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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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