Running dry?

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 08:24:49 -0700, RST Engineering wrote:

[snip]
Would I run one dry where there are nothing but airports and soybeans
underneath? I might. Depends on what I'm trying to accomplish. I
think Deakin knew what he was talking about and expected at least a
MODICUM of intelligence on the part of his readers.

In fact, Deakin is very clear that if you can't figure out these types of
details, you probably shouldn't be flying at all. He also states there
are exceptions to every rule and even provides one. He clearly is making
the distinction betweena purposeful act of running a tank dry at a
planning time and place is not confusing this with running out of gas;
which Jay seems to be completely confused by.

Ultimately, I believe Deakin's intention is to make pilots talk and
compare notes. Making pilots think about the results of their actions is
always a good thing, even if you don't buy into his method. Does it
really matter is someone think's this is a crazy idea? Nope. It does
matter that we came together and talked. I think there's been some really
great posts here...and I feel smarter for having asked and learned.

Lastly, I should add, I believe this type of procedure is SOP for many
military piston pilots where range it critical to their mission. Please
correct me as needed. If this were a high risk venture, I doubt it would
SOP. As such, I believe the risk of a non-start for many planes is very
low. IMHO, the only remaining question is, what risk are you willing to
tolorate and what is the REAL risk of a non-start. Is the risk one in a
million? One in a billion? One in a hundred? I dunno.... thus the FUD
had lots of room to creep in...

Greg

In fact, Deakin is very clear that if you can't figure out these types of
details, you probably shouldn't be flying at all. He also states there
are exceptions to every rule and even provides one. He clearly is making
the distinction betweena purposeful act of running a tank dry at a
planning time and place is not confusing this with running out of gas;
which Jay seems to be completely confused by.

The only thing I'm confused about is how a group of pilots can sit here and
argue -- on the STUDENT forum, of all things -- that running a gas tank dry
in flight, on purpose, is a wise thing to do.

Apparently you can't grasp the subtlety of what I'm saying, so allow me to
bludgeon you with it: Any pilot who knowingly, willingly and routinely runs
gas tanks dry in flight displays a cavalier attitude toward fuel management.
Running a tank dry by accident indicates poor planning. Running a tank dry
on purpose indicates poor fuel management. Both are dumb. Both are
dangerous.

To suggest otherwise in a forum where student pilots gather is unwise.

Lastly, I should add, I believe this type of procedure is SOP for many
military piston pilots where range it critical to their mission. Please
correct me as needed. If this were a high risk venture, I doubt it would
SOP. As such, I believe the risk of a non-start for many planes is very
low. IMHO, the only remaining question is, what risk are you willing to
tolorate and what is the REAL risk of a non-start. Is the risk one in a
million? One in a billion? One in a hundred?

You ask this question as if we are on an equal situational footing with
military pilots. 99.999% of the people reading this post are GA pilots (or
students) whose main concern will be missing a day of work if they're late
getting back from vacation. There is NO reason for any pilot here to fly to
the maximum range of their aircraft, and to talk about using a procedure
that is "SOP for many military piston pilots where range is critical to
their mission", as if that is justification for running a tank dry, is just
crazy talk.

Do you run your engine as low as possible on oil, too, just to extend the
range between oil changes? Shoot, according the book, my Lycoming O-540
will run on as little as 2 quarts of oil -- why am I dumping those other 10
quarts in, anyway?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:53:09 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

[snip]
The only thing I'm confused about is how a group of pilots can sit here
and argue -- on the STUDENT forum, of all things -- that running a gas
tank dry in flight, on purpose, is a wise thing to do.

It's actually cross posted to piloting too. You don't think students can
learn from a topic which clearly even pilots debate? I don't see anyone
advocating students run out and run their tanks dry. I doubt you do
either. I'm really not sure what your point is here.


Apparently you can't grasp the subtlety of what I'm saying, so allow me
to

Actually, I'm fairly sure EVERYONE here grasps exactly what you're saying.
Just not everyone agrees with you. You've been very clear. Everyone that
disagrees with you is dumb. Point made. The horse is dead. Move on.

bludgeon you with it: Any pilot who knowingly, willingly and routinely
runs gas tanks dry in flight displays a cavalier attitude toward fuel
management. Running a tank dry by accident indicates poor planning.
Running a tank dry on purpose indicates poor fuel management. Both are
dumb. Both are dangerous.


Hmmm. I'm thinking I've read this before. You've been very clear.
Everyone that disagrees with you is dumb. Point made. The horse is dead.
Move on.

To suggest otherwise in a forum where student pilots gather is unwise.


Yes! You would never want students, which will one day turn into pilots,
to be equiped to think for themselves having read other pilots sound off.
Won't someone think of the children!

Lastly, I should add, I believe this type of procedure is SOP for many
military piston pilots where range it critical to their mission. Please
correct me as needed. If this were a high risk venture, I doubt it
would SOP. As such, I believe the risk of a non-start for many planes
is very low. IMHO, the only remaining question is, what risk are you
willing to tolorate and what is the REAL risk of a non-start. Is the
risk one in a million? One in a billion? One in a hundred?

You ask this question as if we are on an equal situational footing with
military pilots.

Wrong. I asked a question as any intelligent person would. I know I
don't know everything. Part of flying is risk assessment. How is my
question any different? It's not. Exactly. If we don't understand the
risk, which was my point, it's pretty dang hard to do any type of real
risk assessment. If anything, that should serve as a warning to ay
potential student wanting to rush out and run a tank dry. I'm still not
realy sure what you're point is.

99.999% of the people reading this post are GA pilots
(or students) whose main concern will be missing a day of work if
they're late getting back from vacation. There is NO reason for any
pilot here to fly to the maximum range of their aircraft, and to talk

It's nice how you plugged in your own take on things and assert that this
is the only fact. Simple fact is, YOU are the only one asserting this has
anything to do with maximum range. Everyone else, including Deakin, is
asserting it's a fuel strategy to better know your plane, to better plan
your trip, and to better understand how long you can fly should the worst
happen (need to eat into your reserves). I'll happily stick with the
actual topic rather than your emotional redefinition.

about using a procedure that is "SOP for many military piston pilots
where range is critical to their mission", as if that is justification
for running a tank dry, is just crazy talk.


Nope. Did not such thing. The point, which you seemingly refuse to
understand, is that you certainly don't hear, see, or read about planes
falling out of the air because pilots were switching tanks. Ya, I know
you'll ignore that point again. A point which many others have made
elsewhere already. Others, which we all now know are dumb.

Do you run your engine as low as possible on oil, too, just to extend
the range between oil changes? Shoot, according the book, my Lycoming
O-540 will run on as little as 2 quarts of oil -- why am I dumping those
other 10 quarts in, anyway?

Are you insane? You have no point and the above is completely
non-topical. Your example is, well, dumb, insulting, and just plain out
there.

Don't expect a reply unless you have something new to add; which better
yet, would be topical.


Greg

Jay,

Apparently you can't grasp the subtlety of what I'm saying,

There's nothing subtle at all in claiming what someone else writes (and makes
an argument for quite elaborately) is "dumb". And that's all you offer, some
nice "if you're not with me, you're against me" rethoric. Sad, actually.


so allow me to
bludgeon you with it: Any pilot who knowingly, willingly and routinely runs
gas tanks dry in flight displays a cavalier attitude toward fuel management.
Running a tank dry by accident indicates poor planning. Running a tank dry
on purpose indicates poor fuel management. Both are dumb. Both are
dangerous.

Sorry, but that's BS, plain and simple.


Do you run your engine as low as possible on oil, too, just to extend the
range between oil changes?

Not as low as possible, but certainly below the allowed maxium. I do it to
avoid blowing oil overboard senselessly. I have never filled up to the maximum
allowed. It would be dumb.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)