![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Michael" wrote in message oups.com... Stefan wrote: He did everything by the book, but the book was wrong. A pilot is not supposed to assume that an FAA approved book is wrong! On the contrary. When flying an aircraft that has just had major modifications to critical componets and/or systems, one becomes a test pilot. There is nothing wrong with this - SOMEONE has to be a test pilot. However, there is a difference between flying proven production aircraft and being a test pilot. The pilot flying proven production aircraft need only study the approved guidance and procedures (the book!) and fly by the book - and usually all will be well. This is not because the book is FAA approved, but because it is time-tested. The FAA approval is pretty much irrelevant. When one becomes a test pilot, the world changes. Now the pilot must study the system in detail (pulling off the cowls and tracing the lines if necessary) and understand exactly how it works. He must consider the normal operation and the failure modes. This will give him an edge in troubleshooting if something should go wrong in flight, but that is secondary. More importantly, it makes things going wrong in flight far less likely. Reading the book and flying by the book is not enough in this situation. The fact that the book and the system are FAA-approved is irrelevant. Neither the book nor the system are time-proven. Unless you are prepared to trust a bunch of federal bureaucrats who couldn't find better work with your life, you need to understand what it is they approved. In fact, I'm scared of pilots who establish their own ad hoc procedures because they think they know better than the book. Being a test pilot is often all about coming up with an ad-hoc procedure, because the book is wrong - because someone didn't think of something. Now for our adventurer: Once the emergency developed, you did a good job flying the emergency. I don't want to take anything away from you there. Your preparation for the flight, though, was incomplete. You knew that you had a highly modified fuel system which is rarely installed on this sort of airplane. You also knew that you had an injected engine. The FIRST question you should have asked is - is there a vapor return line (not all fuel injected engines have them) and if there is, where does it go? I'm guessing you didn't ask the question because you didn't have experience with other airplanes where this was an issue. That's the value of breadth of experience when it comes to being a test pilot. I accept that your documentation did not answer that question. But the problem is, you didn't even ask it. Had you asked, you could have gotten some sort of answer - and in any case, even a cursory examination of the plumbing would have told you that it wasn't going back to the ferry tank (they never do, you know) and would have forced you to consider the problem - and to develop an operating procedure a lot more correct than the approved one. In theory I suppose it could be possible to become a capable, proficient, experienced pilot without making mistakes like this and scaring yourself. I've never seen it happen. Every experienced, capable, proficient pilot I know got there the same way - by going out and doing stuff, amking mistakes, and scaring himself. The difference between the ones who get there and the ones who drop out along the way is basically this - the ones who get there learn from the experience, and learn not to make the same class of mistake again. You see, while you handled the emergency, that's not the sort of thing you can count on handling 100 times out of 100. I'm sure you won't make the exact same mistake again - not understanding what your modified fuel system really does - but the lesson to learn is broader. If you are flying something that has been modified from the norm, make sure you understand the full extent of the modifications and their implications before you launch. Michael Oh! Yea I learned a bunch from this trip.... I did ask questions about the fuel system prior to launch "I have flown other tanked airplanes" and the answer from them was the same that was written on paper when the aircraft fuel system is completely disconnected "In the off position" the aircraft is running only on the ferry tank system connected directly to the engine after the aircraft fuel shut off valve. The chances of myself refering or using this company for tanking is slim I did not pick this company the customer did and the customer was not happy with their services anyway they did a **** poor job at cutting the panel when they installed the ADF and PS eng. entertainment system. (I could have done a better job with a hack saw and a drill) and the painting on the Horton kit they installed looked like orange peal! I myself prefer the turtlepac bag systems (Used Them A Few Times) they are set up to transfer fuel form a fuel bag to a main aircraft tank they are really simple and work great! http://www.turtlepac.com/collapsibleair.htm and http://www.turtlepac.com/aircraftferry.htm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |