Near miss from space junk.

On Apr 3, 3:37 pm, "Bertie the Bunyip"
wrote:
On 2 Apr, 22:26, "chris" wrote:





On Apr 3, 5:56 am, Mxsmanic wrote:

Dylan Smith writes:
Why is it therefore deemed not only acceptable but entirely normal
that there is no in-flight fuel cross check in the form of a gauge that
at least gives a reasonable indication of how much fuel you have left?

Some pilots apparently love aviation so much that they're willing to die in
the cockpit.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

That's a rather negative way to look at it!!! In a few days I will be
flying for 2 1/2 hours on a cross country. I will have 4 1/2 hours
fuel. That doesn't sound reckless to me!!!

You won't be flying. you won't be on a cross coutry and you won't have
fuel, Jesus boi.

Oh and BTW, How do you know Jesus didn't **** like a bunny?

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Eh?? I posted about having a 2 1/2 hr cross country coming up, not
mx, and I certainly will be flying a real aeroplane!! :-)

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2007-04-02, Maxwell wrote:
If you are planing a flight with so little reserve, which is obviously
considered both legal and acceptable

A one hour reserve is hardly "little reserve". It's quarter of the
duration of a 1960 Cessna 182 (which has relatively small tanks,
especially compared to later models of Cessna 182). A one hour reserve
is double the day VFR minimum requirement.

(My current aircraft carries only 2.5 hours of fuel! Although its fuel
gauge is a much simpler purely mechanical indicator which does work
properly and gives a reasonable indication of fuel remaining.)

gage, and physically _stick_ the tanks on preflight. My personal
experience
with fuel gages has been that they can cause more problems than they
solve,
if you try to rely heavily on them.

So does any instrument if you don't have a cross check. Fuel gauges in
particular ARE the cross check to your preflight visual check, and fuel
burn calculations. If you re-read my message, you'll see in the
particular example I gave that the fuel was visually inspected twice,
and calculations had been performed, and a landing short of the
destination was chosen because the fuel gauge showed less fuel than the
fuel calculations predicted. The error turned out to be in the fuel
level inspection, an easy mistake to make in an unfamiliar aircraft.

The only means of fuel cross check once in flight are the fuel gauges -
you can hardly stick the tanks in flight. Gauges that actually work and
reasonably indicate the fuel level remaining can provide a cross check
which can prevent the following situations:

- lack of experience with a particular aircraft type
- error in fuel burn calculations
- error in engine management (mixture too rich)
- mechanical failure (fuel leak)
- error in preflight (forgetting to do a visual check, or being fooled
because the aircraft was parked on a slope)

...from a normal landing at an airport short of your destination, into a
fuel exhaustion accident. Indeed, some years ago, a poster to this
newsgroup ran out of fuel due to a fuel leak. Perhaps the pilot had been
conditioned to believe that fuel gauges were utterly useless and did not
include them in a cross check, instead relying on a single source of
data (fuel calculations and time in flight).

Cross checks in aviation are a _good thing_. Failing to maintain a
basic instrument that can provide a useful cross check means there's one
less tool at your disposal to prevent an accident.

(In particular, never trust a fuel gauge if it says you have more fuel
than you think you have. However, ALWAYS trust a fuel gauge if it says
you have less fuel than you think you have! Landing to find out why is a
lot cheaper than pressing on, believing your fuel inspection and fuel
burn calculations - only to end up upside down in a field half an hour
later because your fuel was being pumped overboard. How are you going to
detect mechanical problems with the fuel system if the gauge isn't
working? This is why broken fuel gauges should be fixed).

We expect to have to do cross checks for everything else - navigational
cross checks (we never rely on a single source for navigation, whether
this be only using a single road to positively identify a ground feature
instead of the road and two other features), or for our instruments (we
don't just bore holes IFR looking only at the attitude indicator for
attitude information - we scan the other instruments to make sure that
the AI is telling the truth), and we fly approaches not only with the
ILS tuned in, but a timer running, or some other kind of cross check
like a crossing radial.

Why is it therefore deemed not only acceptable but entirely normal
that there is no in-flight fuel cross check in the form of a gauge that
at least gives a reasonable indication of how much fuel you have left?


First of all Dylan, I'm not trying to take issue with you post. Your use of
the fuel reserves are correct and I acknowledged that. I was just trying to
offer you another perspective that I have learned by experience, and thought
you might consider it and perhaps find it useful.

Increasing your reserve for 30 minutes to 1 hour in a 182, especially in an
aircraft you are unfamiliar with, is not a bad idea and will seldom add more
than one fuel stop to even the longest cross country flights. Besides, it's
a good excuse to take a whiz, grab an extra coke, and/or experience a small
airport you wouldn't have gotten to see otherwise. And it is of coarse,
another take off and landing than can make or break your currency
requirements sometimes, depending on how often you get to fly.

You also increase your odds of temporary fuel starvation when you get in the
habit of running your tanks real low, due to things like turbulence or
robust maneuvering. Not usually a problem unless you are held out on turning
base for landing, because some cowboy in a cub thinks he needs a one mile
final, but it does happen.

And your own example of misjudging the fill level on preflight is a great
example of why it's nice to use a stick. I don't find any of the Cessnas
hard to visual, but you will never miss with a stick if the tank design
allows it, and you have a good stick. Especially an error as much as 45
minutes.

Also, fuel leaks and fuel siphoning does obviously does occur, but it's very
rare and usually slight enough you won't be able to detect it in most fuel
gages. They simply are not USUALLY that accurate. I have never personally
seen a leak, and the only siphon issue I have ever seen was someone leaving
the cap loose on a Cessna. And they didn't detect it in the fuel gage, they
heard it banging away on top of the wing. So yes these things do happen, but
I'd bet it's seldom that a fuel gage is what makes or breaks the day.

But at any rate, we could argue _what ifs_ till the cows come home, but that
certainly wasn't my intention. My only point was that in my experience,
which although is less than a lot of the folks here, but it is considerable.
Fuel minimums are just what they say, MINIMUMS. And in my experience they
should be avoided if at all possible, it's just too easy to do. Far too many
GA fatalities are directly attributed to fuel starvation, and it's not
always because the pilot was stupid or fool hardy. It's quite often just
because -**** happens.

So let me leave you with a goofy saying - that with things go to pot, there
are a few things more useless to a pilot than the altitude above him, or the
air in his fuel tanks - and the most unreliable instrument in the cockpit
will always be the fuel gage.

Best wishes,
Max

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
chris writes:

Having lots of instruments doesn't help if you are VFR pilot entering
cloud. Your life expectancy is extremely short in those conditions.

It helps a great deal if you know how to use the instruments. It'll even
save
your life.

We are talking about flying VFR then entering cloud, right??? Charts
are no good if you can't see where you're going!

They are if you have instruments telling you where you are. You then look
at
the chart and check the height of terrain and compare it to your altitude.

If you were a VFR pilot you'd be more concerned with staying upright
and not going into a spiral dive or some such than trying to work out
a position from a VOR..

One you're straight and level, you're going to have to figure out where
you
are, and that's when a VOR comes in handy.

No no no!!! As a VFR pilot, you MUST be clear of cloud and in sight
of the surface. Anything else is totally illegal and very dangerous
and a much better way to kill yourself than any of the talk I have
heard around here about leaking fuel tanks!!

Unfortunately, Mother Nature doesn't care what's legal or illegal, and if
I
get stuck in IMC, I have to deal with it; I can't just tell the clouds
that
they're putting me in violation and make them go away.


You moron. If you loose your ground reference you can just open your bedroom
window shade.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Dylan Smith writes:

Why is it therefore deemed not only acceptable but entirely normal
that there is no in-flight fuel cross check in the form of a gauge that
at least gives a reasonable indication of how much fuel you have left?

Some pilots apparently love aviation so much that they're willing to die
in
the cockpit.


Correction, some people actually love aviation so much that they are
actually willing to fly.

chris wrote:
me you can fly above a solid overcast.. What happens if you have an
engine failure?? Or get to your destination and you can't get down??

All we said is that it was legal, not that it was necessarily a good
idea :-) This reflects a fundamental difference in mentality: you
seem to expect the rules to protect you against the bad thing that
migth happen to you; what if this or what if that there should
be a law against it, think of the children. Well, I prefer
to make my own decisions with a little interference from authorities
as is possible. Seems to work reasonably well actually.

--Sylvain

On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message

...





On 2007-04-02, Maxwell wrote:
If you are planing a flight with so little reserve, which is obviously
considered both legal and acceptable

A one hour reserve is hardly "little reserve". It's quarter of the
duration of a 1960 Cessna 182 (which has relatively small tanks,
especially compared to later models of Cessna 182). A one hour reserve
is double the day VFR minimum requirement.

(My current aircraft carries only 2.5 hours of fuel! Although its fuel
gauge is a much simpler purely mechanical indicator which does work
properly and gives a reasonable indication of fuel remaining.)

gage, and physically _stick_ the tanks on preflight. My personal
experience
with fuel gages has been that they can cause more problems than they
solve,
if you try to rely heavily on them.

So does any instrument if you don't have a cross check. Fuel gauges in
particular ARE the cross check to your preflight visual check, and fuel
burn calculations. If you re-read my message, you'll see in the
particular example I gave that the fuel was visually inspected twice,
and calculations had been performed, and a landing short of the
destination was chosen because the fuel gauge showed less fuel than the
fuel calculations predicted. The error turned out to be in the fuel
level inspection, an easy mistake to make in an unfamiliar aircraft.

The only means of fuel cross check once in flight are the fuel gauges -
you can hardly stick the tanks in flight. Gauges that actually work and
reasonably indicate the fuel level remaining can provide a cross check
which can prevent the following situations:

- lack of experience with a particular aircraft type
- error in fuel burn calculations
- error in engine management (mixture too rich)
- mechanical failure (fuel leak)
- error in preflight (forgetting to do a visual check, or being fooled
because the aircraft was parked on a slope)

...from a normal landing at an airport short of your destination, into a
fuel exhaustion accident. Indeed, some years ago, a poster to this
newsgroup ran out of fuel due to a fuel leak. Perhaps the pilot had been
conditioned to believe that fuel gauges were utterly useless and did not
include them in a cross check, instead relying on a single source of
data (fuel calculations and time in flight).

Cross checks in aviation are a _good thing_. Failing to maintain a
basic instrument that can provide a useful cross check means there's one
less tool at your disposal to prevent an accident.

(In particular, never trust a fuel gauge if it says you have more fuel
than you think you have. However, ALWAYS trust a fuel gauge if it says
you have less fuel than you think you have! Landing to find out why is a
lot cheaper than pressing on, believing your fuel inspection and fuel
burn calculations - only to end up upside down in a field half an hour
later because your fuel was being pumped overboard. How are you going to
detect mechanical problems with the fuel system if the gauge isn't
working? This is why broken fuel gauges should be fixed).

We expect to have to do cross checks for everything else - navigational
cross checks (we never rely on a single source for navigation, whether
this be only using a single road to positively identify a ground feature
instead of the road and two other features), or for our instruments (we
don't just bore holes IFR looking only at the attitude indicator for
attitude information - we scan the other instruments to make sure that
the AI is telling the truth), and we fly approaches not only with the
ILS tuned in, but a timer running, or some other kind of cross check
like a crossing radial.

Why is it therefore deemed not only acceptable but entirely normal
that there is no in-flight fuel cross check in the form of a gauge that
at least gives a reasonable indication of how much fuel you have left?

First of all Dylan, I'm not trying to take issue with you post. Your use of
the fuel reserves are correct and I acknowledged that. I was just trying to
offer you another perspective that I have learned by experience, and thought
you might consider it and perhaps find it useful.

Increasing your reserve for 30 minutes to 1 hour in a 182, especially in an
aircraft you are unfamiliar with, is not a bad idea and will seldom add more
than one fuel stop to even the longest cross country flights. Besides, it's
a good excuse to take a whiz, grab an extra coke, and/or experience a small
airport you wouldn't have gotten to see otherwise. And it is of coarse,
another take off and landing than can make or break your currency
requirements sometimes, depending on how often you get to fly.

You also increase your odds of temporary fuel starvation when you get in the
habit of running your tanks real low, due to things like turbulence or
robust maneuvering. Not usually a problem unless you are held out on turning
base for landing, because some cowboy in a cub thinks he needs a one mile
final, but it does happen.

And your own example of misjudging the fill level on preflight is a great
example of why it's nice to use a stick. I don't find any of the Cessnas
hard to visual, but you will never miss with a stick if the tank design
allows it, and you have a good stick. Especially an error as much as 45
minutes.

Also, fuel leaks and fuel siphoning does obviously does occur, but it's very
rare and usually slight enough you won't be able to detect it in most fuel
gages. They simply are not USUALLY that accurate. I have never personally
seen a leak, and the only siphon issue I have ever seen was someone leaving
the cap loose on a Cessna. And they didn't detect it in the fuel gage, they
heard it banging away on top of the wing. So yes these things do happen, but
I'd bet it's seldom that a fuel gage is what makes or breaks the day.

But at any rate, we could argue _what ifs_ till the cows come home, but that
certainly wasn't my intention. My only point was that in my experience,
which although is less than a lot of the folks here, but it is considerable.
Fuel minimums are just what they say, MINIMUMS. And in my experience they
should be avoided if at all possible, it's just too easy to do. Far too many
GA fatalities are directly attributed to fuel starvation, and it's not
always because the pilot was stupid or fool hardy. It's quite often just
because -**** happens.

So let me leave you with a goofy saying - that with things go to pot, there
are a few things more useless to a pilot than the altitude above him, or the
air in his fuel tanks - and the most unreliable instrument in the cockpit
will always be the fuel gage.

Best wishes,
Max- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts.. It
seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip your
tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have one??? In
whatever country you are from, that is. Here you'd be hard pressed
to find an aircraft that doesn't have a stick in it, except for things
like Robins that have one tank inside the fuselage and a funny fuel
filler in the side window..

If this is true, doesn't it follow that if sticks are not standard
then people will be inclined to not use them, and then they presumably
will begin to rely on gauges which seem to be prone to going tits up,
whereas a stick has no moving parts to break down :-)

So, I am thinking it is more sensible to always dip your tanks and
then ignore the gauges than it is to not have a stick and have to rely
on gauges or eyeballing the tank???

Or am I having another senior moment?? :-)

On Apr 3, 2:43 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
chris writes:
Having lots of instruments doesn't help if you are VFR pilot entering
cloud. Your life expectancy is extremely short in those conditions.

It helps a great deal if you know how to use the instruments. It'll even save
your life.


The amount of instrument training a PPL student receives is sufficient
in theory to allow him/her to get the hell out of the weather. Its not
intended to allow you to press on in IMC. You need a lot more IF
training to be proficient enough to not kill yourself..

We are talking about flying VFR then entering cloud, right??? Charts
are no good if you can't see where you're going!

They are if you have instruments telling you where you are. You then look at
the chart and check the height of terrain and compare it to your altitude.


The last thing I'd be doing is diverting my attention from my scan to
read a chart when I would almost certainly be struggling keeping it
upright.


If you were a VFR pilot you'd be more concerned with staying upright
and not going into a spiral dive or some such than trying to work out
a position from a VOR..

One you're straight and level, you're going to have to figure out where you
are, and that's when a VOR comes in handy.


No, you get the hell out of the IMC


No no no!!! As a VFR pilot, you MUST be clear of cloud and in sight
of the surface. Anything else is totally illegal and very dangerous
and a much better way to kill yourself than any of the talk I have
heard around here about leaking fuel tanks!!

Unfortunately, Mother Nature doesn't care what's legal or illegal, and if I
get stuck in IMC, I have to deal with it; I can't just tell the clouds that
they're putting me in violation and make them go away.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Two things we are trained to do in the event of imminent IMC. 1)
Always make sure you have an escape route
2) We practise precautionary landings. Stick the damn thing down in a
paddock rather than pressing on and killing yourself.

"chris" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts.. It
seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip your
tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have one??? In
whatever country you are from, that is. Here you'd be hard pressed
to find an aircraft that doesn't have a stick in it, except for things
like Robins that have one tank inside the fuselage and a funny fuel
filler in the side window..

If this is true, doesn't it follow that if sticks are not standard
then people will be inclined to not use them, and then they presumably
will begin to rely on gauges which seem to be prone to going tits up,
whereas a stick has no moving parts to break down :-)

So, I am thinking it is more sensible to always dip your tanks and
then ignore the gauges than it is to not have a stick and have to rely
on gauges or eyeballing the tank???


I think the reason most of the people including me seldom use them, is we
usually top off before each take off. I fly rental aircraft and usually find
the aircraft topped off or just an hour or so down. Unless you are pushing
the minimums it's either full enough it's obviouse to the eyeball, or you
top off to be on the safe side.

"chris" wrote in
ups.com:

On Apr 3, 2:53 pm, Jose wrote:
Really?? But you gotta be clear of cloud, surely!!!

Yes, you must be clear of cloud. Depending on the airspace, you must be
certain distances away. However, in the US you do not need ground
contact. You can fly VFR above a solid overcast.

It may not be too bright to do so, depending on circumstances. However,
it is legal, and often not a dumb thing to do.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Makes me laugh, just a little.. People here have been telling me how
dangerous it is to fly without accurate fuel gauges coz you might have
a fuel leak or something like that and here you guys are now telling
me you can fly above a solid overcast.. What happens if you have an
engine failure?? Or get to your destination and you can't get down??
I also wouldn't think you could navigate by using your map if you
can't see the surface, so that means using VOR or GPS or something,
which I was under the impression are supposed to be secondary to your
map reading! But what do I know... :-)


In clear VFR, would you fly over water, say between the North and
South Island or, in the US, between Ventura and Catalina? If so, you have
no option on where to land should you get an engine failure. If you would
not such a flight in clear VFR, then you shouldn't fly over a solid
overcast. But if you would, what is the difference, especially if you have
CAVU and can see your destination?

I've done the trip from San Jose to South Lake Tahoe and there have
been several times the central valley is fogged in but the fog only came up
to 1,000' AGL. The weather in the Santa Clara Valley (San Jose), the
mountains west of Sacramento, South Lake Tahoe, and at my cruise altitude,
9,500 MSL, it was CAVU all the way. If I have an engine failure over the
central valley, I'm in big trouble as it is often W0X0F on the ground, but
I'm in just as much trouble over the mountains or water where I have CAVU.
If it's W0X0F, unless I'm CAT IIIc capable, even an instrument rating isn't
going to be of much help.

I would not go over an extended overcast unless I knew the weather
patterns at both my origin and destination and planned alternates. In the
mountains, the higher elevation airports often are CAVU when the valley
airports are effectively closed due to Tule fog.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

In article ,
says...

"chris" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts.. It
seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip your
tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have one??? In
whatever country you are from, that is. Here you'd be hard pressed
to find an aircraft that doesn't have a stick in it, except for things
like Robins that have one tank inside the fuselage and a funny fuel
filler in the side window..

If this is true, doesn't it follow that if sticks are not standard
then people will be inclined to not use them, and then they presumably
will begin to rely on gauges which seem to be prone to going tits up,
whereas a stick has no moving parts to break down :-)

So, I am thinking it is more sensible to always dip your tanks and
then ignore the gauges than it is to not have a stick and have to rely
on gauges or eyeballing the tank???


I think the reason most of the people including me seldom use them, is we
usually top off before each take off. I fly rental aircraft and usually find
the aircraft topped off or just an hour or so down. Unless you are pushing
the minimums it's either full enough it's obviouse to the eyeball, or you
top off to be on the safe side.

Most of the Cessnas and Pipers I've flown can not be topped off, with
passengers, and not be above MAUW.

--
Duncan