This is why we train (kind of long)

"Dave S"
I have to wonder.. how did you blow through your required fuel reserves
for IFR with only "one" missed/messed up approach? Were you stretching
it, not plan for winds or were your fuel numbers wrong some other way?

I think he filed VFR and was surprised, after 3+ hours of flight, to
encounter IFR conditions. He requested a clearance to land... or am I
reading the wrong post?

How many of us of asked for and gotten a clearance to descend through a
layer with little or no thought to required IFR reserves?

Nathan Young wrote:

Thanks, a good reminder that even though the plane is IFR equipped,
the pilot may not be ready to use those instruments. I guess there's
something to be said for the simplistic KX-155

It's not really simple vs. complex.

When I joined the club, I was switching from KLN-90 something-or-other to a
Garmin. I find both to be quite simple...but at the time, I'd never used a
Garmin. So I know I'd not fly IFR in a club plane until I'd read, watched
the video, and played a bit.

It just seems to be common sense.

- Andrew

"Nathan Young"
Thanks, a good reminder that even though the plane is IFR equipped,
the pilot may not be ready to use those instruments. I guess there's
something to be said for the simplistic KX-155

Is there a broader question of whether any pilot is fully capable of
operating (GPS) equipment in any a/c other than the ones they have trained
in?

My experience is VERY limited. With little exception, I've trained and
flown IFR only in my owner operated a/c. It was very clear to me that the
button pushing idiosynchroncies of my particular unit (G 300XL) were
specific to not only that unit, but specific to the installation in my a/c.
I would feel confident of being able to operate another 300XL installation
but would be aware that installation options could change certain procedure
significantly.

The 400/500 series Garmins are pretty common and I assume that most pilots
fully trained on one would feel confident operating other 400/500
installations. But I know from the couple of training flights I did with a
430, I never caught up with it.

Ironically, while GPS has made accurate navigation bone simple, it seems to
make jumping from plane to plane more challenging. The moving map
practically eliminates loss of spatial awareness, but the button pushing
required can lead to brain freeze trying to figure out how to make it show
you what you want.

It was my impression that the pilot simply forgot to switch tanks, and
flew one tank dry while he had 20 gallons in the other tank. However,
what is the fuel burn rate in a Seneca II? Is 20 gallons worth 45mins?




Dave S wrote in message link.net...
I have watched folks under the hood screw the pooch (figuratively) by
not being familiar with equipment and avionics.

I have to wonder.. how did you blow through your required fuel reserves
for IFR with only "one" missed/messed up approach? Were you stretching
it, not plan for winds or were your fuel numbers wrong some other way?

Glad you lived to talk about it.

Dave

C J Campbell wrote:
"Dave Katz" wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" writes:
|
| with advanced aircraft systems. Perhaps the task should be automated --
dial
| in a localizer or ILS, and the CDI automatically switches to NAV.
However, I
| can envision problems with this approach as well, so to speak. :-)
|
| The Garmin units do this if you select an ILS approach (which puts the
| localizer frequency into the standby) and remember to flip the
| frequency to active. You get GPS guidance through the procedure until
| you're inbound and intercepting the final approach course.
|
| Of course, then you have to remember to put it back into GPS mode if
| you want missed approach guidance.
|
| I believe this is configurable.

Yeah, my GARMIN GNS 430 would do that. Instead of an external NAV/GPS switch
such as you see in most GPS installations, the GARMIN units have the switch
built into the panel. GARMIN can do this because their units are all-in-one
boxes, so it is a simple matter to switch program that in. Even though the
CNX-80 the OP used is also an all-in-one box, it appears that it must be
switched manually.

I have not yet seen a GARMIN 1000 installation, but I understand that it
works more like the GNS-430/-530 units.



The opposite problem can also happen. The last time I was out
doing practice approaches, I failed to switch the CDI to GPS
mode on a GPS approach until the safety pilot pointed out the
error. The 530 I have always reminds me to switch the CDI
to LOC mode on an ILS approach, but has no reminder to get
it off LOC for a GPS approach when, of course, the CDI is reading
some random VOR or ILS you happen to be tuned to but aren't thinking
about. There are an amazing number of errors you can make with
a GPS, though the moving map is incredibly helpful for spatial
awareness.

--
David Rind

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
om...
| It was my impression that the pilot simply forgot to switch tanks, and
| flew one tank dry while he had 20 gallons in the other tank. However,
| what is the fuel burn rate in a Seneca II? Is 20 gallons worth 45mins?
|

It is a little more complex than that. Normally the Seneca burns fuel for
the left engine from the left tank and fuel from the right engine from the
right tank. It is possible to run out of fuel for one engine and not the
other. I don't remember which tank the aircraft heater draws fuel from, but
I think it is the left. There is a crossfeed valve that allows you to run
both engines from either tank. The engine failure checklist calls for
turning on this crossfeed valve, which he apparently did. However, the OP
could have opted to simply feather the stopped fan rather than attempt to
restart the engine while flying a tricky ILS approach where he was already
behind the airplane. The Seneca is easy to fly on one engine and continuing
the approach on one engine may well have well have been the better part of
valor. He would not have had the option of going around or making a missed
approach if anything went wrong, though, so he probably did the right thing
by restarting the engine.

The Seneca II burns between nine and twelve gallons per hour per engine in
normal use. The turboed version burns a little more. Nursing it a little
bit, he may have had over an hour of fuel left, especially since he was
descending anyway and had elected to keep his configuration clean.

Other things I think the pilot did right include turning on the autopilot
when he started getting a little vertigo, leaving gear and flaps up on the
descent (approaches in the Seneca usually are flown with one notch of flaps
and gear down), and declaring that he was low on fuel.

just as they are turning me back for final vectors, I look down and
see that my right fuel gauge is showing 0 but my left is still around
20. I then intercepted the localizer and turned inbound. It was at
that time the right engine dies. I reached down and hit the cross
feed but nothing.

Another scary thought ...

With the aircraft flying unbalanced (ie banked 5 deg towards working donkey,
and compensating rudder applied), I doubt very much if anything close to the
full 20 gallons would be available.

Curious also as to why such an (apparant) imbalance between the tanks?

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

It was my impression that the pilot simply forgot to switch tanks, and
flew one tank dry while he had 20 gallons in the other tank. However,
what is the fuel burn rate in a Seneca II? Is 20 gallons worth 45mins?

With two 180 hp engines, 20 gallons should be good for at least 45 minutes.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Depends on where the pickup is positioned in the tank... Ya gotta know your
airplane...

"K9 Lover" wrote in With the aircraft flying
unbalanced (ie banked 5 deg towards working donkey,
and compensating rudder applied), I doubt very much if anything close to
the
full 20 gallons would be available.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
I guessed what happened the moment I read that you had flown through the
localizer. This is becoming a real problem and I am beginning to think that
there is a fundamental design flaw in advanced avionics systems.

I have noticed a tendency for people to forget to switch on the CDI even
when they are very familiar with the GPS.

This is one reason we like our setup, which is a separate CDI dedicated
to the GPS. It's always GPS, the CDIs are always LOC/VOR.

One question for the original poster: is the GPS moving map in your scan?
Does it automatically, or is it configurable, to show the loc course?
I do this, and find it helpful.

If the CDI must be manually switched, it definately needs to be built
into one's approach checklist and as the original poster pointed out,
that's the reason it's needful to become familiar with each installed
avionics setup. If I moved into a plane (or a setup) that required
manual switching I'm sure it would bite me before I'd had time to
integrate the check into my procedures.

Cheers,
Sydney