This is why we train (kind of long)

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ...
Ya did good when the brown stuff hit the fan , Scott... One attaboy...

Now, let's discuss your fuel... You never, never, never, N E V E R, go below
one hour of fuel in the tanks - period...

Doesn't the Seneca have 180 HP engines?

I woulda thought 20 gallons would be 1 hr of fuel for 2 180 HPs, maybe
a bit more if the plane is kept clean, throttled back and leaned out
a mite.

Now not being a twin driver I can't comment on nicities such how the
fuel should be distributed between tanks.

The final point I make here is that fuel is measured by your watch, NOT by
the fuel gauges... All the gauges are is a cross check against the watch...
The watch rules! Keep flying and play by my rules and you will never
have another story to tell us like that...

Um....with all respect, Dennis, your rule that "the watch rules" would
seem to leave you vulnerable to taking off with less fuel than you think,
and to in-flight fuel loss other than through the engine (has happened
to several here).

Seems to me that the rule ought to be "whichever indicates less fuel,
rules". If the fuel gauge indicates lower than it should, time to
land and investigate ASAP, not look at your watch and smile.

Cheers,
Sydney

Thanks guys for being supportive. I think I am being harder on myself
then what I have received here, I really expected harsher criticism
which I feel is dully warranted. I just got back into town today off
of another flight so I was unable to respond to the responses
yesterday, so I will try to answer most of the questions in this one
post.

As for the configuration of the Seneca II Turbo, it has 2- 200hp
engines. The fuel consumption at cruise is at 24gph for both engines,
and I have the 123 gallon tanks. The left engine feeds from the left
tank and the right engine feeds from the right tank. The only thing
that I can figure out as far as the discrepancy between the two tanks
fuel levels is this. First the Janitrol heater draws off of the right
tank which for the flight should have only drawn around 2.5 gallons,
this was considered for the flight planning. Second is when I had the
tanks filled for my journey home, there may have been a 1-2 gallon
discrepancy in the fill (just a guess) between the two tanks. Third,
with leaning, I use the EGT gauge to lean so there could have been a
difference in fuel flow to the right engine, the fuel flow indicators
are always off a little but they are always approximate anyways.

When I got on the ground, I was curious as to how much fuel was in the
left tank so I had the line guy fill the plane (he wasn't really happy
about that because it was like 10 degrees nowand still snowing). I
had about 11 gallons left in the left tank. That was after I landed
and had to taxi (on both engines) about 1.3 miles due to taxi way
closers and having to land on the opposite side of the field from the
FBO.

As far as the fuel reserves were concerned, they were considered, FOR
VFR. But even after I landed I still had almost an hour of fuel in
the left tank, just not in the right. I spoke to the briefer before I
departed and looked on the WSI computer and there was nothing
forecasted for this IFR conditions and nothing on the satellite
imagery that would indicate this stuff would back up against the
mountains and cause this. This was just a freak thing that happened
because of the mountains and the moisture that was in the air. In
fact I was told it did the same thing last night here, just wasn't as
severe and now it is clear blue and 22.

With regards to restarting the engine, that was not a decision that I
had made. When the fan quit, I was in the middle of intercepting the
localizer and I had no time to really make that decision at that
moment, I was doing everything I could to intercept and turn inbound
because I knew things were getting critical. I had the plane under
control for the most part and I did not want to divert my scan to
something else for the moment, all I did at that time is hit the cross
feed. Once I got the plane semi stabilized on the localizer and I had
intercepted the GS and started my decent was when I diverted a little
attention to that situation. Things had calmed down just a smidge so
I was in the thought process of determining the best action. Just as
I was checking the mixture, prop, throttle and fuel settings for the
right engine is when I noticed the manifold pressure and RPM'S started
to come up and then a very noticeable yaw to the left because of more
power was being produced by the right engine. I then brought the power
down to match the left. CHT temps on the right engine was a little
cooler but with regards to the time frame it didn't have much time to
cool too much. Of course I really have no idea how much time the
engine had been down (looking at the clock for that was just not in my
mind) but given my approx location and the decent point I figured
probably around 3 minutes but that is a guess, it seemed like an
eternity to me.

With regards to the GPS and MFD it is in my scan. Those are
invaluable with regards to positional awareness especially near the
mountains. Just that the CDI indicator was overlooked. My stress
level from 1-10 was probably about a 15 and missing a little tiny
window on the bottom left side of the GPS is something that I did
overlook. I trusted my HSI which was indicating correctly in regards
to my position to the airport. Just that when I turned for final
vectors, the needle never moved which started this whole mess.

I have set aside some time in the next few days to go under the hood
and shoot multiple approaches and holds using this equipment. Not
that I have not done this already. I have shot about 5 approaches
with the new equipment when we first got it but the stress level was
not there as it was this time. I plan on having my safety pilot do
all kinds of things to try and get the blood pressure back to where it
was that night.


Again thanks for being supportive

Scott

In article , SD
sdatverizondot.net@ wrote:

I have set aside some time in the next few days to go under the hood
and shoot multiple approaches and holds using this equipment. Not
that I have not done this already.

Power up the avionics and sit in the airplane and do a dry run through
all the procedures before you go out and fly. The best place to sort
things out is on the ground. If something is missing from a checklist,
add it.

Thanks for being willing to share your story Scott and to admit to the
mistakes. Glad you made it through ok...though I'll bet that pair of
underwear will never be the same :-)

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

SD sdatverizondot.net@ wrote
Thanks guys for being supportive. I think I am being harder on myself
then what I have received here, I really expected harsher criticism
which I feel is dully warranted.

Which is why you didn't receive it. You know what you did wrong so no
point making an issue of it.

The only thing
that I can figure out as far as the discrepancy between the two tanks
fuel levels is this. First the Janitrol heater draws off of the right
tank which for the flight should have only drawn around 2.5 gallons,
this was considered for the flight planning. Second is when I had the
tanks filled for my journey home, there may have been a 1-2 gallon
discrepancy in the fill (just a guess) between the two tanks. Third,
with leaning, I use the EGT gauge to lean so there could have been a
difference in fuel flow to the right engine, the fuel flow indicators
are always off a little but they are always approximate anyways.

I don't really see how even all three factors in combination would
account for the discrepancy. 40 burned from the left, 60 from the
right. Just doesn't make sense.

I would look for fuel leaks, and don't forget that misfueling happens.

When I got on the ground, I was curious as to how much fuel was in the
left tank so I had the line guy fill the plane (he wasn't really happy
about that because it was like 10 degrees nowand still snowing). I
had about 11 gallons left in the left tank. That was after I landed
and had to taxi (on both engines) about 1.3 miles due to taxi way
closers and having to land on the opposite side of the field from the
FBO.

Still seems a bit high. I'm thinking you're leaking fuel somewhere on
the right engine/fuel system.

As far as the fuel reserves were concerned, they were considered, FOR
VFR.

The fuel is a red herring. 20 gallons at the end of a trip in a plane
that burns only a little more than that at max cruise in an hour (and
can burn a lot less if you pull it back) is not an issue. The
question is why 20 gallons of fuel disappeared from the right tank.

With regards to restarting the engine, that was not a decision that I
had made. When the fan quit, I was in the middle of intercepting the
localizer and I had no time to really make that decision at that
moment, I was doing everything I could to intercept and turn inbound
because I knew things were getting critical.

I think your priorities were dead on here. No matter how pathetic the
twin is (and the one you have is not pathetic) you really don't need
the engine once you've turned inbound unless you're going to miss.
Don't miss. Especially don't miss because you're screwing with the
engine.

I had the plane under
control for the most part and I did not want to divert my scan to
something else for the moment, all I did at that time is hit the cross
feed.

I don't know that I would even have done that much - or wanted to.
You now you can shoot a single engine approach. You don't know why
there is 20 gallons missing from the right side, but the first thing
to suspect is a leak. How bad is it? Maybe bad enough that 20
gallons won't be enough with both running?

20/20 hindsight, of course. Single engine approaches have their risks
too. What you did was reasonable, but not necessarily best IMO. I
think I would have just feathered it and called it good. But again -
that's a fine point. We're talking about relative risks that are
small and difficult to calculate, so no way was this wrong. Just
trying to present alternatives for next time.

Certainly not wanting to divert attention from a plane not fully under
control to mess with an engine you really didn't absolutely need makes
all kinds of sense.

Once I got the plane semi stabilized on the localizer and I had
intercepted the GS and started my decent was when I diverted a little
attention to that situation. Things had calmed down just a smidge so
I was in the thought process of determining the best action. Just as
I was checking the mixture, prop, throttle and fuel settings for the
right engine is when I noticed the manifold pressure and RPM'S started
to come up and then a very noticeable yaw to the left because of more
power was being produced by the right engine. I then brought the power
down to match the left. CHT temps on the right engine was a little
cooler but with regards to the time frame it didn't have much time to
cool too much. Of course I really have no idea how much time the
engine had been down (looking at the clock for that was just not in my
mind) but given my approx location and the decent point I figured
probably around 3 minutes but that is a guess, it seemed like an
eternity to me.

No kidding. If you had enough cycles left over to be troubleshooting
the engine inside the marker, you were doing OK skillwise. The wisdom
of doing it, though, is another gray area. Personally, I doubt I
would divert the attention unless both needles were in the donut and I
wasn't working too hard to keep them there. Again - if you shoot a
good approach, you won't need the other engine. If you botch the
approach and don't get the engine back, you're hosed. Once again, not
a case of right or wrong - more like personal preference.

I have set aside some time in the next few days to go under the hood
and shoot multiple approaches and holds using this equipment. Not
that I have not done this already. I have shot about 5 approaches
with the new equipment when we first got it but the stress level was
not there as it was this time. I plan on having my safety pilot do
all kinds of things to try and get the blood pressure back to where it
was that night.

I strongly recommend partial panel single engine full procedure night
circling NDB approaches to short runways. It's what I do for my
recurrent training, and I recommend it highly. If you can do that,
real life failures are quite anticlimactic.

Michael

On 13 Jan 2004 11:01:12 -0800, (Michael) wrote:



I don't really see how even all three factors in combination would
account for the discrepancy. 40 burned from the left, 60 from the
right. Just doesn't make sense.

Just a quick follow up. Your hunches were correct, I did have a fuel
leak so to speak in the right tank. About a week later, I took the
plane on a short X/C to deliever a passenger to another town about 30
mins away. About half way there, he spoke up and said, what is that
blue stuff coming out of the wing. I looked over at the right wing
and saw a stream of fuel coming out of the inspection cover on the
right tank. Once we landed, I took a screwdriver and was able to get
almost 1/4 turn on every screw. On the flight back it did not leak.

I did not see this after my leather sucking flight that night. The
only thing that I can think had happened was the moisture that I was
flying in had washed it away so the evidence was not all that clear.


Scott

SD sdatverizondot.net@ wrote
I looked over at the right wing
and saw a stream of fuel coming out of the inspection cover on the
right tank. Once we landed, I took a screwdriver and was able to get
almost 1/4 turn on every screw. On the flight back it did not leak.

I agree that you have found the problem. I would not be so certain
that you have fixed it. An inspection cover of that sort is going to
have a gasket. I suspect your gasket is now compromised. If it were
my plane, I would think real hard about replacing that gasket.
Otherwise I think it's going to do it again.

I did not see this after my leather sucking flight that night. The
only thing that I can think had happened was the moisture that I was
flying in had washed it away so the evidence was not all that clear.

That's quite likely. I once had a similar problem with the fuel cap
on my aux tank, and moisture made it go away.

This is why flying with inop fuel gauges is not acceptable. They
don't tell you much, but they do tell you when you have a fuel leak.

Michael

SD sdatverizondot.net@ wrote in message . ..

[snip excellent narrative about engine out on twin]

i'm just now catching up to the threads after the holidays, but i also
had an engine out in a twin over the holidays.....

mine was in a cessna 310 -- going into little rock. i was imc at
9000, was given a descent to 4000. going through ~5k, i was
given a left turn to 040, vectors for the final approach course,
ils 22 right at lit. i reached the heading and the altitude about
the same time. brought the throttles up, and whoa! i'm getting
a strong yaw to the right. so: identify -- right foot dead, right
engine dead, verify -- pulling the right throttle didn't change
anything, and feather. before i feathered, i looked at all
the engine instruments, and there's something strange -- the
right is showing ~9 inches m.p. so it can't have quit, or it would
be showing ambient. oh, well, sort it out on the ground. went
ahead and feathered, informed atc, shot the s.e. ils and landing.
they rolled the equipment, and i got to experience the joys of
taxiing on one for the first time.

could have been a lot worse:

1. it was day ifr (could have been night)
2. i broke out ~1000 agl (could have been to mins)
3. i started out ~120 below gross, and had burned ~250 lbs fuel,
so was at ~4700 (could have been at gross -- 5100)
4. was an ils (could have been a non-precision approach)
5. was the right engine (could have been the left [critical] engine).

turns out the right throttle cable broke just as i was powering up.
had to leave the plane in lit for a week for repairs ~$1500.

i would choose exactly the same title -- that's why we train.

g_a

gross_arrow ) wrote:

i'm just now catching up to the threads after the holidays, but i also
had an engine out in a twin over the holidays.....

Wow... happy to read of such a positive outcome. With a less proficient
pilot, this could have easily been a holiday media feast and NTSB report.




--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---