How much fuel do you prefer to carry?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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.



You are a moron.


Bertie

writes:

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.

Is there some regulation you failed to comply with that could have prevented
this?

I know airliners have regularly scheduled maintenance at multiple levels that
is supposed to catch all sorts of potential problems, but do small aircraft
have the same requirements? Apart from required engine maintenance, what
other maintenance is required by regulations?

B A R R Y wrote in news:NPGnk.35455$ZE5.11635
@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:

Rocky Stevens wrote:

Never thought of it that way. I ride a motorcycle, and motorcycles
have a "reserve" tank (not really a separate tank) that you can switch
to when you "run out" of gas

There are a few old planes with the same setup.

I think some Taylorcrafts had a reserve tank.


Bikes don't have a resere tank, they have a stand pipe that takes the
normal supply from an inch or two up in the tank. When that runs dry, you
selct reserve and you can get at all the fuel.
No airplane ever had that kind of instalation
The "reserve" in the T-craft was another tank that fed into the main in the
nose. Lots of airplanes of the period have this setup.


Bertie

writes:

1) Where do you get your numbers that indicate "Lots of airline pilots
like to load more fuel than the regulations require".

Every airline pilot I've read or talked to. Pilots feel more comfortable with
more fuel, because all sorts of things can happen that the regulations do not
foresee.

2) Airlines are not GA.

Airlines are also a lot safer than GA.

3) Airline pilots must adhere to FAA regulation and company policy or
they will be neither airline pilots nor pilots at all for very long.

Are you implying that private pilots don't have to adhere to FAA regulations?
Perhaps that's part of the problem.

4) Fueling an airliner involves a lot more than just the pilot's "likes".

Yes, but on top of all the rest, the captain may ask for additional fuel to be
loaded at his discretion, and many pilots do exactly that.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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.

Of course it does. You have no clue as to how any machine works.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

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.

Granted, but most fuel starvation and exhaustion accidents do not seem
to involve things like this. Pilots simply fail to plan, and then
sometimes react inappropriately when the fuel runs out or runs low.

I don't recall seeing any accidents involving mixture changes or
fuel-cover losses, but it's certainly possible. A pilot should be
monitoring engine gauges, however, and should notice a change in
mixture or fuel consumption. He might even be able to detect it by
sound in some aircraft.


Hopw woudl you know?

You don't fly and you never will.


Bertie

On Aug 10, 5:17*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
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.

Granted, but most fuel starvation and exhaustion accidents do not seem to
involve things like this. *Pilots simply fail to plan, and then sometimes
react inappropriately when the fuel runs out or runs low.

I don't recall seeing any accidents involving mixture changes or fuel-cover
losses, but it's certainly possible. *A pilot should be monitoring engine
gauges, however, and should notice a change in mixture or fuel consumption. He
might even be able to detect it by sound in some aircraft.

Actually, mixture problems, and carb ice on normally asperated
engines, show up on EGT first. Headsets that most pilots wear do not
allow subtle variations in engine sound through, which is why on take
off I have one ear uncovered. But mixture problems do occur, and are
one reason of several I cited as to why having the ability to select
fuel tanks, rather than drawing from both, is safer. That was the
issue, I answered it, and you are attempting to divert the
conversation from an area where your reasoning has been questioned.

Again.

On Aug 10, 5:24*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
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.

Is there some regulation you failed to comply with that could have prevented
this?

I know airliners have regularly scheduled maintenance at multiple levels that
is supposed to catch all sorts of potential problems, but do small aircraft
have the same requirements? *Apart from required engine maintenance, what
other maintenance is required by regulations?

We fly in compliance with regs and POH. There is no regulation that
will predict the breaking of a cable connector. In some cases such a
breakage could lead to an accident. In this case I was lucky, the
accident 'chain' was broken before the airplane was.

Rocky Stevens wrote in news:75a8ba62-800d-42bc-
:

On Aug 10, 1:07 am, "Viperdoc" wrote:
Good point- but where was your response? Why not just answer Anthony's
question rather than respond to mine?

Yeah, you have a point. As I mentioned in another thread I am a bit of
a hypocrite; most of my posts on this group are a reaction to a
reaction to Anthony, so it ain't like I'm contributing a whole lot of
relevant stuff myself. That being said, I did respond with what I
thought was a pretty interesting link (airlines running lower on fuel
to save $$) since the OP asked about the cost savings of carrying a
minimal amount of fuel.

I couldn't answer the question directly because the only "method" I
have is telling my instructor if the tanks are not full on preflight,
and then the fuel fairies come and fill the tanks. I could have given
a textbook answer involving GPH and calculating winds and whatnot, but
I am pretty sure the OP is interested in what pilots do in the real
world.


They start with the textbook and add experience you fool.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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.

There is no excuse for your existence, fjukwjit.