The pilot checked weather and requested that the airplane be serviced with full fuel before the cross-country flight.
Fuel receipts show the Piper PA 28-180 was serviced with 34.5 gallons. The airplane’s fuel capacity was 50 gallons.
He performed a preflight inspection including confirming that its fuel tanks were full.
About an hour after takeoff, he checked the fuel gauges, which indicated that less than 10 gallons was used. About two hours after takeoff, they indicated that less than 20 gallons was used.
About three hours after takeoff, the gauges indicated that 28 gallons was used.
The pilot indicated that he would have stopped for fuel if there were less than 17 gallons of fuel remaining at that point in the flight.
He continued the flight and estimated the airplane had 12 gallons of fuel remaining when it was 17 miles from the destination.
He reported that the left tank fuel pressure decreased with 2.5 gallons showing on the gauge, prompting a switch to the right tank, which showed 6 gallons remaining.
About nine miles from the destination and 1,000 feet above the ground, the airplane flew through brief moderate turbulence.
The right fuel tank level dropped to zero fuel within a minute, along with a drop in fuel pressure.
The pilot started to switch from tank to tank trying to use all the fuel in the tanks. When the airplane lost engine power, he selected a field near Port Isabel, Texas, and performed a forced landing about four hours and 10-minutes after departure.
The airplane sustained substantial fuselage damage during the forced landing.
No fuel leaks were found during the airplane recovery. The left fuel tank contained about one cup of fuel and the right tank did not contain any fuel.
A flight-planning chart in the airplane’s manual indicated that the airplane should burn 10 gallons per hour with a lean mixture.
According to the FAA publication, The Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, “aircraft certification rules require accuracy in fuel gauges only when they read ’empty.’ Any reading other than ’empty’ should be verified. Do not depend solely on the accuracy of the fuel quantity gauges.”
The NTSB determined the probable cause as a loss of engine power due to the pilot’s improper inflight planning and reliance of fuel gauge readings, which resulted in fuel exhaustion.
NTSB Identification: CEN14CA303
This June 2014 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
This is my reply to Scott above, addressing the obvious thing that we haven’t talked about:
Just found a very, very easy explanation. The weight of the airplane at the time of the accident was 1820 pounds. Empty a 180 D weighs 1230 pounds, and max. gross is 2400 pounds. They had two people and “cargo” on board. All here:
http://dms.ntsb.gov/public/56000-56499/56387/556215.pdf
Avgas weighs 6 pounds per gallon. So with full fuel the fuel weighs 300 pounds. So the weight of the airplane plus the fuel at takeoff would have been 2120 pounds. That leaves 280 pounds for 2 adult males.
So they were at or (and likely) above max gross at takeoff. And you’re saying it’s impossible that a 180 at max gross burns 11.7 gallons per hour. Right….
Also, the wind at the destination airport was 150, 15 gusting 20. A direct headwind. If it’s 15 gusting 20 on the ground on a weather day in the summer in Texas, you can bet it was blowing at altitude.
The answer here is so clearly obvious.
To the tabs in a 50-gallon 180 is 36 gallons. According to the fuel receipt he put 34.5 gallons in. Ten bucks he filled it to the tabs to keep it under max gross. That would also mean that the previous flight he landed on fumes. Given the result here not that much of a stretch. I’m so done with this thread…
I just found another alternate nugget
AOPA Pilot Safety Briefing Piper PA-28 & PA-28R
The correct fuel grade is 100LL Aviation Fuel (blue) or 100 Grade A Aviation Fuel (green). Refer to POH, Section 2, Limitations. Air Safety Foundation recommendations:
• Always lean the mixture for improved engine performance and fuel economy.
• Always land with at least 1 hour fuel reserves on board.
• Never plan a fuel stop within 1 hour or 100nm of your destination.
Sponsored by USAIG
Mike:
50 yrs in aviation , 35 as a flight test engineer. You are right, I go home and do something else for fun – potentially simmer if you like.
Overgross – From the record. That is probable. Yes, i like that Mike, this guy is operating outside of the design performance envelope.
15 knot headwind Brooks County to KPIL – Absolutely. Speed over ground dropped in this section. Yes very observant.
Time in powered flight is still 4 hrs 5 min. You and Stu fly by the watch. Looking at the hour marks ticked off by in the record – so did this pilot.
Starting fuel value is 50 gallons listed as a top off in the record – 34 gallons doesn’t quite support the record with a climb – or the precipitous drop in level over the last 30 min. According to this pilot he would have stopped in Brooks County.
Speed over ground measured by pilot reported waypoint is consistent Mason to Pleasanton & Pleasanton to Brooks County. So you could speculate he was at or near 75% power – but we don’t have weather enroute in the record so this is speculation.
Speed over ground slower Brooks County to KPIL – wind effect coupled with descent from 7,500 to 1000 ft.
Speed over ground from Abilene to Mason consistent with climb performance
Any fuel consumed value is viable Mike, I am sure I could get 18 g/hr – but it would have to fit the record and the 12.7 you provide while plausible operation of the aircraft, does not. That is demonstrated by operation over 2 hrs in cruise flight at a constant speed, and this pilot provides a definitive report of fuel onboard @ 3 hours as 28 gallons used (therefore 22 gallons onboard) Mike – It really sounds like he has a totalizer doesn’t he. I wonder?
28 gallons used at 3 hours of flight – still sounds plausible.
The reason is that the 12.7 in cruise, combined with a realistic climb consumption places this pilot below this pilots decision point of 17 gallons remaining and he has 22. Therefore it can’t be true, even with the maximum maintenance manual fuel gauge error applied. He has 5 more gallons and your scenario uses that 5 gallons up. He lands at Brooks County.
You have to assume airworthy gauges meeting the maintenance manual quality standard. There was a Service Bulletin requiring removal and check for Spar Corrosion and in the process fuel sender condition and performance. Also it lists a recurrence and a replacement time for flexible hoses in the vent line. That happened or somebody should have gotten a call from the FAA.
Again, we do not know if this pilot has a totalizer, and some of his reports make it sound like that is the case. Looking at the aircraft in Google – he has a GPS antenna. Remember his aircraft weight, what equipment contributed to that – Nothing in the record.
The inspector for this aircraft was the salvage operator. No picture record of the cockpit. No check of fuel gauge function. These could have been spot on per the maintenance manual or they could have operated as you describe.
As the only required instrument is the fuel gauge – typically marked in 5 gallon hash marks. We have to go with that. But the pilot was consistent in marking fuel remaining and time in flight.
I agree with this pilot should have planned and departed Abilene with fuel at tabs or slightly above and stopped at Brooks County for fuel.
——————————————
Only accurate at zero – Pilot folklore, has no basis in reality see below
Part 25 has the same language so 737 or A320 need only to be accurate at zero as well
AC23.17 Aircraft System Design states a different viewpoint.
Fuel to read from full to empty (empty is the established zero usable fuel value and not some accuracy point)
Full in this aircraft is 25 gallons and the zero fuel value is 1 gallon – So the regulation and common sense tell you that the fuel gauge is to read from
25 gallons (an accurate full number in the aircraft TCDS ) to 1 gallon where 1 gallon is to be shown accurately as empty.
Note – a warning light that illuminates satisfies your and the NTSB investigator requirement.
FAA inconsistency – Part 91.205 Clear Part 23 and CAR 3 – Strangely worded for a pilot. Clear to aircraft engineers. Pilot handbook – garbage used by pilots to fly un airworthy aircraft. Apparently the FAA FSDO (the authors) want you to have it your way, unfortunately the ACO engineers have it their way as reflected in the Piper maintenance manual and advisory Circular.
I know you are done – but I am glad you took the time to look closer – you helped a lot
Time in powered flight is still 4 hrs 5 min. You and Stu fly by the watch. Looking at the hour marks ticked off by in the record – so did this pilot.
Scott,
This pilot was using calculated consumption, not his actual. If you have a time piece and do not use it properly you might as well use inaccurate gauges. Even accurate gauges would not have helped this guy. His planing was poor and all the Monday morning quarterbacking will not have him running out of gas.
As I stated earlier, I run my tanks dry. I know what my consumption is. A Cherokee has 2 tanks, this is not a difficult concept. Based on rough numbers, taxi and run up , 1 gallon, climb to altitude, 15 minutes at 13 gph= 4 gallons, cruise 45 minutes @ 10 gph = 7.5 gallons. Switch to the other tank, 24 gallons at 10 gph= 2.4 hours. If that time comes up short, it’s time to adjust your plans. There should be about an hour remaining in the first tank, time to find a place to land. Up to this point he would be in the air for 3.4 hours and used 36.5 gallons. WOW! I’ll bet his tanks were not full! I’ll also bet he did not visually check his tanks and the second tank would have run dry a lot quicker than 2.4 hours. An observant pilot would have surmised he had a fuel problem. The tanks were filled to the tabs. He would not have believed accurate gas gauges. The pilot should not be trusted to tie his shoes.
I’m like Stu & Mike……..I’m not going to run out of gas. because I use a computer. It’s the one between my ears.
This trusting gauges on 30 year old airplanes makes me crazy. If you fly and don’t know the only time gas gauges are accurate is when they are EMPTY, you should not be trusted to tie your shoes. I see running out of gas and blaming the gauges as a way to defer responsibility for a stupid action. If you don’t know how much fuel is onboard, fill the tanks! Running out of gas is inexcusable.
A fuel gauge should only be called a gauge if it has been calibrated otherwise it is a indicater.the fuel level in a ac tank will vary with the angle of attack and that varies with the load.So think how can u engineer a “gauge” to be accurate through the whole flight envelope and do it cheap and lite and reliable ?
The Piper Maintenance Manual is quite clear and every Piper PA28 should be corrected to this value at annual.
Tank actual fuel left – Piper permissible gauge reading right
Full – 22 gallons to Full (25 gallons)
20 – 17 g to 24 g
15 – 12 g to 17 g
10 – 7 g to 12 g
5 – 2g to 6g
0 – 0 to -2 g
The transmitter cannot have dead spots and should move in resistance steadily up and down.
Some in the industry have never replaced or calibrated a GA gauge per the provided directions.
You get a lot of PIREP that appear to indicate that this required maintenance has not been performed.
What I would like to know is WHY CAN’T WE HAVE ACCURATE FUEL GAUGES ???
The gauge in my car has always seemed to perform well so why cannot we get the same in an aircraft that actually has legal requirements for accuracy in order to be certified. I deal a lot with military type aircraft and they seem to be able to indicate fuel levels accurately so what can be done short of some outlandish Mil-Spec system to get valid indications.
Sarah:
Nearly every new aircraft delivered today comes with a fuel sender meeting a FAA TSO. Because they are TSO’d that requires a demonstrated accuracy band of 3% of true tank value – in a 50 gallon tank that’s 1.5 gallons. The senders that I am aware of, meet the higher 0.75% rating which would be 0.375 gallon.
It has been that way for the last 5 years
They exist and are produced. I have no idea why this is not common knowledge
I think we are too attached to the work arounds – Sticks, watches, totalizers – VooDoo
Every GA pilot like the one who posted earlier believes better adherence to the above will prevent
fuel starvation event.
This appears to be a poor investigation
Read carefully how he described his fuel – and when you chart his path
it looks like an easy
Let me rewrite the dialogue in a manner of flight plan – flying ~120 Mph derived from his google earth flight profile this is an easy 3 hr 50 min flight – 50 gallons on a PA-28 would give him reserve.
So he had 40 gallons indicated after 1 hour – 10 gallons
30 gallons indicated after 2 hours – 10 gallons
22 gallons indicated after 3 hours – 8 gallons
12 gallons indicated after 3.5 hours – 10 gallons
(- 80 NM from Brooks to KPIL – & he is 20 miles out)
So this pilot went from:
10 g/hr for the first 2 hours
8 g/hr for the next hour,
20 g/hr for the next 40 min – This was actually higher as he burned all 50 gallons or did he
He had the right amount of fuel for the flight (or maybe not) he observed topped off tanks
They added 34 gallons and maybe thats all this pilot had – he observed
He had a viable flight plan
His fuel gauges did tell him that there was an issue – as he should have had twice as much fuel when he was 20 miles out.
Nothing any pilot has stated about checking fuel tanks or using a watch would have assisted this pilot on this flight.
Do we know what happened here – No we don’t
Obviously his fuel consumption was not 8 gallons per hour, it looks like he burned about 9.75 gph. What I don’t see is what was his power settings and did he lean for efficiency? If you don’t know what you are burning, how can you plan a flight to arrive with minimal fuel?
There you go. Stu. 9.75 per hour. 4 hrs 10 min in the air. By the pilots timetable he was 3 hr. 50 min of flight time . 48 gallons of fuel actually he burned it all. 50 gallons.
9 gallons went missing. But it didn’t go missing until the bitter end
Where did the 9 gallons go? See what happens when you rush to a conclusion
Scott, Based on him burning about 12.3 gallons per hour, I calculated his horsepower at 157 or 87% of his 180 hp. That is based on .48 lbs of fuel per hour per horse power. Looks like he was really flogging the ponies. 87% is not an 8 gph setting. He screwed up not knowing his consumption for the power setting.
Of course we know what happened here, another idiot ran out of gas.
Another pilot reading the headline and ,making a stupid or idiotic assessment of the accident
A fuel totalizer would’t have helped here – in fact it would have given false information to the pilot
The FAA does not consider the totalizer to be a fuel gauge – for reasons that may have caused this crash.
Or like the Canadian’s like to say
The pilot relied on a fuel quantity indicator system that was based on the engine’s fuel consumption and not on the quantity of fuel remaining indicated by the gauges.
“Another pilot reading the headline and ,making a stupid or idiotic assessment of the accident”
I’m sorry, so he didn’t run out of gas?
Mike
Yes – chart his flight with his testimony. You ignorantly replied twice now. He ran out of fuel yes. As a pilot who knows how to flight plan, now tell us how
Scott, this guy is me – same airplane (basically), same experience level (basically). He tried to accomplish a 393 NM flight in an airplane that burns 10 gallons an hour. He had 48 usable gallons, so in theory he should have gotten 4.8 hours. In theory. Look at the calculations done below with a generic 172 (closest to this airplane that they let you pick from)
https://www.fltplan.com/AwQuickCalculationsWorld.exe?a=1
From KABI to KPIL, with no winds at 112 knots, it would take 3:46. With a 25-knot headwind, it makes it 4:46. This guy ran out of fuel after 4:08. And you’re seriously going to tell me it just can’t be his fault, it must have been a leak or he lost a fuel cap (both of which he can see)?
C’mon, dude. You really are trying to sell something, aren’t you?
Mike – No apparent headwind and a consistent speed overground – charted on Google earth.
He had a go-nogo decision at Brooks County to land if he was below 17 gallons. Remember all Piper Cherokees have had their fuel quantity system checked when the aircraft spar corrosion service bulletin was performed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0CeRacLQbEJaHVUQU05SGtfWWs/view
The performance and tolerances of the fuel gauging system are quite explicit in the aircraft maintenance manual. By mandatory service bulletin these checks should have been accomplished and noted in an annual, This pilot would have no reason not to trust their gauge. Read the actual airworthy requirements in the maintenance manual.
I maintain that other than use his range capability of 425 nautical miles in what i see as a planned flight – that allowed for plan contingencies if fuel burn or travel time was in excess. When you google a picture of the plane – it was well loved and cared for. I doubt this clown pilot initiated a flight designed in your terms to wreck his aircraft.
Your logic while very common in aviation – doesn’t really stand up. Give me a clown reason for this pilot to wreck his aircraft. It’s the moral equivalent of deciding to make a decision of veering into oncoming traffic. Clowns do that – no mentally unstable people do that,
I think you should relay your findings to the FAA – Fuel gauges are bad, Pilots are clowns and mentally unstable
Funny you mention the FAA – they completely disagree with you about the accuracy of these gauges, and say so themselves:
“According to the Federal Aviation Administration publication, The Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, “aircraft certification rules require accuracy in fuel gauges only when they read ’empty.’ Any reading other than ’empty’ should be verified. Do not depend solely on the accuracy of the fuel quantity gauges.”
That’s right in the NTSB probable cause, apparently you missed it.
You rely on the pilot’s statement. He said he had burned ten gallons after an hour. I say, nonsense. You can’t tell by looking at the gauges, period. He said after 2 hours he had burned 20. Rubbish. He guessed that he had burned 20, because that’s what he expected. He said three hours after takeoff, the gauges indicated that 28 gallons was used. Absolute gibberish. You can tell whether you’re closer to 10 than 20 in each tank by looking at the gauge, but the idea that each read 14 is just laughable. You’ve obviously spent no time in a Cherokee. Just yesterday I was flying mine, and in light chop the needle was bouncing from 10 to 20, back and forth, like a windshield wiper.
The gauges aren’t accurate. The FAA says this freely, every pilot with any sense who flies a Cherokee knows this from experience.
And where you come up with all of your information is a good question, too. Nothing that you speak of is in the docket. Where did you get your winds aloft information? I searched for a good hour and found nothing.
Also, from the docket:
http://dms.ntsb.gov/public/56000-56499/56387/556216.pdf
They checked for any source of a leak and found none.
Do you know the pilot or something? What’s your personal stake in this? It’s obviously something. And for that matter, what do you think happened?
Dude ran out of gas, man. Happens on average once a week in the U.S. involving a GA aircraft. No mystery.
Sara,
Cars are manufactured under a different standard today than an airplane manufactured 20 to 50 years ago. If you fly and trust fuel gauges you are a fool. Clock and knowing fuel consumption is the ONLY way to fly.
Stu- You are suffering from the same bias as the FAA investigator, the author of this article and many pilots
If you carefully read the report and overlay his flight on Google earth – you find that the only instrument telling this pilot he had an issue was his fuel gauge.
Really – his fuel gauge was the only instrument warning this pilot. Big contrast to the headline
His fuel burn in the last 30 minutes of flight doubled and then at the end was 6 times the 10 gallons/hr PA-28 average
The fuel gauge would have saved this pilot
What is amazing is the this isn’t the only aircraft of this type that this has happened to – and the same biased rubber stamp
Fuel gauge would have not saved this guy. Time in flight and fuel consumption is the only way to keep this from happening. Your naive believing anything else. This guy was stretching the bounds of safety and he knew it. He is just looking fore someone to blame for a bonehead decision.
He had 5 hrs of fuel Ok 4 hours and 4hr 35 min of fuel maximum 50 gallons for a 4 hr flight 48 usable. No adverse winds . This was well within the published capability of the aircraft.
I fail to see any logic to your argument
He planned, used a watch and ran out of fuel. So you use the same method, but you haven’t run out of fuel yet
I can only surmise that you want to restrict Cherokee pilots to 2.5 hr flights. So that is the Stu AD solution. Maybe we should apply that to all aircraft. Calculate your max range and divide by 2 that is your new max range. It would have prevented this accident
His fuel gauges told him that he had doubled his fuel consumption on the last leg leaving Brooks County airport 3 hours by his watch into the trip His number came from his fuel level report 17 miles out. You argue blindly without running his numbers, that illustrates you came to a conclusion from the article title. It is that behavior that keeps us from solving this issue
You are most definitely wrong in this case and so was the FAA accident investigator
Scott, I don’t believe you are very experienced in flying. You are looking for mechanical excuses rather than looking at the whole picture. His flying technique was outside what I would consider smart. He did not know what his fuel consumption for that day. I doubt if he had much experience flying long distances. If he took off, flew to altitude and and cruised for a total of 1-hour, switched to the other tank until it ran dry, then back to the first tank and plan to be on the grounds in 12 hour. I don’t care how far he flew, it’s all based on time. When he filled the empty tank, he would know how much fuel he burned in cruise. This is not rocket science, just basic airmanship. You don’t need a gauge for any of this. As far as limiting Cherokees to 2.5. Hours, if that’s all the pilot is capable of, 2.5 hours it should be. It’s not the airplane, it’s the grey matter between his ears.
Stu: On that you are correct – the cross country flight component. However I have planned more fuel critical flights than I care to number.
I don’t have access to the pilot flight plan and there always needs to be accommodation for taxi takeoff and climb. So it is a 4 1/2 hour aircraft, subtract VFR reserve and the pilot fudge (5 or 10 gallons) and you have a 3 to 3 1/2 hr aircraft maximum for most pilots.
But this pilot and the one below were well below any reserve or fudge.
Stu uere is another full fuel (50 gallons) flight lasting 3 hr 45 min – I have a few more
The airplane collided with terrain during a forced landing in an open field. The pilot visually confirmed both fuel tanks were full prior to takeoff by looking into the tank and observing fuel at the filler neck level. During cruise the pilot adjusted the fuel/air mixture using the exhaust gas temperature (EGT) gauge as a reference. Every 30 minutes during the flight, the pilot switched fuel tanks in order to attain an even fuel burn. About 3 hours 40 minutes into the flight the engine lost all power. The pilot switched fuel tanks, and the power was restored. Concerned that the other tank may also have been low on fuel, he elected to divert to an airport in the immediate vicinity.
He ran out of fuel NTSB identifier LAX07CA232
Scott, Piper and Lycoming spend a lot of time and money producing performance information. The only thing they cannot account for is how the pilot uses the data. Pilots switching tanks every half hour is crazy. Believing they are keeping the airplane in “balance” is fictitious. The Cherokee will fly nicely with one tank full and the other empty. If it were not true the Piper lawyers would publish that information in the hand book and by AD. I’m not aware of an imbalance problem due to fuel distribution in the Cherokee. My personal airplane is an old Bonanza. I manage my fuel as noted in my earlier posts except I return 3 gph to the left main. At 2100 rpm and 22″ mp, I can count on 10.5 gph. That’s 56% which agrees with my published fuel consumption information. I can estimate how much fuel I’ll require within .5 gallons when I pull up to the pump when I’m on a trip. Most of the fuel exhaustion accidents I read about are from people not understanding their and the airplanes limits. Assuming some things in aviation will kill you.
Scott, with all due respect, the idea that this guy had any clue how much fuel he had burned and/or how much he had left is absurd. This was a 1968 Cherokee. The gauges are reliable to the extent that you can tell you have somewhere between 10 and 20 gallons and you have somewhere between 0 and 10 gallons in a particular tank. The idea that he looked at one gauge and said, “oh, that reads 2.5 gallons and the other tank 6” is just crazy. A complete guess. If you have 2.5 gallons in the tank of a ’68 Cherokee all you know is that it’s damn close to 0. This plane may have burned 10 an hour when new, but there’s no indication how long the engine had been in operation nor how well it was maintained. There’s also no indication of whether he leaned the engine properly in cruise.
What we have here is a pilot who thought – incorrectly – that he could fly 4 hours and 30 minutes in a plane with a range of about 4 hours and 30 minutes. Unfortunately for him, it had a range of 4 hours and ten minutes that particular day.
A 4-hour-plus flight in a 50-gallon Cherokee is a test flight. It’s stupid. You should be on the ground at 3.5 hours MAXIMUM. And that’s VFR. I personally never push 3 hours. Why bother?
Scott, regarding LAX07CA232, you’re obviously trying your hardest to overlook the obvious. Did you not see this line in the narrative?
“Upon returning, he rechecked the fuel tank levels and noted that fuel was dripping from the vent overflow lines. He surmised that this was due to fuel expansion caused by the increasing air temperature on the ramp.”
So he’s got a fuel leak on the ground. Might have been a good idea not to assume it wasn’t going to continue in the air.
Number two, the guy climbed to 10.5k. May have burned some fuel doing that, no? Or maybe he just caught a big updraft.
You are trying your hardest to avoid the obvious.
This ridiculous crap just keeps happening. Never ever use fuel gauges for anything other than leak meters. Use a calibrated dipstick and always use them. Mine are paint stirrers. Fly time and known fuel burn and fudge by adding at least a gallon an hour to known fuel burn. Always fill up on landing if you are anywhere near 1 hour to empty. At one hour to empty and not within 45 min to destination land at nearest and fill up. Make this a promise to yourself and plan accordingly. It really is that simple.
“Never ever use fuel gauges for anything other than leak meters”
In FAR 91.205 it doesn’t say that you are to replace a paint stick with a non functional gauge in your aircraft. Therefor paint stirrers are literally undocumented and unapproved MEL procedure that allow you in your operation to dispatch without fixing your aircraft.
Yes I am aware that the FAA has published handbooks showing exactly that – but when has somebody accused the FAA of intelligence. OK here in this one instance – C’mon.
If you have to use a paint stick – you aircraft is not by definition airworthy. Review the maintenance manual for your aircraft for the calibration of your fuel gauge. There is probably a mandatory service bulletin as well. When you point out what airworthy is – i.e. meeting either of those published requirements.
Because it is common and accepted – isn’t the same as right or correct.
I agree this pilot flew right by his time in flight decision point – but a fuel gauge that goes from 6 gallons to empty is a non functional gauge.
This is true of any vehicle application and any other gauge – but somehow GA makes this one exception
Bad fuel measurement = Bad fuel management
An alternative to dip sticking the tanks is something I have seen on some of the Piper aircraft. The tanks there had a large tab at the filler that extended down into that tank and the bottom of that tab gave you a reference for fuel in the tank. Additionally I recall s cutout in that tab that provided another reference point to gauge fuel onboard during preflight. This does not help in flight if you develop a leak or if you mismanage your fuel system (for whatever reason) but it does provide a quick and easy assessment of fuel state prior to flight.
Other than that you could always go high tech and combine a fuel totalizer with truly accurate fuel measurement sensors and do the pilots job of looking for fuel consumption that does not go into the engine.
Sarah,
Just noticed your last paragraph about the “high tech” route. JPI announced a software change at Sun-n-Fun 2016 for their 900 & 930 engine analyzers, which performs that function. It compares the total fuel amount from the fuel tank senders to the calculated fuel remaining from the fuel totalizer. If they differ by 5 gallons or more the system will display a warning message to the pilot. Really a great function.
Scott is absolutely correct. All aircraft should have relatively accurate fuel gauges, both from a legal and from a safety perspective.
Dipping the tanks before flight, calculating fuel remaining based on fuel burn rates and fuel totalizers are are great tools. BUT, they only tell us how much fuel and range we SHOULD have. They cannot tell us how much fuel we DO have. The only instruments that will show how much fuel we DO have are the fuel gauges.
The vast majority of the time, the SHOULD and DO have values are very close. But, if a fuel leak ever occurs in flight, then the SHOULD have numbers will show more fuel than we DO have. (Fuel totalizers only report the fuel that is fed to the engine(s). Any leak that occurs before the fuel flow transducer, the device that measures the fuel going to the engine, will not be measured by the totalizer.)
Ever hear of a fuel cap being lost in flight, or a fuel drain leaking? Stuff happens.
Jerry, you mistakenly refer to “range” , I will disagree with you. It’s time. How long can you stay aloft with the fuel onboard. Range is not significant due to variables like wind, altitude, power settings. Power setting and time are what you need. Knowing your airplane and not pushing the limits are the sign of a safe pilot.
Stu, I don’t really agree with your statement, “It’s time. How long can you stay aloft with the fuel onboard.” We fly to reach a destination, not to stay aloft for some period of time. Obviously time, usable fuel on-board, fuel usage rates, winds aloft etc, are all factors used to calculate reaching our destination, whether that be the final destination, or to a fuel stop. And, calculating to arrive there with acceptable fuel reserves.
The point I was making is all these calculations are not absolutely fool proof. How long you can stay aloft is just a calculation. If the airplane develops a fuel leak in flight, the best calculations and most conservative fuel planning strategy are all for naught.
We absolutely need reasonably accurate fuel gauges, and we must use them to validate our calculations through-out the flight. Without this cross-check validation, the best pilot in the world using the best fuel calculation strategy, is an accident waiting to happen.
Jerry, You should have basic flight and management skills. Why would you want to depend on anything except your skills? A leak in flight is extremely rare. If you have a leaking gas cap, it’s very obvious. Leaking from anywhere else will be visible on preflight. Knowing where your fuel is and how much is there is cannot be overstated.
Your disagreement about time aloft indicates you lack of flying skills. I don’t care how far you want to go, but how long can you stay aloft to get there. That knowledge is based upon real knowledge of fuel burn at the power settings you are using and if you can run the engine according to the air frame/ motor manufacturers recommendations.
Now, getting the type gauge system, you are talking about, thru the FAA beaucratic system would be prohibitively expensive. Morons would still run out of gas for the same reasons they do today. When ever there is a problem, people look for a scapegoat, in this ause blame the gauges. We flew for years knowing gas gauges are only accurate when the tank(s) are empty. People still ran out of gas for the same reasons, poor planing and not knowing their airplane. I would like to know if this guy was flying a rental. If he was he had the throttle against the panel not caring about anything except keeping the Hobbs time as low as possible. I calculated he burned 12.3 gph, that works out to running the motor at 87%.
In other countries they actually investigate fuel starvation events – they don’t assume that it is a pilot issue – It is amazing what they find
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/fsa/2001/sep/21-23.pdf
You are stretching the point. The noted airplane was just out of maintenance. The pilot realized he had a problem and was able to have a safe conclusion to the flight. Chalk that one up to bad maintenance. Credit the pilot for knowing his airplane and how to adapt.
Our discussion has been about the necessity to replace gauges in airplanes that have been flown safely for years only to have a pilot ruin a perfectly good airplane because he acrewed up and wants to blame the the gauges. There has to be a bit of personal responsibility thrown in here. Tell me it’s the first time he flew the airplane, he is a brand new pilot, any other excuse except that the gauges, that have worked that way for years, are at fault.
Stu,
My disagreement with your reliance only on time has nothing to do with my flying experience, skill level or management experience. It has everything to do with the insidious nature of some failure modes.
Let me share with you a real life example. One of the members of the aircraft type club I belong to lost a Monarch fuel cap in flight last fall. Fortunately, his fuel cap system had an anti-siphon door. If he had the earlier version of the Monarch fuel caps without the anti-siphon door, he would have lost the fuel from that tank in a very short time due to fuel being siphoned overboard. This was on a high wing aircraft where the fuel cap loss and the siphoning could not have been seen while in flight.
These aircraft carry 60 gallons usable fuel, 30 gallons in each tank, and they burn just under 10 GPH, Also, the POH for these aircraft specify the normal mode of operation is to set the fuel selector on Both, so fuel is drawn simultaneously from both tanks.
Using this real life occurrence as an example, say this person had taken off on a 4 hour flight with full fuel. Based on your time calculations, he would have had 6 hours endurance using the 10 GPH normal usage; plenty of fuel for a 4 hour flight with more than adequate reserves. Now assume he lost that fuel cap shortly after takeoff, and that had the earlier cap version without the anti-siphon door. Due to the siphoning, he would most likely have lost the fuel in that tank before reaching his destination 4 hours away. Effectively his fuel usage rate would have nearly doubled to close to 20 GPH; 10 GPH for the engine, and the other 10 GPH being siphoned overboard. Questions:
1. Would he have made it to his destination 4 hours away?
2. How could he have known he wouldn’t make it without having and monitoring reasonably accurate fuel gauges?
Regarding your last paragraph about accurate fuel gauges not being available and if they were would be prohibitively expensive. Do an internet search for CiES fuel senders. They are already available, and they are not that expensive. I installed these fuel senders along with a JPI 900 install last fall. In the 10 months I have had them, I’ve found their accuracy to be within 1 gallon of the true amount in the tanks. (I know this based on my 40 years experience owning and flying this same airplane, and dipping the tanks to measure the true fuel level after every flight, and fill-up.) These fuel senders are actually more accurate than the fuel remaining calculations performed by the JPI 900.
Jerry, Point well taken on the Monarch experience. Would the Monarch pilot have noticed an exceptionally fast loss of fuel on the stock gauges?
JPI 900 with fuel senders must have cost $4-5k. Is this a TSO system allowing replacement of the factory fuel measuring system? Do you think the FAA would accept this system to satisfy an AD that some folks have been calling for?
The general aviation fleet is old. I do not know what the average age is. My airplane is 60 years old. All of those airplanes have accumulated many millions of flight hours. what is the rate/ 100,000 hours of general aviation accidents due to fuel exhaustion and what do they contribute to the overall number? I do not believe that number is significant. If it was, the FAA would be all over us with seminars and AD’s.
If having a fuel totalizer and super accurate gauges make you feel good, by all means equip your airplane as you see fit. I’m in the camp that says, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. For all I know this thread was started by a lawyer looking for an argument to defend a client that made a bonehead error in planing. Blaming the manufacturer for a defective product means big bucks from the deep pockets of insurance companies.
Stu,
I believe I would have noticed that fast of a fuel loss on my old legacy fuel gauges. But then, I had kept those gauges working with a reasonable level of accuracy, and did monitor them while flying. Something I still monitor, as the JPI 900 certainly isn’t fool-proof.
The JPI 900 is a TSO’d system that replaces all the engine instrumentation, not just the fuel gauges, and it provides a lot of additional functionality.The JPI 900 system alone cost just under $4K, and the installation costs more than doubled that. However, a system with all that functionality isn’t necessary to obtain accurate fuel gauge readouts. The CiES digital fuel senders that I added at the same time cost less than $1K. About the same cost I would have incurred in getting my two old fuel senders inspected and repaired. Those fuel senders are what provide the fuel level accuracy. Without the JPI 900 or a similar system, these would need to be connected to the existing fuel gauges, or replacement fuel gauges. I’m guessing that total cost would be $2K – $4K. A cost that isn’t very high compared to having the legacy fuel senders & gauges repaired every few years to keep them working.
I agree with your statement, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I reached a point where I was questioning (and repairing) many of the 40 year old legacy instruments more frequently than I liked. I finally realized that the cost of doing that over a few years would be about the same as replacing them all with the JPI 900. (Which also replaced my 30 year old engine analyzer with much better functionality.) The digital fuel senders were a logical addition to insure I was getting the best accuracy possible from the system.
Jerry,
I like the way you say a few thousand dollars is not much. I would not spend a lot of money keeping a troublesome system working. My 60 year old Bonanza has 1 gauge and 2- switches to monitor 4- tanks. It’s too expensive to repair and the repairs don’t last long. The gauge tells me full or empty. My Mk I eyeball varafies fuel levels prior to flight. After that, it’s a clock and my fuel pressure gauge. I’m happy you have all the bells and whistles for you to monitor. For me, I’m happy to look out the windows and enjoy the flight. By the way, the looking out the window thing is a problem with pilots these days with too much stuff to monitor in the cockpit.
Not looking forward to spending $5k on ABS B when I would be lucky to get $35k for the airplane. I’ll wait until the last minute, just in case you wanted to know.
Stu,
I didn’t mean to make it sound flippant about spending a few thousand dollars on the JPI upgrade. That was a multi-year decision and acquisition process. When it became evident I was going to expend that much over a few years trying to keep the old instrumentation in an airworthy condition, the decision almost made itself. It just boiled down to pay me now or pay me later.
Regarding the ADS-B cost. If you haven’t seen it, take a look at the NavWorx ADS600B along with their TransMonSPE. That combination costs around $2K plus the cost to install two antennas. It’s fully TSO’d, has an internal WASS GPS, and the TransMonSPE enables using whatever transponder you already have. That TransMonSPE is a little box that clamps around the transponder antenna cable. It captures the transponder code and altitude each time the transponder transmits, and feeds it back to the ADS600B. The ADS600B then includes that code and altitude in its ADS-B out transmissions. The ADS600B also has a WiFi output to enable displaying all the ADS-B in traffic and weather information on an IPad or Android tablet.
Jerry,
I’ve been looking at ADS B systems for a while. I’ll replace my transponder when I do the installation. My existing is a Narco. It’s been a good unit, but when it goes TU there is no repair. Appario makes an ADS B out for $2995 that includes a transponder. I saw it at Sun n Fun. My I Pad with ForeFlight takes care of the ADS B in. I’ll assume another $2k for installation. A lot of money so the airlines can fly direct.
Jerry, I’m sorry, but it’s time, not distance. If you’re in a Cherokee flying into a 40 mph headwind, are you going to get as far as you would with a 40 mph tailwind? Of course not. But you will be able to stay aloft for the same amount of time. This is basic airmanship. Fuel on board divided by GPH is going to give you give or take the amount of TIME you can fly before you run out of gas, not the distance you can fly.
Mike,
From a basic airmanship perspective you are correct. However, there are fallacies in that time calculation. One being the GPH number used is what is consumed by the engine(s), not the GPH coming out of the fuel tanks. 99.99% of the time, these two GPH numbers are the same. If there is ever a fuel leak, these GPH numbers will be different, making the time calculation wrong. The same applies for the starting fuel level on-board the aircraft. The calculation must start with the known true number of gallons of fuel in the tanks, not just the full fuel level number. Without dipping the tanks to accurately measure the true fuel level, even tanks visually checked as being full, can be off by 2 – 3 gallons.
Because the time is a calculated result based on the real GPH coming from the tanks, and the true number of gallons in the aircraft on take-off, it must be cross-checked using some other means. The only other means to really understand the true fuel level available during a flight comes from monitoring the fuel gauge levels. Meaning, the fuel level gauges must be reasonably accurate, not just accurate when empty.
Jerry,
Are you serious, being off by 2-3 gallons? If you are not landing with 45 minutes of fuel, you have a serious death wish. Let’s say you are off 3 gallons in an airplane that burns 10gph, and you are expecting 45 minute reserve that’s 7.5 gallons, less 3 gallons equals 4.5 gallons. Assuming all is usable that is 27 minutes from a crash. Do you really want to plan that close?
If you are flying a Cherokee and cannot tell how much gas you have on board, limit your trips to 3 hours until you learn how to fly.
Stu,
I think you miss-interpreted what I was saying. It was simply that looking into a tank and seeing it looks full does not mean it really has the total amount of fuel listed for full tanks. In my experience filling my own tanks, it is very easy to fill the tanks and think they are full, but when dipped find they are short by 2 – 3 gallons. (The 2 – 3 gallons is the extreme limit I’ve seen, most of the time it’s around 1 gallon.) That’s why dipping the tanks after every re-fuel is so important. This has nothing to do with my fuel planning reserves.
Personally, that 45 minute FAA reserve is way too short. My minimums start out with a 1 hour reserve, and added to that is 20% of the total fuel that is calculated to be consumed during the flight. That 20% addition adds a factor that should cover any adverse wind effect above what was initially planned. On a 4 hour cross country flight, that equates to almost 1.5 hours reserve fuel. Additionally, if I’m flying on a cross-country flight, if the fuel gauges reach the 1/4 tank level, I’m looking for a fuel stop very close by, if I’m not already at the destination.That 1/4 tank level in my plane is also the 1.5 hour reserve point. One other planning component, if my flight is taking me over rugged country, such as the Rockies, that 1 hour reserve is doubled due to both the distances between landing sites, and the wind conditions that can be encountered there.
Jerry,
You don’t get it! You are relying on gauges. They are not dependable. You spent a lot of money on a system that can fail and you won’t know it until it’s too late. Your fuel tanks give you TIME aloft. I guess we won’t agree on this point. Know exactly where your fuel is and how much. Burn all that is available prior getting into reserves.
Sportys has a $29 timer. It’s the best way to manage fuel in any GA airplane.
If I don’t pump my own gas, I order “top off all 4 tanks, leave them open, I’ll take care of closing.” I’ll stand by as the fuel is pumped noting how much each tank takes. My 2 aux tanks will take 9.5 gallons each and the right main will take 19 gallons. If my left main gets close to10 gallons I’ll get a cold sweat because I had only 9+gallons usable remaining. my personal limits are to land with 1-hour of fuel in my tank. Have I landed with less, yes. Very often, no. I use my GPS time to station feature for fuel planing while in the air. Because my flight plan says I’m landing at X does not mean I won’t land at Y if I believe fuel will be a problem. If I have to be somewhere on a schedule, I’ll go commercial.
I’ll illustrate Jerry’s earlier point. Do you fill one side and then the other when you top off ?
As for the gauge portion and trust – that is Jerry’s call
Stu,
I’m not relying just on fuel gauges. I also have a flight timer that is reset to zero every time the engine is started. It’s very simple to estimate what the fuel levels should be using that. I also have the fuel totalizer in the JPI 900 which is completely separate form the flight timer. The total amount of fuel onboard the aircraft is loaded into the JPI on each refuel. The JPI tracks how much fuel goes to the engine, calculates the amount of fuel remaining, and based on the fuel flow rate, calculates the time to empty. The JPI and the flight timer are cross checked with the fuel gauges. And, these fuel gauges are both extremely accurate and reliable. I do pay attention to the fuel gauges.They are the only device that directly measures what’s in the tanks.
Every electro-mechanical device can fail. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a brand new engine analyzer, legacy gauge, mag, engine, or even a fuel selector valve. That’s why we need redundant systems and why we need to have multiple means to cross check the fuel consumption and what’s remaining in the tanks. A timer is only one piece.
Jerry, mine is also 1/4 tank reading. Unless I’m AT my destination, I’m landing at the closest airport for fuel.
Isn’t it just fascinating about the mentality of so many people in aviation. They can get such ” mileage ” out of such a fundamentally easy problem that has already been solved so very long ago … It is called the fuel totalizer.
THE FAA STILL USES MORSE CODE
Why does anyone think that tort law is a problem. Blame the manufacturer of the equipment and never the operator. I would never trust gages unless it was for certification flight testing. After the craft is well used, best practice is not to depend on their accuracy. And believe it or not they actually fly out dry on each tank on any new model going for TC approval.
What a sad statement – only in certification flight testing should you have accurate fuel indication.
After the aircraft is well used it should be repaired to the condition demonstrated in certification flight testing. The exact reason for Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. It is obvious you are aware of that.
We give a free pass to bad fuel indication in GA. If any other system performed as poorly it would have been changed or repaired.
Owners should have flooded the FAA with Service Difficulty reports – Somehow bad fuel indication and bad pilot fuel monitoring performance are seemingly disconnected in GA
No other transportation system – Large aircraft, trucks, trains, school busses allow for erroneous fuel level indication by regulation or operation.
Did somebody hand down stone tablets the decried – Small aircraft should have bad fuel indication and we should smite the pilots that suffer the consequences – so sayeth Orville Wright
C’mon
Cmon indeed. If you’re flying a Cherokee and you think the gauges read that accurately, we should check your continued competence, not the airplane’s.
Amen, Mike.
Worthless, doesn’t work, can’t work. If you place those characteristics on any
piece of required aircraft equipment, the aircraft by definition is not airworthy. Why would this required instrument be optional to you. Why is your definition of function unacceptable for any other instrument. Is it because somebody chose not to fix, maintain or replace it, or were you trained to ignore it. Neither is an valid excuse to fly an un-airworthy aircraft. Like all required aircraft equipment it was demonstrated to the FAA to be functional. Fuel quantity can be made functional in aircraft & the law mandates it. Your choice
Not to get in an argument, Scott, but a fuel gauge is considered functional if it reads empty when the tank is empty. That is the only requirement. That is the rule and I didn’t make it and I doubt you will be successful in changing the FAA’s mind on it.
I deal with the regulations for these systems – I speak with the FAA – every week. What we are made to demonstrate the requirement i am stating. This is not theoretical or a FSDO interpretation of regulation.
The rule is that it has to show fuel in the tank from full to empty – where empty is the determined zero fuel value. That is the Law, and it is also stated just that clearly in AC 23.17C
The Small Aircraft Directorate in will give you proper guidance if you ask.
A fuel gauge that stays on empty and never moves meets your requirement – that is not the intention. I know that it is a common misperception – hence the comment on the NTSB reference.
My point is that by perpetuating these common myths and mis interpretations – GA denies itself proper warning – even if the pilot makes truly bad decisions like this one.
There is a physical reason his gauge went from 6 gallons to Empty in turbulence and it is a function of poor fuel quantity system design. If he was warned of his fuel state – he might have continued flight – but odds are that he wouldn’t have.
Note: FAR 25 has the exact same wording for fuel quantity as FAR 23 – Therefore a new Boeing 787 only has to be accurate at zero fuel according to your statement – Not a chance – Call the Seattle ACO – and please put that question to them.
I guess I should have been more specific. The gauge must show Full when the tank is Full and Empty when the tank is Empty. The rest of the time it is a guesstimate.
Yes – True for CAR era aircraft. However in 1965 when the FAR regulations came into effect – Numeric representation was required on the gauge face. We went from 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 tick marks to numerical values in gallon quantities
This is true today on the latest Garmin display.
Other than Advisory Circular 23.17 which suggests or advises within 3% of total tank volume as the reference quality.
The Aussies require fuel gauge calibration every 4 years and at every numerical value the gauge value can’t be over by 1/2 of a percent of full tank volume but can be under report by 4%
If you have a CAR aircraft – you have to place a placard indicating what the gallon values are at the indicated tick marks.
I.E. the Aussies equated bad fuel level indication to bad fuel management performance. The Canadians have recognized the same.
You can’t manage what you can’t measure.
One day we can invent the wing monkey to crawl out on your aircraft wing in flight and stick your tanks – if he doesn’t find any fuel he can crawl back and beat you with the stick
Thanks. I flew airline for 30 years and the gauges on the jets were completely accurate. Even the ones in the old piston airliners were fairly accurate, and we could even be dispatched with a gauge inoperative in them, as long as the tank was stuck before departure to confirm the quantity and the gauge was placarded. The old airplanes I fool with(Cub, Champ, Pacer, etc.) are mostly the old cork on a wire or cork to a sender to a gauge. I guess we were comparing apples to oranges in our comments. Have a good one. 🙂
Scott, So you want an AD to cure being stupid? Sounds expensive, a clock and knowing how much fuel you are burning is the real answer plus a little personal responsibility.
Stu – Yes actually an AD here is warranted – You and a majority of pilots believe any fuel starvation event is a pilot problem. Here is one clear example where it is not.
What is alarming is that these pilots get steamrollered – In this same aircraft i have 30 similar examples
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/area-pilot-whose-plane-crashed-in-tennessee-recove/ngJD5/
You were led down the garden path by your own bias in this regard – What is commonly believed is actually wrong .
Nothing beats a clock and common sense. Fly your Cherokee 1 hour on one tank or the other, fly the other tank until empty, switch back to the first tank then plan to be on the ground in a half hour. Know how much time it took to fly the empty tank to empty, that is your cruise consumption. If you land prior to the second tank runninG out, you will know your consumption for takeoff and getting to altitude. What is wrong with that? Learn your airplane, flying is basic. Dependancy upon your self is paramount when flying small airplanes.
Stu, it is apparent that most everyone posting here including you and me are ignorant except for you know who. I have been flying safely for 63 years, General Aviation the whole time plus Airline for 30 years, also A&P with I.A. The only fuel level indicator I trust is the old cork & wire type found on the J-3 and Taylorcraft, etc.. I’m sorry to disagree with you, Scott, but I am wondering if you work for the FAA. Yep, all we need is another expensive A.D. to drive the cost of flying higher. These guys who push their luck and push their fuel range to the absolute limit need their brains examined and should stick to driving where they can pull over on side of the road and call AAA when they run out of gas.
I want an AD to address fuel venting overboard in a low fuel state. That is what happened here by the evidence presented. He had another AD issue with his fuel level changing from 6 gallons to zero in turbulence. It’s all well and good when we fly 1 hr on full tanks for a hamburger. But when we use the aircraft capability with VFR reserve and it bites back yes an AD is warrented
Scott,
You started this thread trying to gin up support for an AD that you and your company will benefit financially from.
You appear to have a nice product and retro fitting the fleet would deffenatly benefit you. I would suggest, rather than generating support for an AD, you put your efforts in obtaining a retrofit STC for those folks they have the need for super accurate fuel gauges. I believe you will find some moron, with your gauges, running out of gas and blaming your gauges because he was not aware of some stupid reason his lawyer came up with.
Good luck!
Stu: Let me be very clear. All I want is a careful evaluation of fuel related incidents so that a real evaluation of working methodologies can be applied. Anyone involved in a root cause or a kaizen event knows that blaming people is a dead end proposition – It is absolutely useless for problem solving.
To your end we could put cameras at every self serve – and when we catch someone not looking into their tank send them a ticket (red light camera) Maybe we could issue watches to every pilot with their pilot license. That is an active solution. Grumbling about those pilots is tongue wagging, or moral self stimulation.
These incidents are a case in point – if all we do is blame pilots – fundamental ways of preventing occurrence come down to more public service announcements that frankly these have not moved the statistic one iota. The beatings will continue until moral improves.
The FAA inspector and the author of this article did a dis-service to aviation in my opinion
The Australians got fed up with the above and did something about it
Wait a minute, is this a serious comment:
“He had another AD issue with his fuel level changing from 6 gallons to zero in turbulence.”
I was flying a very similar Cherokee yesterday (this one was a ’68, mine is a ’66) with the same fuel gauges. I got in LIGHT chop, and sat there watching the gauge on the left (the tank I was using) bounce between 5 and 15 gallons. This guy flew through MODERATE turbulence and he’s honestly going to say he had 6 in one tank and 2.5 in the other? What a complete joke. Those needles bounce like a equalizer on a stereo in any sort of chop.
What we don’t know:
– was the engine properly maintained?
– how long had the engine been in service?
– did the pilot lean properly (or at all)
What we do know:
– he was in an airplane with APPROXIMATELY a 4.5-hour fuel range
– On that particular day, his had 4 hours and ten minutes.
End of story. This guy was just another clown running out of gas. Let’s not try and make more out of this than there is.
There was actually a very similar system seen on the PA-32 series that had inboard and outboard fuel tanks with a direct gravity feed in between. The inboard tank had no cap of course so they put in a float driven needle gauge on top of the tank so you can visually confirm fuel fuel level when there is no visible fuel in the outboard tank. Of course in both cases the float could always jam but the typical vibration levels help there.
There is one other system used in the BD-5 that had no moving parts, it used clear acrylic rods of varying lengths that lay on the Line of Sight from the pilot and the bottom of the tank. When a rod had the bottom immersed in fuel you could see a color change and looking at them you knew your fuel level to within a gallon or two in each tank.
So there are two highly reliable systems that require no electrical power and always are accurate once calibrated. Of course neither works in a high wing but they are worth consideration in the Homebuilt market and for new certified designs.
Also if the old fuel level systems do not work well and the newer ones do, what about some STC kits to bring those 1950’s designs up to modern capabilities.
Pointing fingers and calling people names gets us nowhere. The answer is to search for real world solutions and move towards updating the aging existing fleet. It may cost something and we are all cost conscious these days with the ADS-B Out mandate but what about the cost for all the lost aircraft and persons if we just keep going as we are.
Richard,
I’m with you, I’m at 50+ years experience and we see folks talking about what should be and “wouldn’t it be nice” comments. I don’t believe there is much experience talking here. I also don’t see many people willing to learn.
Stu, please be aware that there are a few of us in the new generation of pilots who look to guys like you who’ve been doing it safely for 50 years and say, “I’m going to listen to them and do what they did.” Hey, it’s kept you alive. The idea that a fuel gauge in a 1968 Cherokee can indicate 2.5 or 6 gallons is absurd. I wouldn’t push mine past 3 hours. First of all, I have to pee by that point. But second of all, what’s the point? Why even put yourself in a position where this might bite you? Just land and get some gas. Don’t wind up like this guy.
Thanks for telling us younger pilots how to do it. Some of us do listen, believe it or not! 🙂
Mike:
Quit looking at trying to judge 1/2 or quarter gallons it is misleading you to a false assumption. You flight plan quickly – chart his fuel flow during his flight. You and Stu would both run out of fuel in this scenario.
“Quit looking at trying to judge 1/2 or quarter gallons it is misleading you to a false assumption. You flight plan quickly – chart his fuel flow during his flight. You and Stu would both run out of fuel in this scenario.”
A) I would never in a million blessed years try and judge 5 gallons, much less a quarter gallon, on a Cherokee fuel gauge. Where on earth you get that I think that is a reasonable plan is beyond me.
B) I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever run out of fuel in this scenario, because I would have been on the ground an hour and a half before this clown filling up my airplane with blue go juice.
Mike:
So you support the AD to 1/2 the aircraft range of Piper Cherokees to protect all pilots. I agree, that would work and would make flying safer. A lot of pilots like you use fudge factors. I have 30 minutes required VFR reserve lets make that 1 hr and 15 minutes, OK that works. The aircraft manufacturer publishes range and load – for what ethereal reason I have no idea. In fact extended fuel tanks appear to cover a lot of issues and are very popular. So this AD – Alternative Method of Compliance – just carry more fuel.
You have to look at why we want to carry more fuel or place excessive fudge factors on flight without thinking about why – blind faith and mysticism. Along this flight path there were a literal bloom of alternative airports well within range – if a problem was detected. This pilot was counting them down as he flew past on the hour markers and notating fuel burn. “Clown pilot – really”
I have 35 years of successful flight test work – I don’t fly un-airworthy aircraft. I rely on all instrumentation to insure we are properly configured. Any deviation from proper function of any instrument is a reason to scrub a flight.
Here his indication presented a problem – yes his fuel gauge – but some fuel flow anomaly happened in the last 30 minutes of flight. He saw it – but didn’t realize it’s implication. He should have had 16 gallons, 17 miles out and not 12. 1/2 hour of flight suddenly gone missing. His level 9 miles out showed the trend very clearly as he lost another 1/2 hr off flight in those 8 miles.
On reflection this pilot realized the impact as he asked that some method of illustrating to him that a rapid change in fuel flow occurred would be appreciated.
This isn’t the only incident very similar to this. There are at least 20 more.
“So you support the AD to 1/2 the aircraft range of Piper Cherokees to protect all pilots.”
Scott, you are now resorting to strawmen and other logical fallacies. The guy ran out of gas. The idea that he could tell 16 gallons from 17 by looking at the fuel gauges in a 1968 Piper Cherokee is patently absurd. I fly one all the time. THE. GAUGES. ARE. NOT. THAT. ACCURATE. Do you see what I’m trying to say or shall I repeat myself?
His aircraft burnt 11.7 GPH during the course of this flight. Four hours and 8 minutes after he took off, he ran out of gas.
End of story.
Yes simplistic evaluations will smite you
Support your arguement with the record – you are speculating. Given your scenario he would have had a fuel level below his decision point and he would have landed at Brooks County.
So this aircraft has to have had the mandatory Piper Service Bulletin performed, which includes a check of fuel quantity system. Given the accuracy standards presented in the manual. Time in flight makes your scenario un plausible as this discrepancy would be indicated by the aircraft fuel gauge in an airworthy condition. That would be the function of the fuel gauge.
So the FAA Investigator did not confirm gauge function – so we have no idea whether this gauge was airworthy or not. The only thing we have is a accusation of bad fuel indication with absolutely no data to support that conclusion
Scott, the only conclusion I can come to is that you’re a flight simmer with absolutely zero actual flying experience. And I don’t say this to insult or demean you, but you quite obviously have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.
The day this aircraft was certified the FAA said that the fuel gauges are only required to be accurate when the tanks are empty. This is in the NTSB report, it’s in the certification standards, it’s in the FAA Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. As certified the gauges are not accurate nor are they to be depended on. You take this pilot’s word at face value; I discount it entirely. You have obviously never been in even light chop in a Cherokee. I was yesterday, and the needles swing left and right and back again like windshield wipers. It is quite literally impossible to tell from looking at them that you have a total of 17 gallons or 6 gallons or 2.5 gallons.
This is very easy: the guy took off, climbed to 7500 feet, probably didn’t lean, and ran out of fuel. To run out of 48 gallons of fuel in 4 hours and ten minutes you have to burn 11.7 gallons per hour. Easily done.
You say there were no adverse winds, yet you have no evidence to support that. He put off the flight for weather earlier in the day. The idea that there was no wind at 7500 feet is absurd. Also, he’s at 1000 feet 9 miles from the destination airport. A little early to be at TPA, wouldn’t you say? Also, the NTSB checked all the fuel lines and everything else for signs of a leak and found nothing. It’s in the docket.
Why you believe there must be some fantastic alternative reason for a simple fuel exhaustion accident is beyond me. The guy ran out of gas, plane and simple. He took off with full fuel, flew 4.1 hours, whereupon he ran out of fuel. No fuel at the scene of the crash, no fuel leaks found either.
You can continue to theorize all you want. You obviously don’t have the first blessed clue about flying airplanes in real life.
Just found a very, very easy explanation. The weight of the airplane at the time of the accident was 1820 pounds. Empty a 180 D weighs 1230 pounds, and max. gross is 2400 pounds. They had two people and “cargo” on board. All here:
http://dms.ntsb.gov/public/56000-56499/56387/556215.pdf
Avgas weighs 6 pounds per gallon. So with full fuel the fuel weighs 300 pounds. So the weight of the airplane plus the fuel at takeoff would have been 2120 pounds. That leaves 280 pounds for 2 adult males.
So they were at or (and likely) above max gross at takeoff. And you’re saying it’s impossible that a 180 at max gross burns 11.7 gallons per hour. Right….
Mike,
I certainly would not run out of gas in this or any other situation. I fly 45 minutes off my left main, 1:25 until my aux tanks are empty, 1:25 until my right main is exhausted. My left main now contains 15 gallons of fuel. Mu fuel system returns 3 gph to the left main. When I make that switch, I’m 1/2 hour from landing. My fuel consumption is 10.5 gph. Anything different than that my time to empty my aux and right main will be less than 1:25. No matter what the time I will be on the ground in 1/2 hour. I fly that way every time I fly any distance. I will not be cought trying to stretch or sweat fuel.
Aviation is a very unforgiving mistress.
Aviate, navigate, communicate, in that order, or the ground will rise up and smite you.
I agree with your comment, Stu.
It is very evident this pilot used a clock he is charting his course by time and waypoint and reflecting on fuel level. Chart his progress on Google earth from his testimony. He did exactly what you do and he still ran out of fuel. When you chart it it becomes crystal clear. The issue is that we are so biased nobody bothers to look
If 10 Gallons an hour is normal fuel burn I would figure 13 to 14 gallons for the first hour 4 taxi and climb out also if you’re not careful you may think the tanks are full but there’s still two to three gallons from truly topped off. My 182 RG has a five-hour range 2-0 fuel so I limit my flights to 4 hours max
Considering 10 GPH at Lean Mixture and 50 gallons total for the slightly over 4 hours flight that was just cutting things too close at least for my own comfort. They did not mention Fuel Flow at Full Rich and I did not see any mention of the pilot having actually leaned the mixture so no telling what his actual consumption would be. And why the discussion of Fuel Tank Pressure? I have flown that type aircraft and do not recall any fuel system pressure gauges and have never seen a fuel tank pressure gauge on any type aircraft.
So bottom line is he rolled the dice and trusted an instrument that everyone should have been taught is just short of worthless at best of times. The three hour point would have been the right place to stop for refueling, after that much time a stretch is in order to avoid DVT and the bladder would probably do with a pit stop as well. Hard to figure why he pressed on with what would have been marginal fuel reserves at best when he stated he was prepared to make the stop if the situation indicated it.
And so another airframe bites the dust and the fleet of affordable aircraft continues to shrink. At least this means that there will be more spares on the used parts market for those who do understand that aircraft need an uninterrupted stream of fuel to remain in flight.
Fuel Pressure was his indication of a loss of fuel source
Piper is very meticulous about setting the sender and gauge position in the maintenance manual.
Strange that an airworthy aircraft is allowed to deteriorate to “worthless at the best of times”
Yes they are frustrating to make right – But to ignore them, or not maintain or replace them is a tragedy waiting to happen. Because some mis informed CFI told you that, doesn’t make it right or correct.
Airworthy is functional, Airworthy is not “worthless”
I have the maintenance manual in front of me – It has a fixture that you are to place the fuel sender in and the required parameters it has to operate in.
It also says that if it is erratic or has dead spots it is to be replaced.
Why is OK to fly aircraft with non-functional equipment, that has clear and concise instructions for repair and replacement – because we decided to call it “worthless” – this system gets a free pass.
Actually, a fuel gauge can be functional and not accurate, but it must read EMPTY when the tanks are EMPTY. I’ve seen gauges that read other than empty when the tank is empty when doing maintenance on aircraft and these need adjusting. Just like the gauge in your car might work(is functional), but is not necessarily accurate. I doubt that you can have a gauge read the quantity of the fuel level in a tank at any given time except when it is empty.
So which is is –
Do you need functional fuel gauges for flight per Part 91
or
Do you need non functional gauges based on the Pilot Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge
A fuel gauges that only reads accurately at zero fuel are non-functional, in the same manner that airspeed indicators that only are accurate at stall are non-functional.
I still can’t believe that someone in either the FAA or NTSB puts this obviously conflicted information into print