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

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:50:35 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:14:15 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
wrote in
:


Typically wing tanks are filled to the brim of the filler neck.
Presumably that leaves some air trapped in the tank. Without knowing
the exact placement of the fuel vent pipe intake within the tank, it
is difficult to confirm an over pressure condition in this case.
Absent knowledge of how Mr. Rhine came to his "over pressurizing"
conclusion, it is difficult to substantiate it as fact. Might not the
venting fuel have been merely excess fuel draining from the tank as it
was designed to do when the tank is over filled? After all,
presumably it is the same fuel pump operating in both the factory
designed fuel system and the aux fuel system.

The Aux system used it's own fuel pump and it was tied in after the
aircraft
fuel shut off valve.


So you're saying, that there was a new fuel selector valve placed in
the fuel line between the normal On/Off Cessna fuel selector valve and
the engine?

And the aux fuel system consisted of a fuel quantity indicator, the
aux fuel tank and vent, an additional fuel pump and electrical switch,
and a single fuel line leading from the aux fuel tank to the added
fuel selector valve?

The 172 SP has a fuel slector Valve L - B - R Plus A Fuel shut off Valve!

The Ferry Tank had a shut off valve fuel pump a hose that connected after
the aircraft fuel system shut off valve.


What position was the position of the Cessna fuel shut off valve while
you were running on the aux tank?

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

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:50:35 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:14:15 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
wrote in
:


Typically wing tanks are filled to the brim of the filler neck.
Presumably that leaves some air trapped in the tank. Without knowing
the exact placement of the fuel vent pipe intake within the tank, it
is difficult to confirm an over pressure condition in this case.
Absent knowledge of how Mr. Rhine came to his "over pressurizing"
conclusion, it is difficult to substantiate it as fact. Might not the
venting fuel have been merely excess fuel draining from the tank as it
was designed to do when the tank is over filled? After all,
presumably it is the same fuel pump operating in both the factory
designed fuel system and the aux fuel system.

The Aux system used it's own fuel pump and it was tied in after the
aircraft
fuel shut off valve.


So you're saying, that there was a new fuel selector valve placed in
the fuel line between the normal On/Off Cessna fuel selector valve and
the engine?

And the aux fuel system consisted of a fuel quantity indicator, the
aux fuel tank and vent, an additional fuel pump and electrical switch,
and a single fuel line leading from the aux fuel tank to the added
fuel selector valve?

The 172 SP has a fuel slector Valve L - B - R Plus A Fuel shut off Valve!

The Ferry Tank had a shut off valve fuel pump a hose that connected after
the aircraft fuel system shut off valve.


What position was the position of the Cessna fuel shut off valve while
you were running on the aux tank?


The aircraft shut off valve was pulled straight out "Aircraft Fuel Off"

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:47:44 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
wrote in
:

After sitting for 70 hours on Cessna version of the G1000 Scares the
hell out of me and it takes a lot to scare me! To many bugs and failure in
70 hours of flight! Look at my finial day the Tach. even failed!

Was that a mechanical tach?

I would write a report of your experience detailing the equipment
failures that occurred, and politely and respectfully send copies to
Cessna and Garmin. If you word it, so that it contains implicit
references to their exposure to civil liability, and express your
disappointment with the performance of their products, who knows how
they may respond. They may try to appease you with a perk or two. If
not, forward the report to AOPA, FSDO, and AvWeb. :-)


Larry, That's a great Idea and the Tach. was part of the G1000 system I am
not sure of the cause of the failure did not hang around in Beirut long
enough to find out the diagnostics.

See Photo
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...ch_Failure.jpg

NW_Pilot schrieb:

for a few hundred miles with only a compass. Now when the only approach you
have is an NDB and the indicator don't work hahahaha!!! Trust me you don't
want to be there it's not fun but,

I trust you. All I said is that there are all the backup instrument
needed to keep the plane flying. Now if your mission *relies* on
electronic navigation aids, then it's a good idea to have such a backup
handy. But not all missions rely on them, so I don't see the need to add
them by default.

Stefan

Not everyone is a thick-skinned as we are, and -- if we want GA to grow
-- we need to be welcoming everyone into this group with open arms, not
poison pens.

Welcoming EVERYONE? You feel critical thinking* is misplaced? You
would recommend welcoming the likes of Mohammed Atta, AOL users, Ted
Kaczynski, Ted Bundy, John W. Hinckley, Jr, ...? Welcoming EVERYONE
could reduce Usenet to a the status of FidoNet. If you don't mean
'everyone,' don't use absolute language.

You know, imitating Steven McNicoll won't get you anywhere with me,
Larry...

;-)

Seriously, you need to develop a method of filtering language so you
can detect mild hyperbole. In this case "Everyone" doesn't mean
"Adolph Hitler" or "Sadaam Hussein", or "Bill Clinton" -- but it DOES
mean guys like NW_Pilot, who is CLEARLY not a timid soul.

Incidentally, to give you some idea of the intimidation factor you (and
others) cause in this 'group, in the name of "keeping the
signal-to-noise ratio high", I have received quite a few off-line
emails THANKING me for bringing up the flaming in this group.

Ironically -- sadly -- they sent the messages to me off-group, for fear
of the reaction they might generate by posting.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

NW_Pilot writes:

When on the phone with Cessna engineering and
Garmin support they said they had a similar problem during stalls and slow
flight.

I guess reboots are to be expected during stalls and slow flight,
given how incredibly rare and improbable these things are, eh?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jose writes:

Sheesh, and they marketed it anyway?

That's the standard PC mindset. If it compiles without errors, ship
it. Works great for Excel. If it kills anybody, his kin can call
technical support and get the first 10 minutes free.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Larry Dighera writes:

So, the uncommanded FIS rebooting was a known issue, and both
manufactures chose to release their products for use?

Money talks.

I hope the premiums are paid current on their errors and
omissions insurance policies.

Software seems to be mysteriously immune to this sort of lawsuit.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Larry Dighera writes:

I would write a report of your experience detailing the equipment
failures that occurred, and politely and respectfully send copies to
Cessna and Garmin. If you word it, so that it contains implicit
references to their exposure to civil liability, and express your
disappointment with the performance of their products, who knows how
they may respond. They may try to appease you with a perk or two. If
not, forward the report to AOPA, FSDO, and AvWeb. :-)

Most software licenses disclaim all responsibility for everything
except an unreadable CD, although these disclaimers have never been
thoroughly tested in court, as far as I know.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.