Flying a PA-28 140 from Maine to Georgia in a week end ...

I mean this in a positive way: threads and responses like these are
likely to make us all safer pilots.It's peer review at its finest.



On Dec 22, 11:28 pm, wrote:
"Barney Rubble" is absolutely correct...
"Bud" doesn't realize just how close he was to introducing himself and
his wife to the (lack of) glide capability of his new Cherokee 140.



Barney Rubble wrote:
Hmm, let's see, low time in make/model, just out of annual, a touch of get
homeitis combined with a long XC. No mode C due to transponder on the fritz,
inadvertent flight into IMC at night and subsequent scud running , departing
with door unlatched....
You do like to live on the edge don't you?
I guess you also landed in Reading with 3 galloons of useable fuel (50 gal
capacity/47 useable on a standard 1968 Cherokee 140), hmm 7GPH, it sounds
like you broke 91.151.

I'm glad you have a new plane and I'm happy for you, but this trip report
should set off some alarm bells about you flight planning and decision
making....

- Barney- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Absolutely.

'Tis much better to read about such things that to have to learn them
firsthand... like a good friend who had to put his new Cherokee 180
down in a soft plowed farm field a mere 1 mile short of the approach
end of our home runway due to fuel exhaustion... breaking off a main
gear & nose gear as they sunk into the soft dirt, and bashing his knee
into the lower instrument panel hard enough to crack his kneecap in the
very short rollout.

It was a "good" landing, however, as all occupants walked away with
relatively minor injuries and the airplane was repairable and is flying
once again. For some strange reason, he never allows his fuel to run
down lower than a one hour reserve anymore.

Tony wrote:
I mean this in a positive way: threads and responses like these are
likely to make us all safer pilots.It's peer review at its finest.



On Dec 22, 11:28 pm, wrote:
"Barney Rubble" is absolutely correct...
"Bud" doesn't realize just how close he was to introducing himself and
his wife to the (lack of) glide capability of his new Cherokee 140.



Barney Rubble wrote:
Hmm, let's see, low time in make/model, just out of annual, a touch of get
homeitis combined with a long XC. No mode C due to transponder on the fritz,
inadvertent flight into IMC at night and subsequent scud running , departing
with door unlatched....
You do like to live on the edge don't you?
I guess you also landed in Reading with 3 galloons of useable fuel (50 gal
capacity/47 useable on a standard 1968 Cherokee 140), hmm 7GPH, it sounds
like you broke 91.151.

I'm glad you have a new plane and I'm happy for you, but this trip report
should set off some alarm bells about you flight planning and decision
making....

- Barney- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Do your Cherokee a favor and get an autofuel STC for the low
compression engine. You'll love the fuel savings.

Bud_of_yours wrote:
How I flew my '68 Cherokee 140 to Savannah from Maine...
Or
"Wow! My butt is sore..."

Here is the set up.

I found a '68 Cherokee 140 that was a good fit for my wife and me.

On Dec 22, 2:19 pm, "Bud_of_yours" wrote:
How I flew my '68 Cherokee 140 to Savannah from Maine...

Bud,
Congratulations on the purchase of your first plane.
I assumed that the annual was done by a shop chosen by the previous
owner. Did you check on that shop reputation? The fact that the plane
was flown infrequently and the transponder did not work right after the
annual concerned me a bit.
Thank you for taking the time to write about your long cross country
flight. It was quite an eventful trip.
At first, I thought Barney's post was a bit harsh. On further
thought, I agreed with Tony that " threads and responses like these are
likely to make us all safer pilots.It's peer review at its finest".
If you have not already done so, I would suggest filing a NASA
report immediately.
I had recently discovered that you can signup to be on the mailing list
to receive "Callback" newsletters. The newsletters are also online at

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/callback_nf.htm

Hai Longworth

For some strange reason, he never allows his fuel to run
down lower than a one hour reserve anymore.


Although this is a reasonable approach to fuel management, it's not the
most professional approach, nor does it allow the maximum utility of
one's aircraft. A competent pilot should, under certain circumstances,
land his plane with 30 minute fuel remaining, and do so safely without
anxiety.

It requires a complete confidence of fuel burn, which can only come
from many hours of operation of the exact same aircraft and proper
leaning procedure under all conditions and power setting. It requires
very detailed planning, because weather plays a significant role in
determining fuel reserve. It also requires a continuous re-evaluation
of weather and fuel situations in-flight, because weather can change
unexpectedly in a long flight that can affect what a safe fuel reserve
is. Last, it requires a clear alternative of what to do if something
unexpected happen at the destination runway: what if the runway you
intend to land become unavailable right when you approach the airport
with 30 minute fuel in the tank?

With all that, it is possible to plan a flight with 30 minute fuel
reserve. However it's just not possible to do this safely with a
unfamiliar aircraft.

A competent pilot should, under certain circumstances,
land his plane with 30 minute fuel remaining, and do so safely without
anxiety.

This should be taught in primary training - but it was not in my case.
Maybe something like having the student predict the fuel burn &
measuring the tank with a FuelHawk (or similar) before and after a
lesson. We just wiggled our fingers in the fuel caps of the C150.

I've heard lot of others with higher ratings etc than me say that a
student should always learn to fly in a fully fueled aircraft - but
that's just not the real world.

In article om,
"nrp" wrote:

A competent pilot should, under certain circumstances,
land his plane with 30 minute fuel remaining, and do so safely without
anxiety.

This should be taught in primary training - but it was not in my case.
Maybe something like having the student predict the fuel burn &
measuring the tank with a FuelHawk (or similar) before and after a
lesson. We just wiggled our fingers in the fuel caps of the C150.

I've heard lot of others with higher ratings etc than me say that a
student should always learn to fly in a fully fueled aircraft - but
that's just not the real world.

Well, as "M" said, fuel planning like that is really only possible in a
personally owned airplane, where you have extensive experience with that
particular machine and are willing to execute a level of flight planning
which is (sadly) far beyond what I see most people doing.

In the environment I operate in (a flying club with 8 planes), people are
flying in different planes each time they fly. It's just not possible to
know the exact performance of any particular airplane that exactly. Nor is
it possible to know the exact fuel state except when a tank is full (or at
one or two special part-full points such as "to the tab"). With a
privately owned plane, you can keep a running history such as "I know I was
full, then burned off 34 gallons per the fuel totalizer, then added 10".

I also know that all the planes we have will get off the ground just fine a
little over-gross. I have far less confidence in their ability to make it
to the runway with the tanks a little under-empty.

Recently, M posted:

For some strange reason, he never allows his fuel to run
down lower than a one hour reserve anymore.


Although this is a reasonable approach to fuel management, it's not
the most professional approach, nor does it allow the maximum utility
of one's aircraft. A competent pilot should, under certain
circumstances, land his plane with 30 minute fuel remaining, and do
so safely without anxiety.

It requires a complete confidence of fuel burn, which can only come
from many hours of operation of the exact same aircraft and proper
leaning procedure under all conditions and power setting. It requires
very detailed planning, because weather plays a significant role in
determining fuel reserve. It also requires a continuous re-evaluation
of weather and fuel situations in-flight, because weather can change
unexpectedly in a long flight that can affect what a safe fuel reserve
is. Last, it requires a clear alternative of what to do if something
unexpected happen at the destination runway: what if the runway you
intend to land become unavailable right when you approach the airport
with 30 minute fuel in the tank?

With all that, it is possible to plan a flight with 30 minute fuel
reserve. However it's just not possible to do this safely with a
unfamiliar aircraft.

I question this scenario as you've presented it. As you've pointed out,
the weather plays a large part in fuel burn over a distance. Landing your
plane with 30 minutes reserve fuel presumes that when you've travelled x.y
hours at a particular burn rate, the airport is right under you. Chances
are good that will not be the case, and you will wind up with either more
or less than 30 minutes fuel remaining.

Also as you've pointed out, another consideration is that accurate leaning
is important to precise fuel burn. However, as GA mixture controls lack
precise calibration, one of the few other ways to know your fuel
consumption would be with a fuel flow meter. Many planes are not so
equipped, and if the plane you fly is one of those, then it doesn't really
matter whether you own it or not; you're making a guess about the
precision based on past experience, possibly against RPM.

Lastly, how much fuel should be remaining at your destination may be
better determined by how much additional fuel might be needed if there is
some unexpected problem at the destination. I wouldn't want to have 30
minutes remaining at the destination if the alternative is 45 minutes
away. ;-)

Regards, happy holidays and safe flying!

Neil

Aboutr fuel planning, flight endurance and fuel burn: I have a big
bunch of hours in my Mooney. It holds something like 33 gallons a side,
I almost always take off with full tanks. I would not dream of planning
a trip with 30 miutes reserve, and I know the airplane well. I f;ly
half the takeoff tank away, then most of the other tank, and when I
switch back to the take off tank, with 25% of the fuel still aboard,
I'm going to land for fuel, period, even if my RON is only 100 miles
farther along.

There are some obvious items careful readers will note: even with
careless leaning the bird will burn only 10 gph, so it has really long
legs. Carefully leaned at altitude I can get a bit more than 8 gph, so
range is rarely an issue. I might think differently if I was flying a
172, but probably not. Would I fly with a general aviation PIC who
plans on a 30 minute reserve at the planned termination of a flight?
I've never met anyone that good, thank you very much. My butt might not
be worth much, but it's the only one I have.




On Dec 24, 9:52 am, "Longworth" wrote:
On Dec 22, 2:19 pm, "Bud_of_yours" wrote:

How I flew my '68 Cherokee 140 to Savannah from Maine...Bud,
Congratulations on the purchase of your first plane.
I assumed that the annual was done by a shop chosen by the previous
owner. Did you check on that shop reputation? The fact that the plane
was flown infrequently and the transponder did not work right after the
annual concerned me a bit.
Thank you for taking the time to write about your long cross country
flight. It was quite an eventful trip.
At first, I thought Barney's post was a bit harsh. On further
thought, I agreed with Tony that " threads and responses like these are
likely to make us all safer pilots.It's peer review at its finest".
If you have not already done so, I would suggest filing a NASA
report immediately.
I had recently discovered that you can signup to be on the mailing list
to receive "Callback" newsletters. The newsletters are also online at

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/callback_nf.htm

Hai Longworth

Roy Smith wrote:
I also know that all the planes we have will get off the ground just fine a
little over-gross. I have far less confidence in their ability to make it
to the runway with the tanks a little under-empty.


Too true. My personal rule is at the point where I'm starting to worry about
fuel, I don't have enough.

All the pontification I've been reading from the purists with the totalizers is
getting to be a bit much for me. I've never flown an aircraft with a totalizer
and somehow have survived the experience.

And as far as the trip that started this whole thread goes, I don't see what
everybody is whining about. To me, it sounded like a typical trip in a new (to
him) aircraft. Stuff like the transponder failure are par for the course.

Apparently flying a whole fleet of crappy aircraft has made me somewhat more
forgiving in that regard, I suppose. I *expect* things not to all work at the
same time.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com