Near miss from space junk.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
DR wrote in :

chris wrote:
On Mar 30, 5:19 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
chris writes:
None of the small aircraft I have ever flown has had TCAS.. Are
you sure you got that right ???
By "often used," I meant "when present on small aircraft, this is
the type usually used," because it's cheaper. I don't think TCAS is
really present very much on small GA aircraft, but I don't have
actual figures. Since good avionics represent a substantial portion
of the total cost of an aircraft, it follows that one wouldn't see
advanced avionics that often on aircraft that are not otherwise very
expensive. Who would install $2 million of avionics on a $90,000
aircraft?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
I fear it's even worse than you think, at least in this country,
where private aircraft ownership is quite rare. Most light a/c are
either aero club owned, i.e. 172 / Cherokee, or commercial, like
Senecas and the like.. And on the whole, avionics tends to get
neglected. The vast majority of club a/c wouldn't have GPS, let
alone glass cockpits or TCAS. I have seen inside some commercial
operated light a/c like Senecas and Aztecs and you'd probably be
horrified at how basic they are. Just a couple of ADFs and VORs and
that's all they get. Maybe a DME thrown in for good measure...

And don't think they get maintained either. If the a/c came with IFR
gear and isn't being used for IFR, like at an aero club, when things
like DME and VOR break down they don't get fixed, they just get
placarded as inop. Same as fuel gauges. Of 9 planes at our club,
only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is
3 of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we
know the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight,
what do we need gauges for ???

Hi Chris,

Doesn't the MEL in part 91.509 say that fuel gauges are required...
Are you saying that the director CAA has deemed that working (not
necessarily accurate) fuel gauges are not required in your club -what
gives?

Flown lots of airliners where gauges may be U/S provided that the tanks
are dripped. This is not true of the current crop of airliners but you
coudl do it on older 73's for instance.


Hmm, that really surprises me (but then a lot of things do!). I guess
the issue of a fuel leak would be moot... On the other hand, not having
cockpit guages (or the PIC not checking them) would contribute to why
that Canadian(?) heavy ran out of A1 awhile ago?

Cheers MC
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Do your users want the best web-email gateway? Don't let your
customers drift off to free webmail services install your own
web gateway!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_webmail.htm ----

In article om, pa28_
says...
On Apr 2, 9:33 pm, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2007-04-01, chris wrote:

only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is 3
of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we know
the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight, what
do we need gauges for ???

That's a hazardous attitude, and a fuel exhaustion accident waiting to
happen. The fuel gauges should not be relied on - this is true - but
they should work as they provide a useful cross check.

I was new to the 1960 Cessna 182 which I was taking on a long cross
country trip. The night before, I checked the fuel to make sure I didn't
need to have it topped off, since I was leaving before the FBO would be
open. Looking into the tank, the fuel was at the top. I checked it again
the next morning as part of my preflight. The fuel level was the same.

I had calculated my fuel burn for the trip, which gave me an hour's
reserve on landing.

Halfway through the trip, the fuel gauges showed less fuel than my
calculations said the tanks should have, so I told ATC that I was going
to land short of my destination.

I then discovered that what looked like full wasn't really - probably
about 45 minutes off full. I could have ended up at my destination with
only 15 minutes of fuel. A go around, or a vexatious routing from ATC
could quite easily have exhausted that.

The important lesson is to be conservative with long flights in an
unfamiliar aircraft, and that fuel gauges are a very useful cross check.
How many fuel exhaustions have happened because fuel gauges have been
improperly maintained, could not provide a cross check, and the pilot's
calculation was wrong? Or the pilot had less fuel than he thought? Or
there was a leak?

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

I would like fuel gauges that work, no question. But I have also
heard of accidents where people rely on their gauges and fail to dip
the tanks and run out of fuel because the gauges aren't accurate.

I guess what's being suggested here Chris is say if:
you fly a plane and you do your measurements and calcs BUT SAY the fuel
cap is loose, or worse it comes off. Your tank's gonna empty really
fast - and while you may note a missing cap, you may not note a loose
one. A fuel gage that is working might save yer bacon here.

--
Duncan

In article . com, pa28_
says...
On Apr 3, 5:50 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Maxwell writes:
You are right of coarse, but I don't think that was really his point.
Depending on the weather and your flight plan, a VOR is quite often totally
useless.

If the weather suddenly turns bad, you may sorely regret not having a VOR that
works.

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

You are saying that you would fly into bad weather if you had a VOR
that worked? Cripes!! What about terrain?? You are VFR here,
remember, and there could well be a big hill in your path back to the
VOR. I would suggest that using some amount of self taught knowledge
about using VORs to justify flying into worse weather than you would
otherwise, sounds dodgy to me!!!

He's not a real pilot remember

--
Duncan

In article ,
says...
chris writes:

You are saying that you would fly into bad weather if you had a VOR
that worked?

No, I'm saying that if I got stuck in bad weather, I'd be very thankful for
instruments that worked.

Why, or better question HOW could this happen? Me: I'd be on the ground
already, or heading back the other way. I would *not* get trapped by
bad weather (and we have very fast changeable conditions in New
Zealand).

--
Duncan

In article ,
says...
chris writes:

That's a rather negative way to look at it!!!

Better safe than sorry, I say.

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!!!

If you really have the fuel you think you have, and if you really consume it
as slowly as you think you do, perhaps not.

Say 32 litres and hour, plus or minus a few - ain't gonna make much
difference.

Or to rephrase, how can a 32l/hr plane consume say twice that?

We know you're not a real pilot - well let me tell you that in the real
world, the rated value is used, *and checked* over time. And adjusted
as necessary.

I've flown a number of Cessnas and Pipers from different organisations
and they've all consumed the amount the manual tells me +/- sweet FA.

--
Duncan

Dave Doe writes:

Why, or better question HOW could this happen?

A sudden change in the weather.

I would *not* get trapped by bad weather ...

Famous last words.

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

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Flown lots of airliners where gauges may be U/S provided that the tanks
are dripped. This is not true of the current crop of airliners but you
coudl do it on older 73's for instance.


Yep. I believe that is how the Gimli Glider got its start. :-)))


John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200704/1

On Apr 3, 11:59 am, Dave Doe wrote:
In article ,
says...

chris writes:

You are saying that you would fly into bad weather if you had a VOR
that worked?

No, I'm saying that if I got stuck in bad weather, I'd be very thankful for
instruments that worked.

Why, or better question HOW could this happen? Me: I'd be on the ground
already, or heading back the other way. I would *not* get trapped by
bad weather (and we have very fast changeable conditions in New
Zealand).

--
Duncan

Yep... There are a number of ways to get a forecast, and if you're not
sure, ask an instructor. And then if you go anyway you've only got
your own dumb ass to blame!

I also believe anyone who forges ahead into bad weather without making
sure you can turn around and escape needs more training..

On Apr 3, 12:53 pm, "flynrider via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Flown lots of airliners where gauges may be U/S provided that the tanks
are dripped. This is not true of the current crop of airliners but you
coudl do it on older 73's for instance.

Yep. I believe that is how the Gimli Glider got its start. :-)))

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200704/1

Is that Gimli the dwarf ???

On Apr 3, 12:07 pm, Dave Doe wrote:
In article ,
says...

chris writes:

That's a rather negative way to look at it!!!

Better safe than sorry, I say.

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!!!

If you really have the fuel you think you have, and if you really consume it
as slowly as you think you do, perhaps not.

Say 32 litres and hour, plus or minus a few - ain't gonna make much
difference.

Or to rephrase, how can a 32l/hr plane consume say twice that?

We know you're not a real pilot - well let me tell you that in the real
world, the rated value is used, *and checked* over time. And adjusted
as necessary.

I've flown a number of Cessnas and Pipers from different organisations
and they've all consumed the amount the manual tells me +/- sweet FA.

--
Duncan

Same here... I fly a variety of aircraft, all with 180hp engines, and
we flight plan for 40l/hr. And although there is no way to be 100%
positive without a fuel flow gauge, whenever I have checked the amount
of fuel in the tank when I've come back and it's usually got the right
amount of fuel in it. Sometimes it's got more fuel left if we were
crusing around at a lower power setting...


I missed the post you replied too but I want to tell him that I *will*
have 4 1/2 hr fuel on board because that's how much it takes when the
tanks are full. We know at 75% it burns 40L / hr, and I know what 75%
is because it's marked on the tacho!!! For those who don't know,
that's why 172s have marks on the tacho with SL, 5 and 10. That's the
RPM for 75% at those altitudes.

Or so I am led to believe...