Courious Crash

"John Clonts" wrote in message
ups.com...

Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, "Montblack"
said:
("Orval Fairbairn" wrote)
I have never had an engine "sputter" when a tank goes dry! They just
quit
until you switch tanks.


...plus the "sparks" before the crash. ???

One truth of NTSB reports is that non-pilot witnesses are *never*
reliable.


Statements asserting "always" or "never" are always wrong!


And never right.

§ 23.969 Fuel tank expansion space.
Each fuel tank must have an expansion space of not less than
two percent of the tank capacity, unless the tank vent
discharges clear of the airplane (in which case no expansion
space is required). It must be impossible to fill the
expansion space inadvertently with the airplane in the
normal ground attitude.

I don't know whether cherokees have expansion space, but they do have a
fuel vent that vents fuel "clear of the airplane" (as far as I can tell).

However, I would infer from the reg that 2% would be typical of expected
expansion. So, half a gallon loss out of a 24 gallon tank would not be
outrageous.

Am I missing something?

Jose
--
I suspect that it means that the expected loss is much less. They probably
wanted to ensure that no fuel is leaked inside the aircraft over the widest
expected range of temperature and a reasonable range of attidudes--such as a
flat tire and/or a sloping ramp.

Peter

In article m,
says...



Who knows? No one here knows any more about it than anyone else. We do not
even know if they stopped to refuel along the way. You don't know when the
oil was last changed, what kind of weather briefing he got, when the last
annual was, the condition of the electrical system, or anything else. So it
seems to be going out on a limb to be immediately suspecting fuel exhaustion.

Pilots in general have a pretty good idea of how far they can fly on a full
tank and they do not intentionally stretch it. Most of the guys who get in
trouble with fuel exhaustion seem to be people who encounter unexpected
headwinds, had to divert to another airport for some reason, or who did not
find fuel where they expected it.

So, I would not assume fuel exhaustion right off the bat. In fact, from the
facts given, I would not assume anything.

One thing I do know -- these people had family and friends, some of whom
might read these news groups.


I agree with your post.
I do not agree with those who regularly post that it is unacceptable to
speculate or even to discuss possible causes until all the factual information
has been processed. I think it is useful, interesting and natural - but I
agree with you that early speculation must be respectful of what is a tragedy
for a circle of individuals.

The information given here is indeed very sparse. My initial question was the
same - did they stop to refuel? We don't know anything about their fuel
management scenario. Perhaps they started "nearly full" with the intention to
refuel somewhere, and that didn't work out. Perhaps there's no fuel management
question at all. Won't take much on the factual side to confirm or reject this
possible cause. The initial post is a compelling theory until the factual
information does that.

As for witness accounts - how many KingAir accidents have witness accounts of
the engine "missing"? Impressive events are something like dreams - we
remember sketchy things and "fill-in" the details.

GF