If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Check your gas.
Flaps_50! writes:
I agree that removing the engine might reduce the probability of a mechanical failure, and yet the stats say gliders have more accidents. Both gliders and powered aircraft require a source of propulsion, even if it isn't the same source. Neither source of propulsion is completely reliable. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Check your gas.
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote: Flaps_50! writes: I agree that removing the engine might reduce the probability of a mechanical failure, and yet the stats say gliders have more accidents. Both gliders and powered aircraft require a source of propulsion, even if it isn't the same source. Neither source of propulsion is completely reliable. The difference is that a glider's energy source is so UNreliable that no sane pilot would ever count on it being there, and the glide performance is necessarily so large, thus a safe landing spot is always kept within range. As for the stats, I speculate that the main reason the glider stats are worse is because the "GA" stat includes lots of big corporate jets which have more airliner-like safety stats. My *guess* is that comparing small planes to gliders will reveal more similar levels of risk, but I could easily be wrong on that. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Check your gas.
On Nov 30, 5:00 pm, Mark wrote:
On Nov 30, 1:53 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote: Meticulous pilot runs out of gas and can't land in a corn field! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20...travel_brief_f... Must have got his license from Canadian Tire. Ken That's what happened to a Beech King Air turbo a couple of weeks ago near me. Ran out of gas, for as yet undetermined reasons. Shame to see such a nice plane totalled, but at least no fatalities. The guys at Stevens have a good reputation. http://www.greenvilleonline.com/arti...11110344/1004/... Mark OOPs.... Well for small a/c (I'm Cessna 152), I fill my own and check for water and of course color. Otherwise, read the meter of the gas input or trust the fella loading you. Every Flight Manual has a fuel consumption rate graph as a function of power/rpm/cruising speed, so at flight planning, a time and range can be estimated that does not rely on the fuel gauge, which is accurate to +/- 10%. So a cross check of a wrist watch with the fuel gauge is a no-brainer. Ken |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Check your gas.
On Dec 1, 5:32*pm, Mike Ash wrote:
In article , *Mxsmanic wrote: Flaps_50! writes: I agree that removing the engine might reduce the probability of a mechanical failure, and yet the stats say gliders have more accidents. Both gliders and powered aircraft require a source of propulsion, even if it isn't the same source. Neither source of propulsion is completely reliable. The difference is that a glider's energy source is so UNreliable that no sane pilot would ever count on it being there, and the glide performance is necessarily so large, thus a safe landing spot is always kept within range. As for the stats, I speculate that the main reason the glider stats are worse is because the "GA" stat includes lots of big corporate jets which have more airliner-like safety stats. My *guess* is that comparing small planes to gliders will reveal more similar levels of risk, but I could easily be wrong on that. I posted the figures for single engine -not usually the class of a corporate jet... Seems like glider piloting is a problem (it can't be the iron fairy) or is there another cause? Cheers |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Check your gas.
On Dec 1, 4:59*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Flaps_50!" wrote: I'd like to know how many fuel exhaustions were associated with a successful emergency off-field *landing. The AOPA writes a yearly report on accidents (seehttp://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html) that addresses questions like that; here's the latest one: http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/08nall.pdf Go to page 14 and you should find an approximate answer - at least for the year they examined in that report. Thnx. So many fuel incidents! Cheers |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Check your gas.
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Check your gas.
On Dec 1, 11:17*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article , *VOR_DME wrote: In article , says... *I understand that there are various obstacles to having reliable fuel quantity indicators in a light aircraft, but I bet that it must be possible. How difficult and expensive would a good one end up being, and what would it look like? I don’t know if it still holds true, but as of a year or so ago, Flying mag indicated there had not yet been a fuel exhaustion accident in any of the new (post 1998) Cessnas, with improved fuel gauges and low fuel warning lights. The "old-style" gauges were considered by many to be unreliable. I’m not sure they were as bad as people claimed - they flick on and off frequently, but you can usually tell when it is indicating something meaningful and when it is just off. I can imagine if you fly down to very low levels (guessing here, because I’ve never done this) the distinction may not be so clear, and repeated lore has it that pilots have flown the tanks dry thinking their gauges were simply inop. I learned the same as most here, to calculate time based on known quantities, reliable fuel burns and to use dipsticks as well, however I agree with *-a- that an unusual fuel burn or a leak can only be detected if you have instruments you can trust. There are fuel exhaustion accidents that result from other causes than running dry as well. Taxying out on the AUX tank to make sure it is working is a good idea, but not possible in all planes. Some aircraft return part of the fuel from the aux tanks to the mains, so you can not switch to aux before burning away some of what’s in the mains, if they are full. Other planes have tip tanks which cannot be accessed if you wait until the mains are dry and a vapor lock develops. Planes have crashed with ample fuel reserves that pilots have been unable to access (or didn’t know how). Fuel management in small planes deserves some thought above and beyond the simple question of "having enough". Switching tanks in flight is usually a trivial affair, but sometimes meets with unexpected results (blissful silence). Good idea to give some thought to when and where you are going to do this, and what options are available if it goes awry. Thanks for the discussion and all the info. While I don't know if it'll ever be directly useful to me, it doesn't hurt to know, and it's all very interesting. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon Uh, Mike, that thing you're pushing on the other end of the tow rope -- in spite of the push it does burn that gas stuff. Is there ever a time during a tow that you don't have enough energy to get back to the field? I've long ago lost the notion of flying around for 'fun', the airplane has been a point to point tool, pretty much like a car is (that I smile a lot when flying does NOT make it non-business). Now you have me thinking all flying need not be expense account stuff. Should you be thanked, or cursed? I wonder the same thing about the person who introduced me to golf. It's a game that provides seconds of delight separated by minutes (or longer) of agony. Off topic -- I was asked, when attempting a shot from an impossible lie, if I had practiced that shot before, and pointed out I hit the ball to where it was with shots I had practiced! And now, back to work. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Check your gas.
On Nov 30, 9:02*pm, "Flaps_50!" wrote:
if the pilot practices his emergency procedures regularly. Since you allegedly fly a plane, when was the last time you practiced your emergency procedures OUTSIDE a simulator? How often do you practice OUTSIDE a simulator to define regularly? Once a day, once a month, once a year? Very direct questions above. Can you give me direct answers? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Check your gas.
In article
, a wrote: Thanks for the discussion and all the info. While I don't know if it'll ever be directly useful to me, it doesn't hurt to know, and it's all very interesting. Uh, Mike, that thing you're pushing on the other end of the tow rope -- in spite of the push it does burn that gas stuff. Oh yes! I didn't mean to imply that gas-burners weren't useful to me! Rather, I simply meant that the tow pilots know way more about this sort of thing than I do, and so I pretty much just have to trust them to get things right. (The mutual trust goes both ways, as I could just as easily get him killed as he could get me killed.) Is there ever a time during a tow that you don't have enough energy to get back to the field? Yes there is, for a short period of time. On a normal tow out of my field, there's a tense zone between about 50ft and 150ft where I'm too high to land on the remaining runway and too low to do a 180 back to the runway. If we're operating off runway 27, there's a decent-looking field off the end that I could use in the event of an emergency in that region, and it's *likely* that it would just be a big inconvenience. Off runway 9, there are fields but nothing very friendly, and it would probably ruin my day to have to go into one. Aside from this short window, I'm fine. I still don't want to ha I've long ago lost the notion of flying around for 'fun', the airplane has been a point to point tool, pretty much like a car is (that I smile a lot when flying does NOT make it non-business). Now you have me thinking all flying need not be expense account stuff. Should you be thanked, or cursed? I wonder the same thing about the person who introduced me to golf. It's a game that provides seconds of delight separated by minutes (or longer) of agony. Off topic -- I was asked, when attempting a shot from an impossible lie, if I had practiced that shot before, and pointed out I hit the ball to where it was with shots I had practiced! And now, back to work. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
check this... | billybeer | Owning | 0 | December 1st 04 01:28 AM |
Check it out | [email protected] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 30th 04 09:35 PM |
Check it out! | [email protected] | Soaring | 1 | November 30th 04 01:21 AM |
Check this out! | [email protected] | Aerobatics | 0 | November 30th 04 12:58 AM |
check this out | Tony Verhulst | Soaring | 0 | February 27th 04 04:04 PM |