AeroStar Fuel system?

"John" wrote in message
...
On Nov 16, 1:49 pm, Ray Andraka wrote:
Denny wrote:
Similar situation in Super Vikings... There it has a gauge for each
tank and the gauges read the tanks in use...
The problem was that the unselected tanks would show some reading, not
having anything to do with the actual fuel in them because the gauge
was unpowered when the tank was not selected and the needles would
drift wherever they would... The pilots manual was clear on this, but
some folks can't be bothered to read...

So, guys would look at the aux tank gauges and it says 2/3 full and
they would take off... But the tanks were not near full and the
reading was spurious until the gauge was powered by selecting that
tank... More than one Super Vike bought the farm because some pilot
didn't understand his machine...

denny

What ever happened to eyeballing the fuel during preflight?- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I wonder how good of a job you can do eyeballing fuel on planes with
thin tanks. I am not saying it's not worth it, but I wonder if you
can discern a real difference by looking. It seems like it could be
hard especially on an unlevel surface. IIRC the Aerostar POH
specifically cautions against fueling on uneven surfaces.

take care . . .

John

The City just put in some "T" hangars at RBG. One of the drainage
gutters ended up 9 inches higher than the taxiway it was to drain. The new
single engine hangars rent for $200 a month, and you can't put most singles
into them. The center wall is too close to the door. All of the taxiways on
this part of the airport have a considerable slope. At one end of the hangar
door the ramp is 2 inches higher than the floor, and on the other side of
the door 2 to 3 inches lower than the floor.

Apparently this gentleman pulled his aircraft out of the hangar, onto
the taxiway, and had it topped off. The lineman estimates one tip was 12-14
inches higher than the other. There is apparently a warning in the Aerostar
book about slope and "full fuel load".

It also appears, to me, that even with a mis-fueling, there were many
chances to avoid the eventual result, a stall spin into an Orange grove
outside of Bakersfield. A good friend of mine was in the back seat, and I
can't imagine her staying completely quiet as the situation developed over a
period of several hours.

Al G

On Nov 26, 7:21 pm, "Al G" wrote:
"John" wrote in message

...





On Nov 16, 1:49 pm, Ray Andraka wrote:
Denny wrote:
Similar situation in Super Vikings... There it has a gauge for each
tank and the gauges read the tanks in use...
The problem was that the unselected tanks would show some reading, not
having anything to do with the actual fuel in them because the gauge
was unpowered when the tank was not selected and the needles would
drift wherever they would... The pilots manual was clear on this, but
some folks can't be bothered to read...

So, guys would look at the aux tank gauges and it says 2/3 full and
they would take off... But the tanks were not near full and the
reading was spurious until the gauge was powered by selecting that
tank... More than one Super Vike bought the farm because some pilot
didn't understand his machine...

denny

What ever happened to eyeballing the fuel during preflight?- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I wonder how good of a job you can do eyeballing fuel on planes with
thin tanks. I am not saying it's not worth it, but I wonder if you
can discern a real difference by looking. It seems like it could be
hard especially on an unlevel surface. IIRC the Aerostar POH
specifically cautions against fueling on uneven surfaces.

take care . . .

John

The City just put in some "T" hangars at RBG. One of the drainage
gutters ended up 9 inches higher than the taxiway it was to drain. The new
single engine hangars rent for $200 a month, and you can't put most singles
into them. The center wall is too close to the door. All of the taxiways on
this part of the airport have a considerable slope. At one end of the hangar
door the ramp is 2 inches higher than the floor, and on the other side of
the door 2 to 3 inches lower than the floor.

Apparently this gentleman pulled his aircraft out of the hangar, onto
the taxiway, and had it topped off. The lineman estimates one tip was 12-14
inches higher than the other. There is apparently a warning in the Aerostar
book about slope and "full fuel load".

It also appears, to me, that even with a mis-fueling, there were many
chances to avoid the eventual result, a stall spin into an Orange grove
outside of Bakersfield. A good friend of mine was in the back seat, and I
can't imagine her staying completely quiet as the situation developed over a
period of several hours.

Al G- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have never flown in an Aerostar . . . but it does seem with those
three big fuel gauges parked in front of your nose, it would be hard
to miss an issue developing. IMHO, if you can afford an Aerostar (or
any other hiigh performance twin), you should consider installing a
totalizer and making friends with it

"John" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 7:21 pm, "Al G" wrote:
"John" wrote in message

...





On Nov 16, 1:49 pm, Ray Andraka wrote:
Denny wrote:
Similar situation in Super Vikings... There it has a gauge for each
tank and the gauges read the tanks in use...
The problem was that the unselected tanks would show some reading,
not
having anything to do with the actual fuel in them because the gauge
was unpowered when the tank was not selected and the needles would
drift wherever they would... The pilots manual was clear on this,
but
some folks can't be bothered to read...

So, guys would look at the aux tank gauges and it says 2/3 full and
they would take off... But the tanks were not near full and the
reading was spurious until the gauge was powered by selecting that
tank... More than one Super Vike bought the farm because some pilot
didn't understand his machine...

denny

What ever happened to eyeballing the fuel during preflight?- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I wonder how good of a job you can do eyeballing fuel on planes with
thin tanks. I am not saying it's not worth it, but I wonder if you
can discern a real difference by looking. It seems like it could be
hard especially on an unlevel surface. IIRC the Aerostar POH
specifically cautions against fueling on uneven surfaces.

take care . . .

John

The City just put in some "T" hangars at RBG. One of the drainage
gutters ended up 9 inches higher than the taxiway it was to drain. The
new
single engine hangars rent for $200 a month, and you can't put most
singles
into them. The center wall is too close to the door. All of the taxiways
on
this part of the airport have a considerable slope. At one end of the
hangar
door the ramp is 2 inches higher than the floor, and on the other side of
the door 2 to 3 inches lower than the floor.

Apparently this gentleman pulled his aircraft out of the hangar, onto
the taxiway, and had it topped off. The lineman estimates one tip was
12-14
inches higher than the other. There is apparently a warning in the
Aerostar
book about slope and "full fuel load".

It also appears, to me, that even with a mis-fueling, there were many
chances to avoid the eventual result, a stall spin into an Orange grove
outside of Bakersfield. A good friend of mine was in the back seat, and I
can't imagine her staying completely quiet as the situation developed
over a
period of several hours.

Al G- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have never flown in an Aerostar . . . but it does seem with those
three big fuel gauges parked in front of your nose, it would be hard
to miss an issue developing. IMHO, if you can afford an Aerostar (or
any other hiigh performance twin), you should consider installing a
totalizer and making friends with it

I believe he had a totalizer, knew how to use it, and relied on it. Of
course if you think you've "Topped" off the tanks, tell the totalizer that
it has 165.5 gallons to work with, and that fuel is not on board, the
totalizer does not help. In fact, if you lie to it, and then rely on it, it
is counter productive.
IMHO, he should have had a good idea how much fuel it would take before he
called the lineman to request fuel in the first place. If the lineman didn't
put in what you expected, the first warning flag gets raised.
At some point, however, the wing tanks are empty, and they were running
off the 41 gallons in the fuselage tank. With an average burn around 42-44
gph, they should have been heading DIRECTLY to an airport at that time. The
second warning flag gets raised.
He was on an IFR flight plan, and even disregarding an alternate, he
still has a 45 minute reserve requirement. At 11:25, 20nm North of Fresno,
he changed destinations for a fuel stop at Bakersfield. It would not be
inaccurate to note that he overflew a dozen airports with fuel available.
Flameout was 35 minutes later and the emergency landing didn't go well.
If you know you are already within that last 45 minutes, You should be on
the ground NOW. Why head for an airport 100nm+ away? If you are going to do
that, do it with 1 feathered, and at best glide until you have the new
destination made.
There is an old flight instructor story about cooking frogs. If you put
a frog it hot water, he jumps out. If you put him in warm water he stays and
likes it. Gradually heat the water, and by the time the frog decides to
leave, it is too late to make the departure. Many emergencies happen very
gradually. Be prepared to swallow your pride, and act, earlier than you
think is really necessary.

Al G CFIAMI