How much fuel do you prefer to carry?

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

One more time, there is no black and white, cut and dried "method".

Many excellent pilots seem to have methods for doing everything when they fly.
The more methodical they are, the safer they tend to be (and this is not
limited to aviation). I was wondering what their methods might be. There are
regulatory requirements, but beyond that there are many other factors to
consider, as pointed out already, and I was wondering exactly how pilots take
these into account. There's obviously a practical threshold between trying to
consider every possible detail and just flipping a coin (or not thinking about
fuel at all).

Fully following the regulatory requirements ensures the safety of the
flight.

Everything past that falls into catagories such as economics, convenience,
good will, etc.

Sometimes I buy fuel at an airport when I don't have any need to just
because the FBO has nice people and I want to help make sure they
stay in business.

Put that into your simulator "method" for fueling.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

on 8/9/2008 11:15 PM said the following:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

I forgot to add, and for most airplanes, the climate.

And you forgot to actually answer the question. What's the method?

I answered the question you asked.

If you can't understand the answer, it isn't my problem.

There is no cut and dried, black and white method you can put into
a script other than fill the tanks every time you land, which no one
other than students being directed to do so by an instructor does.

Assuming you mean "every time you put the aircraft away" (since no one
does it after every landing - think pattern work) it's more common than
you suggest. It's standard practice in all the clubs I'm familiar with,
including my own, to return aircraft topped off.

on 8/10/2008 9:51 AM B A R R Y said the following:
Rocky Stevens wrote:

A large number of accidents are not because of running out of fuel per
se, but bad "fuel management," i.e. forgetting to switch tanks.

Got a citation for that? Very high on the emergency checklist of every
multiple tanked aircraft I've ever flown is "switch tanks". There's
also an item on approach lists mentioning proper tank choice in some
manner.

And yet it happens. My club lost a 210 a few years ago when the pilot
ran one side dry and failed to switch.

(Not that I'm agreeing with the original statement. I don't have the
data to know one way of the other.)

On Aug 10, 12:45*pm, wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
One more time, there is no black and white, cut and dried "method".
Many excellent pilots seem to have methods for doing everything when they fly.
The more methodical they are, the safer they tend to be (and this is not
limited to aviation). *I was wondering what their methods might be. *There are
regulatory requirements, but beyond that there are many other factors to
consider, as pointed out already, and I was wondering exactly how pilots take
these into account. *There's obviously a practical threshold between trying to
consider every possible detail and just flipping a coin (or not thinking about
fuel at all).

Fully following the regulatory requirements ensures the safety of the
flight.

Everything past that falls into catagories such as economics, convenience,
good will, etc.

Sometimes I buy fuel at an airport when I don't have any need to just
because the FBO has nice people and I want to help make sure they
stay in business.

Put that into your simulator "method" for fueling.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I think it would be more correct to say fully complying with the
regulations enhances the safety of the flight. Things fail and that
can ruin your whole day.

Although the regulations don't say it yet sooner or later we'll be
cited as failing pilots for not ANTICIPATING a critical part failure.
I had the carb heat cable break on a Mooney Ranger once. It was on a
non precision approach to an uncontrolled field in IMC, and if you
have any experience with those airplanes you know they love to form
carb ice. When it came time to fly the miss nothing happened when I
added throttle. Of course carb heat was on -- I pulled it on harder
and the cable just kept coming out of the panel. I tried everything:
landing lights, comm volume, all of that, finally learned that by
leaning the engine it would provide just enough power to get to a
nearby controlled airport with an ILS. The point of that long
paragraph is had I gone in part of the findings probably would have
found fault with my piloting. And yes, boys and girls, I did do a carb
heat check as part of the pre takeoff run up.

Rocky Stevens writes:

It is shocking to me how many of these accidents exist; and it ain't
just new pilots. For example, the head instructor of the accelerated
school that was the subject of "getting my license in 7 days" (http://
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/2092132.html) died
because he ran out of gas.

It makes me wonder how often this happens with motor vehicles in general.
Aviation is the only domain in which it has short-term, unpleasant
consequences. If a car or motorcycle runs out of gas, it's just an annoyance
(usually). If a boat runs out of gas far from shore, that is a potential
problem, but not nearly as urgent as fuel exhaustion in an aircraft. So
perhaps the problem exists equally for all sorts of motor vehicles, but only
reaches the statistics in aviation, where it can cause accidents. But since
the other situations wouldn't result in an accident, I doubt that anybody has
numbers on this.

A large number of accidents are not because of running out of fuel per
se, but bad "fuel management," i.e. forgetting to switch tanks. I'm
not quite sure why the two tanks are not connected in such a way that
they drain at an equal rate. In my current plane I do not have to
worry about that since I only have one tank.

I have read that many pilots like to switch between tanks, but it is not clear
to me that this offers real advantages. You have so much fuel, and when it
runs out, it runs out. Switching tanks isn't going to make the fuel last
longer, you'll just be reminded of the errors in your fuel calculations in a
different way. It seems that this could provide a false sense of security.
It surprises me that some aircraft make no provision for drawing equally from
tanks on both sides in the first place. Lindbergh had to worry about
switching tanks, but I should hope that aircraft designs had moved forward a
bit beyond that.

Rocky Stevens writes:

Sorry for the non-aviation blurb; lack of a fuel gauge in motorcycles
is just a pet peeve of mine.

There's no excuse for designing motorcycles without fuel gauges. Then again,
the systems of small aircraft seem just as frozen in time.

writes:

Fully following the regulatory requirements ensures the safety of the
flight.

You're sure of that? Fully following the regulations certainly ensures the
legality of the flight, but it might be stretching things to say that it
ensures safety. The regulations often cover only the bare minimum of safety,
as here in the case of fuel loading. Lots of airline pilots like to load more
fuel than the regulations require, which implies that they don't believe that
the regulatory minimums ensure safety.

On Aug 10, 1:43*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Rocky Stevens writes:
It is shocking to me how many of these accidents exist; and it ain't
just new pilots. For example, the head instructor of the accelerated
school that was the subject of "getting my license in 7 days" (http://
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/2092132.html) died
because he ran out of gas.

It makes me wonder how often this happens with motor vehicles in general.
Aviation is the only domain in which it has short-term, unpleasant
consequences. *If a car or motorcycle runs out of gas, it's just an annoyance
(usually). *If a boat runs out of gas far from shore, that is a potential
problem, but not nearly as urgent as fuel exhaustion in an aircraft. *So
perhaps the problem exists equally for all sorts of motor vehicles, but only
reaches the statistics in aviation, where it can cause accidents. *But since
the other situations wouldn't result in an accident, I doubt that anybody has
numbers on this.

A large number of accidents are not because of running out of fuel per
se, but bad "fuel management," i.e. forgetting to switch tanks. I'm
not quite sure why the two tanks are not connected in such a way that
they drain at an equal rate. In my current plane I do not have to
worry about that since I only have one tank.

I have read that many pilots like to switch between tanks, but it is not clear
to me that this offers real advantages. *You have so much fuel, and when it
runs out, it runs out. *Switching tanks isn't going to make the fuel last
longer, you'll just be reminded of the errors in your fuel calculations in a
different way. *It seems that this could provide a false sense of security.
It surprises me that some aircraft make no provision for drawing equally from
tanks on both sides in the first place. *Lindbergh had to worry about
switching tanks, but I should hope that aircraft designs had moved forward a
bit beyond that.

If an engine's leaning is inadvertently changed (it's been known to
happen that a right seat child does something like that, or even
vibration can sometimes) or the fuel cover on a high wing airplane
comes off, or a tank begins leaking fuel use will change markedly.
Having the left wing go dry unexpectedly is a LOT better than having
both wings go dry unexpectedly. This is a real world consideration.

On Aug 10, 1:43 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:


It makes me wonder how often this happens with motor vehicles in general.
Aviation is the only domain in which it has short-term, unpleasant
consequences. If a car or motorcycle runs out of gas, it's just an annoyance
(usually). If a boat runs out of gas far from shore, that is a potential
problem, but not nearly as urgent as fuel exhaustion in an aircraft. So
perhaps the problem exists equally for all sorts of motor vehicles, but only
reaches the statistics in aviation, where it can cause accidents. But since
the other situations wouldn't result in an accident, I doubt that anybody has
numbers on this.

I don't have the numbers, but I would bet real money that the rate of
"out of gas incidents" per mile, hour, or whatever is MUCH lower for
aircraft than other vehicles, for the very same reasons you mentioned
- losing power in a plane is a much bigger deal than a car. For
example, many pilots visually confirm the level of fuel, just in case
their gas gauge is broken; I have never heard of a driver doing that!

Rich Ahrens wrote:
on 8/9/2008 11:15 PM said the following:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

I forgot to add, and for most airplanes, the climate.

And you forgot to actually answer the question. What's the method?

I answered the question you asked.

If you can't understand the answer, it isn't my problem.

There is no cut and dried, black and white method you can put into
a script other than fill the tanks every time you land, which no one
other than students being directed to do so by an instructor does.

Assuming you mean "every time you put the aircraft away" (since no one
does it after every landing - think pattern work) it's more common than
you suggest. It's standard practice in all the clubs I'm familiar with,
including my own, to return aircraft topped off.

By "land" I meant end the flight, as in get out of the airplane.

If I go somewhere and have lunch and have more than enough fuel for
the return trip, do I top off the tanks?

If the price of fuel is less than at home, yes.

If the price of fuel is the same or not a lot more than at home and
the FBO "impressed" me, yes.

If by buying fuel I avoid some type of landing fee so the net cost
is less, yes.

If it happened when I was a student, yes, because the instructor and
school insisted on in.

Generally, otherwise no.

In a shared situation, I would think returning the aircraft with less
than full tanks would soon lead to a pointed conversation on the
value of courtesy.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.