And a = properly functioning, accurately calibrated capacitance probe and = digital gage is significantly more accurate than the GA standard fuel = gages I had in my 201.
A couple things I do to = confirm the functionality of my fuel gages is to do the math between the = fuel flow reading, fuel tank levels, and how much fuel it takes to fill = the tanks when I'm at the pump.  Those little mental math exercises = give me a reality check on a regular basis.  For example:
=
If I switch tanks in an hour, my left tank = should be down to 30 gallons by then...
= If I = switch tanks now, I should land with about 22 gallons in each = tank...
It should take about 35 gallons to fill the = left tank and 30 gallons to fill the right tank...
=
I completely lost my JPI EDM 900 a few years = back, just went black about an hour into a flight.  I landed and = got it repaired before flying home.  I knew I had a bunch of fuel = on board and how long I'd been flying on the current tank because I keep = good ol' tank switching notes on my flight plan sheet on my lap board. =  And I do visually check the fuel quantity in my tanks during my = preflight, although I can't really tell very accurately how much I have = unless the tanks are pretty full.
= Maybe = a paint stick with some Sharpie marks might be a good thing to have for = partially fueled flights.
Mike Easley
Colorado = Springs
 
 
 
=  
In a message dated 12/27/09 10:51:27 Mountain 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 = =3D 6 minutes; 18 gallons =3D 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 t he 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
=

--

For = archives and unsub http://mail.= lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
=

=


=
=

= --Apple-Mail-24--345448925--