The state cops could file all kinds of charges -- no plate, no
inspection sticker, blocking traffic, the list goes on and on. All
charges are of course optional.

The real issue is, what actions will the FAA take. If the fuel
exhaustion was an unforced error on the part of the PIC, it should be
worth a few square inches of his hide, or his wallet.

Is there some rule against stupidity, or do we depend on Darwin to
take care of that?

"Tina" > wrote in message
...
> The state cops could file all kinds of charges -- no plate, no
> inspection sticker, blocking traffic, the list goes on and on. All
> charges are of course optional.
>
> The real issue is, what actions will the FAA take. If the fuel
> exhaustion was an unforced error on the part of the PIC, it should be
> worth a few square inches of his hide, or his wallet.
>
> Is there some rule against stupidity, or do we depend on Darwin to
> take care of that?
>

If he ran out of fuel on his first solo, I would think the FAA would be
looking for his CFI.

Tina wrote:
> The state cops could file all kinds of charges -- no plate, no
> inspection sticker, blocking traffic, the list goes on and on. All
> charges are of course optional.
>
The Virginia State Police do have a four page "Commonwealth of Virginia
Aviation Accident" report. Of course, most cops have no clue as to what
aviation is. I spent 20 minutes helping the trouper fill out the
report on my engine failure (and I didn't even land on the highway).

>If he ran out of fuel on his first solo, I would think the FAA would be
>looking for his CFI.

Agree with that. But the student was still pilot in command.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> >If he ran out of fuel on his first solo, I would think the FAA would be
>>looking for his CFI.
>
> Agree with that. But the student was still pilot in command.
>

Indeed. I just had this picture of a CFI jumping out after a couple hour of
T&Gs and saying "Ok, it's all yours this time, let's see three good
landings". Only to look up a couple minutes later and say "OOOOPPPS".

Ron Lee wrote:
>> If he ran out of fuel on his first solo, I would think the FAA would be
>> looking for his CFI.
>
> Agree with that. But the student was still pilot in command.
>
> Ron Lee


The student was in command, and the lawyers would I'm sure argue that
reading to the letter of the law, but make no mistake; there was an
instructor failure here, a serious instructor failure.

On any first solo, there is, as an integral part of that scenario, a
TRANSITION of power as relates to pilot in command.
It is incumbent on ANY flight instructor, when making the decision to
initiate this transition of control to pass from the instructor to the
student, to take all the steps necessary to insure the safety of the
student. This includes a complete checking of the condition of the
aircraft to insure it is safe and ready to turn over to the student for
solo.

It might satisfy the FAR's and the law to throw down on this student for
running out of fuel on a first solo, but in my opinion, I hope every
instructor reading this post will stop for a second and think about
professional responsibility and how that relates to an instructor
signing off a student for solo and allowing him to do so with inadequate
fuel in the tanks to complete the flight.

Good instructors NEVER stop thinking about the safety of the student,
and in this case, the instructor in my opinion failed miserably to back
up and cross check the student's airplane prior to turning the student
loose.
The bottom line on this incident is that although the FAR's might define
PIC, the FAR's fall way short of defining what constitutes
professionalism in a flight instructor.


--
Dudley Henriques

Tina > wrote:
> The state cops could file all kinds of charges -- no plate, no
> inspection sticker, blocking traffic, the list goes on and on. All
> charges are of course optional.

It's not a ground vehicle so such laws wouldn't appear to apply. And for
the cops to cite for blocking traffic might be considered inimical to
safety, as it would not be wise to put another decision burden on pilots in
future emergency situations.

> The real issue is, what actions will the FAA take. If the fuel
> exhaustion was an unforced error on the part of the PIC, it should be
> worth a few square inches of his hide, or his wallet.

For an idea of some actual cases of penalties applied for fuel exahustion,
go to this web site and enter "fuel exhaustion" (but without the quotes) in
the "Words & Phrases" search field (and make sure "Aviation Orders" is
checked):

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/query.asp

I get 10 hits. Penalties appear generally to be suspension of certificate
for several months. (The web site appears to only return cases that were
appealed.)

On Apr 3, 8:27*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> The student was in command, and the lawyers would I'm sure argue that
> reading to the letter of the law, but make no mistake; there was an
> instructor failure here, a serious instructor failure.


There is not enough evidence here to accuse the instructor. How do you
know the instructor didn't do what is required to ensure safety?

Just because something bad happens to a student, doesn't mean with
100% certainty that it's the instructor's fault.

buttman wrote:
> On Apr 3, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> The student was in command, and the lawyers would I'm sure argue that
>> reading to the letter of the law, but make no mistake; there was an
>> instructor failure here, a serious instructor failure.
>
>
> There is not enough evidence here to accuse the instructor. How do you
> know the instructor didn't do what is required to ensure safety?

The fact that the student ran out of fuel after being released for solo
by the instructor is the obvious answer to this question for those
believing that the instructor had a responsibility to ascertain the
aircraft was suitably fueled for the intended solo.
There are of course those who might not consider that checking the fuel
as adequate for the student was within the professional responsibility
of the instructor.
Each instructor must form their own opinion on what exactly defines
professionalism for them personally. In my opinion, this instructor
failed to meet my own definition for professionalism. You of course are
free to define the instructor's role in this incident as you see fit.
>
> Just because something bad happens to a student, doesn't mean with
> 100% certainty that it's the instructor's fault.

This is a statement that generally can be said to be true, but if
presented pertaining to a specific incident or accident involving the
instructor/student interface, where harm came to a student, the general
assumption might very well have to be withdrawn.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Apr 3, 9:56*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> buttman wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >> The student was in command, and the lawyers would I'm sure argue that
> >> reading to the letter of the law, but make no mistake; there was an
> >> instructor failure here, a serious instructor failure.
>
> > There is not enough evidence here to accuse the instructor. How do you
> > know the instructor didn't do what is required to ensure safety?
>
> The fact that the student ran out of fuel after being released for solo
> by the instructor is the obvious answer to this question for those
> believing that the instructor had a responsibility to ascertain the
> aircraft was suitably fueled for the intended solo.

You are assuming the instructor did nothing to ensure the plane had
enough fuel. Nobody knows if this is true or not. For all we know, the
fuel starvation could have been caused by a fuel leak. Or maybe the
student didn't lean the mixture. Maybe the student decided to do a
little sight seeing instead of getting right back. There are all sorts
of explanations for this kind of thing happening.

I once had a student who did a precautionary landing at an airport
underlying Class C airspace on his third solo. He heard the engine
sputter, and freaked out I guess. Apparently he called the CTAF for
the airport he landed at, but not the approach controllers at the
bigger airport. He knew he had to call them, he just didn't. Before I
let any of my students solo, I give them a written test that covers
all the stuff solo students are supposed to know according to that
long list in part 61. If the FAA wants to blame me for this incident,
I'll just show them the page on his test where he got that particular
question right. Theres nothing more I could have done.

buttman wrote:
> On Apr 3, 9:56 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> The student was in command, and the lawyers would I'm sure argue that
>>>> reading to the letter of the law, but make no mistake; there was an
>>>> instructor failure here, a serious instructor failure.
>>> There is not enough evidence here to accuse the instructor. How do you
>>> know the instructor didn't do what is required to ensure safety?
>> The fact that the student ran out of fuel after being released for solo
>> by the instructor is the obvious answer to this question for those
>> believing that the instructor had a responsibility to ascertain the
>> aircraft was suitably fueled for the intended solo.
>
> You are assuming the instructor did nothing to ensure the plane had
> enough fuel. Nobody knows if this is true or not. For all we know, the
> fuel starvation could have been caused by a fuel leak. Or maybe the
> student didn't lean the mixture. Maybe the student decided to do a
> little sight seeing instead of getting right back. There are all sorts
> of explanations for this kind of thing happening.
>
> I once had a student who did a precautionary landing at an airport
> underlying Class C airspace on his third solo. He heard the engine
> sputter, and freaked out I guess. Apparently he called the CTAF for
> the airport he landed at, but not the approach controllers at the
> bigger airport. He knew he had to call them, he just didn't. Before I
> let any of my students solo, I give them a written test that covers
> all the stuff solo students are supposed to know according to that
> long list in part 61. If the FAA wants to blame me for this incident,
> I'll just show them the page on his test where he got that particular
> question right. Theres nothing more I could have done.

I'm sorry you feel this way about flight instruction. I see you and I
simply approach the subject from different directions. I'm not faulting
you. I simply approach the subject differently than you do.

Please feel free to research the incident we have been discussing here
and follow up on the forum with any updated information.

If it turns out that the student involved here"had a fuel leak" that
drained his tanks dry or caused the incident by his"improper leaning" to
the point where he had the engine quit on him, please report back to the
forum addressing me personally with your post and I'll be more than
happy to retract my opinion of the instructor involved.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Apr 3, 8:40*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:

> For an idea of some actual cases of penalties applied for fuel exahustion,
> go to this web site and enter "fuel exhaustion" (but without the quotes) in
> the "Words & Phrases" search field (and make sure "Aviation Orders" is
> checked):
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/query.asp
>
> I get 10 hits. Penalties appear generally to be suspension of certificate
> for several months. (The web site appears to only return cases that were
> appealed.)

This forum should be a good place to share experiences, but with the
tendency to pile on people that make mistakes, I've been hesitant to
share my recent fuel exhaustion experience. Well, I'll go ahead and be
the group's "Idiot".

Took off on a night flight in the Cherokee last November. I
incorrectly remembered how much fuel I'd used on the previous flight
by 20 minutes. I planned for what I believed to be a 45 minute
reserve. Headwinds increased sooner along my path than I expected. By
the time I reached my destination, the reserve had dwindled to what I
believed was 30 minutes. I clicked my mic 5 times to turn on runway
lights and they did not come on. Turns out this airport took 7 clicks
to turn on. I'd heard of taking 7 for a certain intensity, but in my
30 years had never run into one that took 7 clicks to turn on. Had I
stayed in the area, I'd have probably tried that next, but I knew
there was another airport 12 minutes away whose lights stayed on, so I
headed for it. Unfortunately the 30 minutes of fuel I thought I had
was only 10.

Believe me, you don't want a stopped engine on a dark, dark, dark
night over Missouri. Nothing but lakes and trees. Fortunately, we just
barely made it to a rural highway, where traffic was all going in one
direction. Made a perfect landing and coasted under a power line
across the highway. Looking at satellite pics later, we saw that 30
seconds earlier we'd have been in trees and a minute earlier in a
lake. By the grace of God we walked away with no injuries or damage.
The state police were extremely helpful in taking us 3 miles to the
airport for fuel, checking a mile of highway for obstructions and
blocking it off for us to take off.

The FAA alleged:
91.103 PIC not familiar with all available info
91.13a Careless operation
91.151a2 Began flight without meeting fuel requirements

I filed NASA form. I was very cooperative with the FAA, writing out a
very detailed report on exactly what happened. Had several very
cordial discussions with them. They talked about possible actions
including suspension. After letting me sweat for a few weeks, they
went with a warning letter that will be in my file for 2 years and
then expunged if I get in no more trouble. Obviously, the fact that
there was no injury or damage and that it didn't make the news were in
my favor.

On the other hand, I know a person who made a daytime landing on a
highway. FAA guy saw him putting in fuel on the evening news. They
were going to warn him, but he told them, "F-- you, there's no law
against being stupid", and he got a 90 day suspension.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
> The student was in command, and the lawyers would I'm sure argue that
> reading to the letter of the law, but make no mistake; there was an
> instructor failure here, a serious instructor failure.

Seems that, fuel issues notwithstanding, making an interstate landing on
a solo flight and walking away from it, the student did a pretty good
job keeping his head together and handling the emergency.

Gene Seibel wrote:

> Took off on a night flight in the Cherokee last November. I
> incorrectly remembered how much fuel I'd used on the previous flight
> by 20 minutes. I planned for what I believed to be a 45 minute
> reserve. Headwinds increased sooner along my path than I expected.

[Snipped for brevity.]

THANK YOU for sharing your experience, Gene.

-chris/Portland

Gene Seibel wrote:
> This forum should be a good place to share experiences, but with the
> tendency to pile on people that make mistakes, I've been hesitant to
> share my recent fuel exhaustion experience. Well, I'll go ahead and be
> the group's "Idiot".


There's those who have and those that will. Folks want to stay in the latter
group as long as possible. To those who insist they could never make that same
mistake, I just shake my head. Usually it's a number of circumstances that come
together for that Perfect Storm to blow in your direction. And yes, I am in the
former group.... having run a C-210 out of gas after a 45 minute flight with an
hour and a half's worth of fuel on board. Or at least I thought I had.


> I filed NASA form. I was very cooperative with the FAA, writing out a
> very detailed report on exactly what happened. Had several very
> cordial discussions with them. They talked about possible actions
> including suspension. After letting me sweat for a few weeks, they
> went with a warning letter that will be in my file for 2 years and
> then expunged if I get in no more trouble. Obviously, the fact that
> there was no injury or damage and that it didn't make the news were in
> my favor.
>
> On the other hand, I know a person who made a daytime landing on a
> highway. FAA guy saw him putting in fuel on the evening news. They
> were going to warn him, but he told them, "F-- you, there's no law
> against being stupid", and he got a 90 day suspension.


There's a lot to be said for good manners and not tugging on Superman's cape.
Like you, I was very polite and apologetic. Like you, they made all kinds of
ominous rumblings about suspensions, etc. Like you, I got off with a warning.

And as the other fellow found out, there *is* a law against being stupid. Good
manners never go out of fashion: not in front of cops; not in front of the FAA.
They have what you want: forgiveness. Best not to be an ass about things.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
>
> And as the other fellow found out, there *is* a law against being stupid.
> Good manners never go out of fashion: not in front of cops; not in front
> of the FAA. They have what you want: forgiveness. Best not to be an ass
> about things.
>

Excellent advice Mort.

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:40:46 -0500, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Tina > wrote:
>> The state cops could file all kinds of charges -- no plate, no
>> inspection sticker, blocking traffic, the list goes on and on. All
>> charges are of course optional.
>
>It's not a ground vehicle so such laws wouldn't appear to apply. And for
>the cops to cite for blocking traffic might be considered inimical to
>safety, as it would not be wise to put another decision burden on pilots in
>future emergency situations.

It happens, though, and it's not unusual. Back when I lived in NJ a
pilot made an emergency landing on the Garden State Parkway. I don't
remember all the circumstances, nor what action (if any) the FAA took
against the pilot, but the state police issued him a ticket for
"entering the highway improperly" (i.e. not from an official on ramp)
and "failure to pay a toll."

I've heard of other similar incidents, though the details escape me.

In the air, of course, the FAA has sole jurisdiction, but once the
aircraft touches the ground state and local laws apply. Again in NJ,
for example, it's illegal to operate an aircraft, except in an
emergency, from anything other than a "state approved" airport. I
once made a legitimate emergency landing (a "precautionary forced
landing", actually) on a NJ pier, which was fine (and legal). I had
no end of hassle with the NJ aviation authorities when I flew it out
the next day after fixing the trouble (the emergency was over, so the
takeoff was illegal). It's a long story which has been told here
before... suffice to say that they dropped the matter as long as I
promised never to land there again.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Why is it that New Jersey got all the toxic waste dumps and California got all the lawyers?
A: New Jersey had first choice.

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:41:23 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
wrote:

>If he ran out of fuel on his first solo, I would think the FAA would be
>looking for his CFI.

The news report said "first solo", but it also said he was returning
from another city. Reporters usually get it wrong on aviation
matters... more likely it was his first solo cross country, which is a
very different thing.

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Why is it that New Jersey got all the toxic waste dumps and California got all the lawyers?
A: New Jersey had first choice.

On Apr 4, 10:53*am, Gene Seibel > wrote:
> Took off on a night flight in the Cherokee last November. I
> incorrectly remembered how much fuel I'd used on the previous flight
> by 20 minutes. I planned for what I believed to be a 45 minute
> reserve. Headwinds increased sooner along my path than I expected. By
> the time I reached my destination, the reserve had dwindled to what I
> believed was 30 minutes. I clicked my mic 5 times to turn on runway
> lights and they did not come on. Turns out this airport took 7 clicks
> to turn on. I'd heard of taking 7 for a certain intensity, but in my
> 30 years had never run into one that took 7 clicks to turn on. Had I
> stayed in the area, I'd have probably tried that next, but I knew
> there was another airport 12 minutes away whose lights stayed on, so I
> headed for it. Unfortunately the 30 minutes of fuel I thought I had
> was only 10.
>

You were very lucky. Thanks for sharing.

>...Snipped some.

>
> On the other hand, I know a person who made a daytime landing on a
> highway. FAA guy saw him putting in fuel on the evening news. They
> were going to warn him, but he told them, "F-- you, there's no law
> against being stupid", and he got a 90 day suspension.
> --
> Gene Seibel
> Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes -http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
> Because we fly, we envy no one.

In ded it is more expensive to be stupid.

Wil

"Dana M. Hague" <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:41:23 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
> wrote:
>
>>If he ran out of fuel on his first solo, I would think the FAA would be
>>looking for his CFI.
>
> The news report said "first solo", but it also said he was returning
> from another city. Reporters usually get it wrong on aviation
> matters... more likely it was his first solo cross country, which is a
> very different thing.
>

Yeah, I was thinking that too. He might also have said first solo cross
country, and the reporter dropped the modifier. It's really anyone's guess.

Just makes a better story "spin" it a bit.

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:22:08 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
wrote:

>Just makes a better story "spin" it a bit.
>

Do you know a reporter that knows the difference between "first solo"
and "first solo cross-country"? I don't!

On a side note...

Dana, My plane has been grounded since Jan. 20, due to a bad jump
start by my co-owner... Airworthy soon!

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:22:08 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
> wrote:
>
>>Just makes a better story "spin" it a bit.
>>
>
> Do you know a reporter that knows the difference between "first solo"
> and "first solo cross-country"? I don't!
>

No, I don't either. That would be a real small omission compared to some we
have seen.

All things considered, that is probably, more like than not, what happened
this time.

gatt wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>
>> The student was in command, and the lawyers would I'm sure argue that
>> reading to the letter of the law, but make no mistake; there was an
>> instructor failure here, a serious instructor failure.
>
> Seems that, fuel issues notwithstanding, making an interstate landing on
> a solo flight and walking away from it, the student did a pretty good
> job keeping his head together and handling the emergency.
If this was the scenario, I would tend to agree with you.
There are of course several possibilities involving this "story".
Assuming the initial post was relating accurate information, I see it as
a mixed bag. It's hard to envision a student not sharp enough to notice
his fuel state vs his intended flight; then have that same student have
the cool to dead stick his bird on the interstate without dinging it in
the process

Sort of an "Oh ****" "Atta Boy" scenario all in the same sentence :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

On 2008-04-03 20:56:48 -0700, Dudley Henriques > said:

> buttman wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>> The student was in command, and the lawyers would I'm sure argue that
>>> reading to the letter of the law, but make no mistake; there was an
>>> instructor failure here, a serious instructor failure.
>>
>>
>> There is not enough evidence here to accuse the instructor. How do you
>> know the instructor didn't do what is required to ensure safety?
>
> The fact that the student ran out of fuel after being released for solo
> by the instructor is the obvious answer to this question for those
> believing that the instructor had a responsibility to ascertain the
> aircraft was suitably fueled for the intended solo.
> There are of course those who might not consider that checking the fuel
> as adequate for the student was within the professional responsibility
> of the instructor.
> Each instructor must form their own opinion on what exactly defines
> professionalism for them personally. In my opinion, this instructor
> failed to meet my own definition for professionalism. You of course are
> free to define the instructor's role in this incident as you see fit.

I personally believe the instructor should have checked the fuel. Of
course, if the student was supposed to re-fuel en route and failed to
do so, deliberately ignoring what the instructor told him to do, then
that is another matter.

I have a hard time with calling a pilot who ran out of fuel an idiot.
If history has taught us anything, it is that no pilot is immune to
mistakes, and there is no mistake that even the best pilot will not
make under some circumstances. I think believing that only idiots make
mistakes like running out of fuel leads to complacency. I consider
teaching pilots that they are never smart enough or experienced enough
to never make what appear to be stupid mistakes is an important
responsibility of the flight instructor. This is not to fill the pilot
with self-doubt -- but to give him the confidence he needs to maintain
vigilance.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"Gene Seibel" wrote:

> This forum should be a good place to share experiences, but
> with the tendency to pile on people that make mistakes, I've
> been hesitant to share my recent fuel exhaustion experience.
> Well, I'll go ahead and be the group's "Idiot".

People who think they are immune to screwing the pooch like that are under a
dangerous illusion, IMO.

Thanks for sharing, Gene.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2008-04-03 20:56:48 -0700, Dudley Henriques > said:
>
>> buttman wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The student was in command, and the lawyers would I'm sure argue that
>>>> reading to the letter of the law, but make no mistake; there was an
>>>> instructor failure here, a serious instructor failure.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is not enough evidence here to accuse the instructor. How do you
>>> know the instructor didn't do what is required to ensure safety?
>>
>> The fact that the student ran out of fuel after being released for
>> solo by the instructor is the obvious answer to this question for
>> those believing that the instructor had a responsibility to ascertain
>> the aircraft was suitably fueled for the intended solo.
>> There are of course those who might not consider that checking the
>> fuel as adequate for the student was within the professional
>> responsibility of the instructor.
>> Each instructor must form their own opinion on what exactly defines
>> professionalism for them personally. In my opinion, this instructor
>> failed to meet my own definition for professionalism. You of course
>> are free to define the instructor's role in this incident as you see fit.
>
> I personally believe the instructor should have checked the fuel. Of
> course, if the student was supposed to re-fuel en route and failed to do
> so, deliberately ignoring what the instructor told him to do, then that
> is another matter.
>
> I have a hard time with calling a pilot who ran out of fuel an idiot. If
> history has taught us anything, it is that no pilot is immune to
> mistakes, and there is no mistake that even the best pilot will not make
> under some circumstances. I think believing that only idiots make
> mistakes like running out of fuel leads to complacency. I consider
> teaching pilots that they are never smart enough or experienced enough
> to never make what appear to be stupid mistakes is an important
> responsibility of the flight instructor. This is not to fill the pilot
> with self-doubt -- but to give him the confidence he needs to maintain
> vigilance.
>

This is a subject of great interest to me personally. I belong to a work
group of professional display pilots dealing with human factors in this
scenario. One might say that the entire premise for our work is to
address a single question; "What causes a pilot trained not to make a
specific critical mistake to make that exact critical mistake?"

If it's any consolation, we have some of the finest pilots in the world
working directly on issues like these. With us, we have internationally
know and respected psychologists and doctors.

Basically, we're dealing with what's commonly referred to as a "brain
fart" for lack of a better term.

We've been on it for a long time.
We're still on it!

On the general aviation side of this question as relates to flight
instructor responsibility, it's also difficult to define. To me, as an
instructor, concerning the issue we're discussing here on this thread,
if his incident involved an initial solo, (and I'm assuming this
considering the given information and lacking additional information) I
would find the instructor responsible on two levels;
1. The instructor should have checked the remaining fuel before
releasing the aircraft to the student for an initial solo. This is obvious.
2. This second factor is a bit more subtle and involves the student. The
STUDENT should have checked the remaining fuel before accepting the
airplane as a direct result of the training the student had received
from the instructor. This is a two pronged failure with the finger again
pointing to the instructor.

What remains is a question involving the basic premise for the
discussion being accurate; that being the incident involved an initial
solo flight. If it did NOT involve a solo, but rather a cross country as
has been suggested, one is presented with the following question as an
instructor;

Consider the following;

Someone walks into the flight office and informs you as a flight
instructor that the student you just signed off for a first cross
country didn't refuel the airplane at his turn around airport and ran
out of fuel on the way home making a forced landing on a highway necessary.

Interesting isn't it....when something like this is presented to an
instructor? Poses some interesting questions on instructor
responsibility. Is the instructor responsible for the student not
fueling the airplane? Was the student prepared properly? Can any
instructor insure the student will perform properly after being
released? Is it fair to point the finger of responsibility at an
instructor when a student performs in this manner?

The legalities and FAR's might be clear on these issues, but the REAL
answer lies much deeper than that.

No matter how good an instructor is, there is only so much that can be
done to prepare a student.

So the eternal search to find the ultimate answer for issues like these
will go on. Pilots like myself and others will spend our lives trying to
find the answer.....when in reality there might be no ultimate answer,
and students will sometimes forget to check their fuel, and the greatest
and best pilots on the face of the planet will have brain farts, pulling
through their display top gate altitudes too low, too fast, or both,
ending up in flaming wrecks at the bottom.

But the job goes on.........at least we're working on it!!!!


--
Dudley Henriques

On Apr 5, 10:40 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Consider the following;
>
> Someone walks into the flight office and informs you as a flight
> instructor that the student you just signed off for a first cross
> country didn't refuel the airplane at his turn around airport and ran
> out of fuel on the way home making a forced landing on a highway necessary.

Dudley,

In these days of cell phone it wouldn't it make sense for the CFI to
add to the "conditions of flight" in the endorsement "Call CFI prior
to take off from each selected airport"?

During this call the CFI can run through a checklist and ensure the
student confirms all those basic items -- fuel checked, winds, weather
en route, etc....


Dan Mc

wrote:
> On Apr 5, 10:40 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Consider the following;
>>
>> Someone walks into the flight office and informs you as a flight
>> instructor that the student you just signed off for a first cross
>> country didn't refuel the airplane at his turn around airport and ran
>> out of fuel on the way home making a forced landing on a highway necessary.
>
> Dudley,
>
> In these days of cell phone it wouldn't it make sense for the CFI to
> add to the "conditions of flight" in the endorsement "Call CFI prior
> to take off from each selected airport"?
>
> During this call the CFI can run through a checklist and ensure the
> student confirms all those basic items -- fuel checked, winds, weather
> en route, etc....
>
>
> Dan Mc
>
>

I wouldn't be a fan of this.

The question always remains concerning the exact point of transfer for
responsibility of the flight from the instructor to the student. There
is always some point where the instructor has to rely on the student to
do as trained to do. In my opinion that decision point for the
instructor must be up front, BEFORE the release takes place.
Extending the "conditions for the flight" to a cell phone call with the
student at a remote location to insure conditions have been met simply
extends the final release of this responsibility while at the same time
poses the question that if such a call is necessary at all, the student
wasn't prepared properly for the flight initially.

The bottom line is up front with the instructor. The instructor has to
decide up front whether or not the student will perform properly on all
levels before the sign off. This is a responsibility not to be taken
lightly.
It's right here in coming to grips with this decision process and all it
entails where you come head to head with the AWESOME responsibility
associated with the CFI certificate.

Some CFI's get this and understand it.......some never will.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Apr 4, 1:55*pm, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com>
wrote:
> Gene Seibel wrote:
> > This forum should be a good place to share experiences, but with the
> > tendency to pile on people that make mistakes, I've been hesitant to
> > share my recent fuel exhaustion experience. Well, I'll go ahead and be
> > the group's "Idiot".
>
> There's those who have and those that will. *Folks want to stay in the latter
> group as long as possible. *To those who insist they could never make that same
> mistake, I just shake my head. *Usually it's a number of circumstances that come
> together for that Perfect Storm to blow in your direction. *And yes, I am in the
> former group.... having run a C-210 out of gas after a 45 minute flight with an
> hour and a half's worth of fuel on board. *Or at least I thought I had.
>

My experience was certainly a classic example of a chain of events
that combined to create a potential disaster. I allowed too many
"little" things to add up. Each factor on their own wouldn't have
caused the incident.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

On Apr 5, 11:27 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> The question always remains concerning the exact point of transfer for
> responsibility of the flight from the instructor to the student. There
> is always some point where the instructor has to rely on the student to
> do as trained to do. In my opinion that decision point for the
> instructor must be up front, BEFORE the release takes place.
> Extending the "conditions for the flight" to a cell phone call with the
> student at a remote location to insure conditions have been met simply
> extends the final release of this responsibility while at the same time
> poses the question that if such a call is necessary at all, the student
> wasn't prepared properly for the flight initially.
>
> The bottom line is up front with the instructor. The instructor has to
> decide up front whether or not the student will perform properly on all
> levels before the sign off. This is a responsibility not to be taken
> lightly.

> Dudley Henriques

Makes sense -- I've always assumed the CFI need to be absolutely
certain the student will adhere to the rules/checklists/etc prior to
launch for the long XC.

But the endorsement has restrictions - does that imply a division of
responsibility?

These days of litigation makes me wonder...


Dan Mc

On Apr 4, 4:02*pm, William Hung > wrote:
> On Apr 4, 10:53*am, Gene Seibel > wrote:
>
> > Took off on a night flight in the Cherokee last November. I
> > incorrectly remembered how much fuel I'd used on the previous flight
> > by 20 minutes. I planned for what I believed to be a 45 minute
> > reserve. Headwinds increased sooner along my path than I expected. By
> > the time I reached my destination, the reserve had dwindled to what I
> > believed was 30 minutes. I clicked my mic 5 times to turn on runway
> > lights and they did not come on. Turns out this airport took 7 clicks
> > to turn on. I'd heard of taking 7 for a certain intensity, but in my
> > 30 years had never run into one that took 7 clicks to turn on. Had I
> > stayed in the area, I'd have probably tried that next, but I knew
> > there was another airport 12 minutes away whose lights stayed on, so I
> > headed for it. Unfortunately the 30 minutes of fuel I thought I had
> > was only 10.
>
> You were very lucky. *Thanks for sharing.

I know that I am very fortunate to be able to tell this story. It's
mind boggling to think about the number of ways this could have gone
very, very bad.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

wrote:
> On Apr 5, 11:27 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> The question always remains concerning the exact point of transfer for
>> responsibility of the flight from the instructor to the student. There
>> is always some point where the instructor has to rely on the student to
>> do as trained to do. In my opinion that decision point for the
>> instructor must be up front, BEFORE the release takes place.
>> Extending the "conditions for the flight" to a cell phone call with the
>> student at a remote location to insure conditions have been met simply
>> extends the final release of this responsibility while at the same time
>> poses the question that if such a call is necessary at all, the student
>> wasn't prepared properly for the flight initially.
>>
>> The bottom line is up front with the instructor. The instructor has to
>> decide up front whether or not the student will perform properly on all
>> levels before the sign off. This is a responsibility not to be taken
>> lightly.
>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Makes sense -- I've always assumed the CFI need to be absolutely
> certain the student will adhere to the rules/checklists/etc prior to
> launch for the long XC.
>
> But the endorsement has restrictions - does that imply a division of
> responsibility?
>
> These days of litigation makes me wonder...
>
>
> Dan Mc

This is the "devil in the details" thing about instructing. Legally
there is a "certain", and instructors have to exist in this world of
legal definition that means existing with lawyers who make a career out
of twisting everything and anything that CAN be twisted into a settlement.
But the REALITY of it as things exist in the real world is that there
are no "certains". All the instructors can do is the best they can.
There are no guarantees; only the one on one of the instructor working
within the system with the student. You take a chance every time you
take on a student.

The bottom line could very well be that becoming a flight instructor
carries as much pure risk for as little reward as anything ever designed
by man as a means to make money.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:29:20 -0700 (PDT), Gene Seibel >
wrote:

>On Apr 4, 1:55*pm, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com>
>wrote:
>> Gene Seibel wrote:
>> > This forum should be a good place to share experiences, but with the
>> > tendency to pile on people that make mistakes, I've been hesitant to
>> > share my recent fuel exhaustion experience. Well, I'll go ahead and be
>> > the group's "Idiot".
>>
>> There's those who have and those that will. *Folks want to stay in the latter
>> group as long as possible. *To those who insist they could never make that same
>> mistake, I just shake my head. *Usually it's a number of circumstances that come
>> together for that Perfect Storm to blow in your direction. *And yes, I am in the
>> former group.... having run a C-210 out of gas after a 45 minute flight with an
>> hour and a half's worth of fuel on board. *Or at least I thought I had.
>>
>
>My experience was certainly a classic example of a chain of events
>that combined to create a potential disaster. I allowed too many
>"little" things to add up. Each factor on their own wouldn't have
>caused the incident.

Many (locals and newsgroups) give me a hard time as I almost always
fly with full fuel, but I'm paranoid about fuel.

I was headed home from HTL (Houghton Lake) which is a short 49 NM
hop. I had just passed over GDW (Gladwin) when I noticed the left main
was only about half full when it should have been still showing full.
I gave the infamous "slide switches" some rapid movement back and
fourth between tanks but in another minute it was showing lower, and
still lower in another minute which had me making one of those steep
slipping U-turns to GDW. A visual of the tank showed it to be nearly
full. Some poking and prodding of said switches and the gage was
showing full again. How such expensive airplanes can use such crappy
switches in the fuel system is beyond me.

However as to Cherokees, we had one member of our club of 5 who didn't
fly all that often, but still managed to put quite a few more hours on
the plane than the rest of us who flew quite often. We might fly a
half hour to maybe a couple hours at a time while his fewer trips
would be close to 5 hours each way such as taking his family from MI
to MO. One night on the way home he had a bodacious head wind. He'd
flown the route many times, but never thought about the effects of the
wind. He landed here late at night. When he filled up he apparently
had less than a gallon in one tank with the other dry. He didn't have
enough fuel to do a go around.

OTOH (and I've told this many times) We'd been out for several hours
(Close to 3 IIRC) with me working on my instrument rating. We were
doing the ILS 05 at MBS after returning from GDW. I'd called for the
published missed on the option. I went full power at DH/MM, hit the
gear switch, and brought the nose up to be greeted by .... *silence*.
I had forgotten to switch from the AUX (level flight only) to the
mains before starting the ILS. I never forgot again<:-)) It's amazing
how fast you can reach down and turn a valve that's in a position you
can't even see. The instructor shouted "Left tank, Left tank Rog". I
had them switched before he got out half of the first "Left". Again
the engine was running almost instantly. Of course at that point the
loudest noise in the plane was the sound of my heart beating in my
ears.

Whether it's fuel, pre flight, fasteners, what ever, we all make
mistakes. Generally by themselves they are of little consequence or
just embarrassing, but when coupled into "that chain of events" can
prove disastrous..

A good friend and his brother took off for a flight around the area in
his GP4. He had modified the plane to use a 250HP engine instead of
the 4 cylinder. The wings had been moved to take care of the GC, but
the CG was still a bit narrow. Pitch forces on the stick were non
existent, roll was fine. Response was... shall we say *quick*. I
sneezed while flying the thing and it took me about 2 miles to get rid
of the PIO. He was a graduate of the school of stall avoidance, the
GP-4 has a very small vertical stab and rudder. To add one more item
(discovered later) his fuel tank caps had leaky seals.

Put this whole chain of things together, the leaky caps emptied the
tanks in less than an hour, they couldn't believe they were out of
fuel yet, Stalled while trying for a restart, ended up in a flat spin
all the way to the ground. No survivors. The largest piece was what
was left of the engine.

Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

wrote:
> Many (locals and newsgroups) give me a hard time as I almost always
> fly with full fuel, but I'm paranoid about fuel.


Don't let them beat you down. I'd rather fly overgrossed than out of fuel. My
personal fuel rule has become: if I'm worried about it, I don't have enough. I
think it's a fine rule of thumb. I hate flying worried.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

In article >,
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:

> wrote:
> > Many (locals and newsgroups) give me a hard time as I almost always
> > fly with full fuel, but I'm paranoid about fuel.
>
>
> Don't let them beat you down. I'd rather fly overgrossed than out of
> fuel. My personal fuel rule has become: if I'm worried about it, I
> don't have enough.

Same here. I know from experience that the airplane flies just fine a
little bit overgross. I have a pretty good hunch that it won't fly very
well at all with the tanks a little bit under empty.

Looking at it another way, I'd rather have the FAA ****ed at me than
gravity ****ed at me.

On 2008-04-05, Roy Smith > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
>> Don't let them beat you down. I'd rather fly overgrossed than out of
>> fuel. My personal fuel rule has become: if I'm worried about it, I
>> don't have enough.
> Same here. I know from experience that the airplane flies just fine a
> little bit overgross. I have a pretty good hunch that it won't fly very
> well at all with the tanks a little bit under empty.

While this is my philosophy as well, I do have to wonder: if an aircraft is
designed for a particualr gross weight, does consistently flying it over
gross put stress on the airframe that will, in the long term, weaken the
structure?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 23:16:41 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:

>On 2008-04-05, Roy Smith > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Don't let them beat you down. I'd rather fly overgrossed than out of
>>> fuel. My personal fuel rule has become: if I'm worried about it, I
>>> don't have enough.
>> Same here. I know from experience that the airplane flies just fine a
>> little bit overgross. I have a pretty good hunch that it won't fly very
>> well at all with the tanks a little bit under empty.
>
>While this is my philosophy as well, I do have to wonder: if an aircraft is
>designed for a particualr gross weight, does consistently flying it over
>gross put stress on the airframe that will, in the long term, weaken the
>structure?

In aircraft that aren't shipped from the factory with a max ZFW or
MGLW I would suspect that they've got sufficient margins to handle it,
at least for taxi and takeoff if kept well within normal manuvering
laods and Va when appropriate. I wouldn't want to land it over MGWL
or MGTW, whichever is lower. But that's just one person's opinion.

"Jay Maynard" wrote ...
>
> Roy Smith wrote:
>> I know from experience that the airplane flies just fine a
>> little bit overgross.
>
> ... if an aircraft is designed for a particualr gross weight, does
> consistently flying it over gross put ....

Interesting thread direction. Does anyone know what is usually the limiting
performance element the manufacturer runs up against to determine Gross
Weight Limits?

A thread on this a while back concluded that "go-around performance in the
landing configuration" was usually the determining factor. Another poster
cited service ceiling as being limiting. Anyone point to a researchable doc?

> wrote

> Put this whole chain of things together, the leaky caps emptied the
> tanks in less than an hour, they couldn't believe they were out of
> fuel yet, Stalled while trying for a restart, ended up in a flat spin
> all the way to the ground. No survivors. The largest piece was what
> was left of the engine.

Was that the cotton candy pink airplane?

Nice plane, and a real pity to go that way. I had talked with him for a
while at one OSH. I was sad to hear of that, even though I did not know him
well.
--
Jim in NC

"Jay Maynard" <> wrote
>
> While this is my philosophy as well, I do have to wonder: if an aircraft
> is
> designed for a particualr gross weight, does consistently flying it over
> gross put stress on the airframe that will, in the long term, weaken the
> structure?
From the reading that I have done, the air loads for an over gross airplane
are less than a plane that is light. This is from the idea that calculated
maneuvering speeds (speeds allowed in turbulence) are allowed to be higher
with a heavy airplane.

From a simplified point of view, the highly loaded wing will slip (mushing
instead of grabbing a good bite of the air) when loaded, producing less G
than a light airplane with the wing grabbing the air easily, and changing
directions quickly, producing more G's.

Taking off on a rough field while heavy or landing heavy could still hurt
the airplane, I guess, though.

What do you all think? Is this a valid line of thought?
--
Jim in NC

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 18:53:19 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:

wrote:
>> Many (locals and newsgroups) give me a hard time as I almost always
>> fly with full fuel, but I'm paranoid about fuel.
>
>
>Don't let them beat you down. I'd rather fly overgrossed than out of fuel. My

Three, reasonable luggage, and full fuel @ 100 gallons for the Deb is
not over gross. The 30 gallons in the tips doesn't count. I get that
as added gross but only if it's in the tips.

>personal fuel rule has become: if I'm worried about it, I don't have enough. I
>think it's a fine rule of thumb. I hate flying worried.
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 20:36:32 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
> wrote
>
>> Put this whole chain of things together, the leaky caps emptied the

I popped the caps off my tip tanks on takeoff. The tanks were empty
by the time I could do a tight pattern. 30 gallons gone in just a
couple minutes. At today's $5 a gallon that's kinda steep.

>> tanks in less than an hour, they couldn't believe they were out of
>> fuel yet, Stalled while trying for a restart, ended up in a flat spin
>> all the way to the ground. No survivors. The largest piece was what
>> was left of the engine.

BTW even the engine was damaged beyond repair.
>
>Was that the cotton candy pink airplane?

Yup, I shot a photo of Cotton Candy at the pancake breakfast and
headed home. They augured in less than an hour later.

The photo of Jack doing an EAA advisor sign off of some of my work was
taken just two days before.

>
>Nice plane, and a real pity to go that way. I had talked with him for a
>while at one OSH. I was sad to hear of that, even though I did not know him
>well.
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Apr 5, 4:16 pm, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> While this is my philosophy as well, I do have to wonder: if an aircraft is
> designed for a particualr gross weight, does consistently flying it over
> gross put stress on the airframe that will, in the long term, weaken the
> structure?

My guess is that if the additional weight is carried in the wings then
it should have no long-term adverse effects.

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:30:17 GMT, "Mike Isaksen" <
>Interesting thread direction. Does anyone know what is usually the limiting
>performance element the manufacturer runs up against to determine Gross
>Weight Limits?
>
>A thread on this a while back concluded that "go-around performance in the
>landing configuration" was usually the determining factor. Another poster
>cited service ceiling as being limiting. Anyone point to a researchable doc?

It could be any of a number of things. It could be go-around
performance. Service ceiling is unlikely, as AFAIK there's no
regulatory requirement for that. More often it's structural,
determined by airframe stresses at the the limit load factors. For
the new LSA class it's an arbitrary limit of 1320 lbs.

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lion and the lamb may lie down together, but the lamb won't get much sleep.

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 20:44:33 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

> From the reading that I have done, the air loads for an over gross airplane
>are less than a plane that is light. This is from the idea that calculated
>maneuvering speeds (speeds allowed in turbulence) are allowed to be higher
>with a heavy airplane.
>
>From a simplified point of view, the highly loaded wing will slip (mushing
>instead of grabbing a good bite of the air) when loaded, producing less G
>than a light airplane with the wing grabbing the air easily, and changing
>directions quickly, producing more G's.
>
>Taking off on a rough field while heavy or landing heavy could still hurt
>the airplane, I guess, though.
>
>What do you all think? Is this a valid line of thought?

No.

The maneuvering speed is the speed at which the wing at CLmax (just
before it stalls, talking accelerated stall here) won't exceed the
design load factor.

It isn't really about the G's... the aircraft's structure is designed
to not fail at the design load factor (e.g. +4.4 for utility category,
etc.). A lightly loaded aircraft can actually safely pull more G's
than a heavily loaded aircraft while not exceeding the structural
limits, but the speed at which the structure can be overloaded is the
same.

If all the variable load was carried in the fuselage (i.e. no wing
tanks) then the maneuvering speed would be the same regardless of
loading. Moving the weight outboard in the wings would change the
stress distribution and, depending on the design, could well increase
the acceptable maneuvering speed, but it's not a blanket statement...
nor is it a matter of a "highly loaded wing slipping".

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lion and the lamb may lie down together, but the lamb won't get much sleep.

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:49:49 -0400, B A R R Y
> wrote:

>On a side note...
>
>Dana, My plane has been grounded since Jan. 20, due to a bad jump
>start by my co-owner... Airworthy soon!

Eek! What happened? Sounds like he shoulda used the "Armstrong"
starter!

My plane's at Goodspeed now, until my name makes it to the top of the
list at Chester.

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lion and the lamb may lie down together, but the lamb won't get much sleep.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:51:20 -0400, Dana M. Hague
<d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:30:17 GMT, "Mike Isaksen" <
>>Interesting thread direction. Does anyone know what is usually the limiting
>>performance element the manufacturer runs up against to determine Gross
>>Weight Limits?
>>
>>A thread on this a while back concluded that "go-around performance in the
>>landing configuration" was usually the determining factor. Another poster
>>cited service ceiling as being limiting. Anyone point to a researchable doc?
>

I think you will find both the go around and service ceiling only
reflect the max gross for a particular flight.

If you are into math then
http://www.auf.asn.au/scratchbuilder/far23.htm should give far more
than any of us really want to know about limiting factors.

>It could be any of a number of things. It could be go-around
>performance. Service ceiling is unlikely, as AFAIK there's no
>regulatory requirement for that. More often it's structural,
>determined by airframe stresses at the the limit load factors. For
>the new LSA class it's an arbitrary limit of 1320 lbs.
>
>-Dana
>
>--
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 2008-04-08, Dana M Hague <> wrote:
> It could be any of a number of things. It could be go-around
> performance. Service ceiling is unlikely, as AFAIK there's no
> regulatory requirement for that. More often it's structural,
> determined by airframe stresses at the the limit load factors. For
> the new LSA class it's an arbitrary limit of 1320 lbs.

Well, it was set arbitrarily by the FAA, but for aircraft designed to that
limit (such as the Zodiac XL), how much effect does it have on the
structural design?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Dana M. Hague wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:49:49 -0400, B A R R Y
> > wrote:
>
>> On a side note...
>>
>> Dana, My plane has been grounded since Jan. 20, due to a bad jump
>> start by my co-owner... Airworthy soon!
>
> Eek! What happened? Sounds like he shoulda used the "Armstrong"
> starter!

A jump start with the alternator switch ON. He got an $800 checklist
usage lesson. There's a specific "external power" checklist in the POH
that he didn't use. He had jumped it before, using his F150 for power
with no issues. This time, it was an FBO tug capable of much more juice
than the pickup. As soon as he turned the key, every breaker in the
plane tripped. Inline fuses in the tail and tip strobes also blew.
Fortunately, we have an avionics master, and it was off!

The $800 came into play when the 2x fuel qty, oil temp, ammeter, and oil
pressure strip got fried and needed to be rebuilt. The oil pressure
gauge was OK, but the other four were cooked. He used a rebuilder in
Lock Haven, PA. It all works fine, now, but the fuel gauges aren't any
more accurate than they weren't before.

We finally got it back in the air last night for six instrument
approaches, three for each of us.

I got to the airport to do the post-annual flight. My first takeoff was
interesting, as the trim indicator must have gotten whacked when the
seats went back in. It appeared to function normally, but was WAY OFF
the actual position, reading way aft of actual setting. Talk about an
"Armstrong" takeoff!

>
> My plane's at Goodspeed now, until my name makes it to the top of the
> list at Chester.

Cool! I thought you were only doing the powered parasail thing. My pal
at Windham bent the gear on his T-Craft, landing in his "yard", but it
was repairable.

I always get a kick out of the fact that Goodspeed Airport has a huge
exit sign on Rt. 9, for all the automobile traffic it attracts! ;^)

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> I got to the airport to do the post-annual flight. My first takeoff was
> interesting, as the trim indicator must have gotten whacked when the
> seats went back in. It appeared to function normally, but was WAY OFF
> the actual position, reading way aft of actual setting. Talk about an
> "Armstrong" takeoff!

I always visually check the trim mechanism. Set the trim wheel in the
cockpit to the neutral position. Then, during the walk-around, hold the
elevator parallel with the longitudinal axis of the airplane and observe
that the anti-servo tab is fair with the main elevator surface. If the
trim indicator is "whacked", it will be immediately obvious that the trim
tab isn't in the right place.

You didn't say what kind of plane you've got, so you may or may not be able
to do this. For example, on a V-tail, there's no obvious reference plane
to hold the rudervators parallel to (and pushing them around by hand may
not be good for them). But on many types, it's a trivial check.

Roy Smith wrote:
>
> I always visually check the trim mechanism. Set the trim wheel in the
> cockpit to the neutral position. Then, during the walk-around, hold the
> elevator parallel with the longitudinal axis of the airplane and observe
> that the anti-servo tab is fair with the main elevator surface. If the
> trim indicator is "whacked", it will be immediately obvious that the trim
> tab isn't in the right place.

Good idea. During the preflight, I check the movement, the linkage, and
the piano hinge. It was in a near neutral position, as it normally
always is from the last landing. This airplane normally uses a
relatively narrow trim range.

I am familiar with the effort required at extreme ends of the range,
thanks to an instructor who liked to add extreme trim to unusual
attitudes. <G>


> You didn't say what kind of plane you've got, so you may or may not be able
> to do this.

A Beech 23 Sundowner. It's got a stabilator so your advice is helpful
and applicable!

I simply need to add "set trim indicator to neutral" to the end of my
list, before I leave the cockpit for the second trip around.

Thanks!

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:34:28 -0400, B A R R Y >
wrote:

>Cool! I thought you were only doing the powered parasail thing. My pal
>at Windham bent the gear on his T-Craft, landing in his "yard", but it
>was repairable.

I'm still flying the powered paragliders too, but I bought a Kolb
Ultrastar a year and a half ago. The wings fold in about 10 minutes,
so I can keep it in a trailer and save on hangar rent.

Ya gotta land a T-Craft pretty hard to bend the gear! Kinda glad now
that I sold mine, with the cost of the wing strut AD.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupidity got us into this mess... why can't it get us out?

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:41:07 -0400, Dana M. Hague
<d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote:


>
>Ya gotta land a T-Craft pretty hard to bend the gear! K

Sideways...

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:44:25 -0400, B A R R Y
> wrote:

>> Ya gotta land a T-Craft pretty hard to bend the gear! K
>
> Sideways...

That'll do it!

-Dana

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:28:29 -0400, Dana
<"d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net"> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:44:25 -0400, B A R R Y
> wrote:
>
>>> Ya gotta land a T-Craft pretty hard to bend the gear! K
>>
>> Sideways...
>
>That'll do it!
>
>-Dana


I can't post the details in writing. I'll share them in person. <G>

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:54:33 GMT, B A R R Y >
wrote:

>Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>> I always visually check the trim mechanism. Set the trim wheel in the
>> cockpit to the neutral position. Then, during the walk-around, hold the
>> elevator parallel with the longitudinal axis of the airplane and observe
>> that the anti-servo tab is fair with the main elevator surface. If the
>> trim indicator is "whacked", it will be immediately obvious that the trim
>> tab isn't in the right place.
>
>Good idea. During the preflight, I check the movement, the linkage, and
> the piano hinge. It was in a near neutral position, as it normally
>always is from the last landing. This airplane normally uses a
>relatively narrow trim range.

Last Landing? In the Cherokee 180 and my Deb I know if the last
landing was done right as the trim will be at the up limit. Not just
at but right against the stops!


However... My shut down list includes setting trim to neutral. my
preflight is a mechanical "look see" if it is neutral and my run-up is
check to make sure the indicator is neutral. I then set it depending
on load/CG calcs.


>
>I am familiar with the effort required at extreme ends of the range,
>thanks to an instructor who liked to add extreme trim to unusual
>attitudes. <G>
>
>
>> You didn't say what kind of plane you've got, so you may or may not be able
>> to do this.
>
>A Beech 23 Sundowner. It's got a stabilator so your advice is helpful
>and applicable!
>
>I simply need to add "set trim indicator to neutral" to the end of my
>list, before I leave the cockpit for the second trip around.
>
>Thanks!
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:18:52 -0400, wrote:
>
>Last Landing? In the Cherokee 180 and my Deb I know if the last
>landing was done right as the trim will be at the up limit. Not just
>at but right against the stops!

If I were to move the trim significantly aft in the pattern, I'd be
seriously pushing the yoke forward. With the stall horn blaring in
slow flight, I'm nowhere near full aft.

>However... My shut down list includes setting trim to neutral. my
>preflight is a mechanical "look see" if it is neutral and my run-up is
>check to make sure the indicator is neutral. I then set it depending
>on load/CG calcs.

Same here at run-up. Neutral trim on my Sundowner will normally put
me within a 1/2 to 3/4 turn down of Vy after rotation. I'll normally
take off with a slightly forward trim setting and need less than 1/4
turn change.

At shutdown after a nice landing, the trim is normally right around
neutral, regardless if I or my partner flew it last.

If I'm trimmed for a 90 knot instrument approach with one notch of
flap or VFR pattern, the additional two notches will require very
minor (1/8 - 1/4 turns) trim changes as I bleed speed to the runway.
I trimmed the PA-28 variants I've flown much more during an approach
than the Sundowner, especially when adding flaps.

I'm going to take some informal polls at my next type club meet and
see where the other guys' trim ends up after landing. My plane flies
well through the entire speed envelope, but I'm starting to wonder if
the rigging might be a tad off.