NW_Pilot's Trans-Atlantic Flight -- All the scary details...

"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

"NW_Pilot" wrote in message
. ..
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

There's something to be said for a company that has photos like this on
their company's website...
http://www.turtlepac.com/gallery/mermaid.jpg

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:56:16 GMT, "Grumman-581"
wrote in
:

There's something to be said for a company that has photos like this on
their company's website...
http://www.turtlepac.com/gallery/mermaid.jpg

Not those auxiliary bags; these:
http://www.turtlepac.com/aircraftferry.htm

NW_Pilot wrote:
Oh! Yea I learned a bunch from this trip.... I did ask questions about the
fuel system prior to launch

I don't doubt it. But did you ask the right question? I don't think
so.

So what makes that question the right question, other than hindsight?
Well, as someone else mentioned, there are actually production
airplanes (the C-310 comes to mind immediately) where this is an issue.

"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.

This answer is clearly inadequate. It does not tell you where the
vapor return line goes.

Note that this identical system with the identical instructions would
have been totally fine on a plane with a carbureted engine, or with a
small Lycoming injected engine equipped with the Bendix/RSA fuel servo
(and this covers the vast majority of 172's - I'm curious what flavor
this one was) so it is entirely possible that the system has been used
successfully in many 172 crossings.

The sytem itself is fine, especially for something like a ferry flight
- the only problem is that someone dorked up the instructions. These
things happen. That's why you're being paid to do this.

Michael

Michael schrieb:

But did you ask the right question?
....
These things happen. That's why you're being paid to do this.

If a pilot sits into an approved airplane, reads the approved
instructions and acts as instructed, then I think I this pilots has all
the right to assume that the installation works as expected. That's why
such installations are so expensive.

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
If a pilot sits into an approved airplane, reads the approved
instructions and acts as instructed, then I think I this pilots has all
the right to assume that the installation works as expected. That's why
such installations are so expensive.

And if you believe that, there's a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Seriously, what you say makes sense in theory. The difference between
theory and practice is often much greater in practice than it is in
theory. In theory, the installations are expensive because thorough
and competent engineering review (by the DER) assures that version 1.0
works properly. In practice, becoming a DER has little to do with
thoroughness and competence and everything to do with having
connections in the FAA.

Anyone who has worked on the maintenance side of GA for any length of
time has his own share of stories about totally incompetent
modifications that gained FAA approval. This one is small potatoes in
comparison with some of the ones I know.

Thus you have to accept that if you are flying version 1.0 of anything,
you are a test pilot and must behave accordingly. There is a very
expensive mandatory process in place to assure that this does not
happen, but the process doesn't work.

Michael

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On 1 Oct 2006 06:47:05 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in om:

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm

Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!

A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting. But
Garmin's role in this incident is unforgivable.

I did study the fuel system and so did the engineer that designed it and
wrote the instructions for it's usage! I would also assume so did the faa
inspector that approved the system description and usage instructions. Once
you go changing the factory fuel system design you go from the engineered
description of the now modified fuel system. They left out something very
very important in the new systems description!

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 23:12:42 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On 1 Oct 2006 06:47:05 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in om:

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm

Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!

A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting. But
Garmin's role in this incident is unforgivable.

I did study the fuel system

Given the fact that the aux fuel system was a modification upon which
your safety depended, did you personally take the time to analyze its
intended operation from the schematic diagram and description of
system operation (not its use, but how it was engineered to operate)?
I believe you are intelligent enough to have done a reasonable job of
system analysis without benefit of specific training or an appropriate
college degree.

and so did the engineer that designed it and
wrote the instructions for it's usage! I would also assume so did the faa
inspector that approved the system description and usage instructions. Once
you go changing the factory fuel system design you go from the engineered
description of the now modified fuel system.

If I understand your story correctly, the cause of the wing tank
venting was a result of the fuel return line pouring fuel that was
being feed from the separate aux tank fuel system into the wing
tank(s). Is that correct?

They left out something very very important in the new systems description!

Are you referring to the necessity to burn fuel from the wing tanks
before switching to the aux tank, so that there would be adequate room
in the wing tanks to hold the fuel being returned from the fuel
injection system?

Can you provide the manufacturer's name and model number for the aux
fuel system installed in the aircraft you delivered?

How large is the documentation of the aux fuel system? Is it possible
you could make a scanned copy available? In particular, I'd like to
see a schematic drawing of the system and the description of its
operation, and its operation use instructions, in that order.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Given the fact that the aux fuel system was a modification upon which
your safety depended, did you personally take the time to analyze its
intended operation from the schematic diagram and description of
system operation (not its use, but how it was engineered to operate)?
I believe you are intelligent enough to have done a reasonable job of
system analysis without benefit of specific training or an appropriate
college degree.

Yes, I looked at the system!


and so did the engineer that designed it and
wrote the instructions for it's usage! I would also assume so did the faa
inspector that approved the system description and usage instructions.
Once
you go changing the factory fuel system design you go from the engineered
description of the now modified fuel system.

If I understand your story correctly, the cause of the wing tank
venting was a result of the fuel return line pouring fuel that was
being feed from the separate aux tank fuel system into the wing
tank(s). Is that correct?

The aux tank was connected directly to the engine after the aircraft fuel
system, Not to the wing and the provided documentation and system
description mentioned nothing about the fuel return to the main tanks. The
description also stated that it was connected after the aircraft fuel
system.


They left out something very very important in the new systems
description!

Are you referring to the necessity to burn fuel from the wing tanks
before switching to the aux tank, so that there would be adequate room
in the wing tanks to hold the fuel being returned from the fuel
injection system?

Correct, They failed to mention this the description and instruction
provided!

therir instruction basicaly short and simple! Climb to altitude on both
tanks aircraft tanks once at altitude switch to ferry tank until specified
mark on aux tank near empty then switch back to aircraft fuel.

Now!! If the instructions stated to run on the left tank till near empty
then switch to the ferry tank and monitor the left tank fuel quantity and
return to aircraft fuel and switch ferry tank off when left tank was almost
full about 2 hours flight time this little problem would not have happened.
The Greenland CAA took a copy of the instructions and fuel system
description and copy of Cessna description of the problem and will be
contacting the ferry tank mfg and installer telling them to correct their
system instructions.


Can you provide the manufacturer's name and model number for the aux
fuel system installed in the aircraft you delivered?

The Ferry tank was Manufactured And Installed By Telford Aviation In Bangor,
Maine. In the future I will try and avoid this company or flying with this
company's installed equipment if at all possible and if I am to use them
(Not Likely) I will require them to provide a full schematic of the system
and talk with them more to support their documentation. Another thing that
****es me off when I called the company (telford) to help with the problem
they were rude and said there instruction were correct and that it was not
their problem! Cessna support and the weekend A&P in Greenland were the best
they had a solution with in a few hours after faxing the instructions to
them and are also writing a letter to Telford explaining the problem with
their instructions.


How large is the documentation of the aux fuel system? Is it possible
you could make a scanned copy available? In particular, I'd like to
see a schematic drawing of the system and the description of its
operation, and its operation use instructions, in that order.

No schematic was available only textual description of the fuel system and
its operation. All paperwork was given to new owner and there was no photo
copy machine available in Beirut at time of delivery for me to make a copy
for myself. The Greenland CAA made copies of all paperwork and said they
will forward me copies of all paperwork.

The aux tank was connected directly to the engine after the aircraft fuel
system, Not to the wing and the provided documentation and system
description mentioned nothing about the fuel return to the main tanks.

How would the fuel get to the main tanks in the first place? Is the
engine the only connection? (if so, with the fuel selector OFF that
should block fuel flow to the main tanks). Is there a vent line that
connects them?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.