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

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