Check your gas.

[Ken S. Tucker]

Meticulous pilot runs out of gas and can't land in a corn field!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20091129/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_flying_on_empty

Must have got his license from Canadian Tire.
Ken

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 30, 1:53*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> Meticulous pilot runs out of gas and can't land in a corn field!
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20091129/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_f...
>
> Must have got his license from Canadian Tire.
> Ken

I wonder how often these fuel exhaustions happen because the pilot
might have forgotten to lean his mixture or had a petcock leak and
drain away fuel, as opposed to planning a 4 hour XC with 3 + 50 of
fuel aboard?

My fuel management plan is simple, but has worked so far. I taxi out
on the least full tank (so I know it's working), do run up and so
forth on the tank I intend to use for take off (some check lists have
the PIC switch to the most full tank after run up -- I would not
switch tanks and then take off!). I burn away half the fuel in the the
take off tank, switch to the other, and it doesn't matter if my
ultimate destination is just 50 miles ahead, when I switch back to the
initial tank, thought to be half full, I will land for fuel. I don't
ever remember needing more than 45 gallons to fill both tanks in the
Mooney. and those flights include some quite long VMC cross country
flights (Long Beach CA to the east coast comes to mind),

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> Meticulous pilot runs out of gas and can't land in a corn field!
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20091129/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_flying_on_
> empty
>
> Must have got his license from Canadian Tire.

This sort of thing always comes to mind when people ask me about the
danger of flying gliders. Not having an engine is an asset, not a risk,
it's one less thing to go wrong!

Somewhat more seriously... I understand that there are various obstacles
to having reliable fuel quantity indicators in a light aircraft, but I
bet that it must be possible. How difficult and expensive would a good
one end up being, and what would it look like?

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[george]

On Dec 1, 11:59*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Meticulous pilot runs out of gas and can't land in a corn field!
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20091129/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_f...
> > empty
>
> > Must have got his license from Canadian Tire.
>
> This sort of thing always comes to mind when people ask me about the
> danger of flying gliders. Not having an engine is an asset, not a risk,
> it's one less thing to go wrong!
>
> Somewhat more seriously... I understand that there are various obstacles
> to having reliable fuel quantity indicators in a light aircraft, but I
> bet that it must be possible. How difficult and expensive would a good
> one end up being, and what would it look like?

a piece of dowelling!
I used a dip stick to measure the amount of fuel -every- time I went
flying.

[Darkwing]

"george" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 1, 11:59 am, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Meticulous pilot runs out of gas and can't land in a corn field!
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20091129/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_f...
> > empty
>
> > Must have got his license from Canadian Tire.
>
> This sort of thing always comes to mind when people ask me about the
> danger of flying gliders. Not having an engine is an asset, not a risk,
> it's one less thing to go wrong!
>
> Somewhat more seriously... I understand that there are various obstacles
> to having reliable fuel quantity indicators in a light aircraft, but I
> bet that it must be possible. How difficult and expensive would a good
> one end up being, and what would it look like?

>a piece of dowelling!
>I used a dip stick to measure the amount of fuel -every- time I went
>flying.

Didn't work for the Gimli Glider!

[Mark]

On Nov 30, 1:53*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> Meticulous pilot runs out of gas and can't land in a corn field!
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20091129/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_f...
>
> Must have got his license from Canadian Tire.
> Ken

That's what happened to a Beech King Air turbo a
couple of weeks ago near me. Ran out of gas, for
as yet undetermined reasons. Shame to see such
a nice plane totalled, but at least no fatalities.

The guys at Stevens have a good reputation.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20091111/NEWS/911110344/1004/NEWS01/Plane-that-crashed-at-GSP-had-half-a-gallon-of-fuel

---
Mark

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
george > wrote:

> On Dec 1, 11:59*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >
> > > Meticulous pilot runs out of gas and can't land in a corn field!
> >
> > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20091129/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_f...
> > > empty
> >
> > > Must have got his license from Canadian Tire.
> >
> > This sort of thing always comes to mind when people ask me about the
> > danger of flying gliders. Not having an engine is an asset, not a risk,
> > it's one less thing to go wrong!
> >
> > Somewhat more seriously... I understand that there are various obstacles
> > to having reliable fuel quantity indicators in a light aircraft, but I
> > bet that it must be possible. How difficult and expensive would a good
> > one end up being, and what would it look like?
>
> a piece of dowelling!
> I used a dip stick to measure the amount of fuel -every- time I went
> flying.

Good point there. Simple technology works well for that. However, what I
*meant* to ask about is how you could have a reliable fuel indicator
that could be read while in flight? Checking on the ground is certainly
a good idea no matter what sort of gauges you might have, but it would
be useful to be able to detect when you're using more than you think, or
just have a reminder.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Flaps_50!]

On Dec 1, 2:00*pm, Mark > wrote:
> On Nov 30, 1:53*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Meticulous pilot runs out of gas and can't land in a corn field!
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20091129/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_f...
>
> > Must have got his license from Canadian Tire.
> > Ken
>
> That's what happened to a Beech King Air turbo a
> couple of weeks ago near me. Ran out of gas, for
> as yet undetermined reasons. Shame to see such
> a nice plane totalled, but at least no fatalities.
>
> The guys at Stevens have a good reputation.
>
> http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20091111/NEWS/911110344/1004/...
>

I'd like to know how many fuel exhaustions were associated with a
successful emergency off-field landing. Running out of fuel should
not automatically lead to a crash/fatality if the pilot practices his
emergency procedures regularly. This does not excuse the need to have
30+ mins excess over plan of course.

Cheers
Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Dec 1, 11:59*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Meticulous pilot runs out of gas and can't land in a corn field!
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20091129/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_f...
> > empty
>
> > Must have got his license from Canadian Tire.
>
> This sort of thing always comes to mind when people ask me about the
> danger of flying gliders. Not having an engine is an asset, not a risk,
> it's one less thing to go wrong!
>
> Somewhat more seriously... I understand that there are various obstacles
> to having reliable fuel quantity indicators in a light aircraft, but I
> bet that it must be possible. How difficult and expensive would a good
> one end up being, and what would it look like?
>
I agree that removing the engine might reduce the probability of a
mechanical failure, and yet the stats say gliders have more
accidents.
Among fixed-wing powered aircraft, the rate for single-engine piston
airplanes was 9.32 accidents and 1.79 fatal accidents per 100,000
hours flown. Glider operations had 28.06 accidents and 4.95 fatal
accidents per 100,000 hours flown (2005 figures). How can this be
explained -is it the landing out that is the problem or the launch (or
something else)?

Cheers

[Jim Logajan]

"Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> I'd like to know how many fuel exhaustions were associated with a
> successful emergency off-field landing.

The AOPA writes a yearly report on accidents (see
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html) that addresses questions
like that; here's the latest one:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/08nall.pdf

Go to page 14 and you should find an approximate answer - at least for the
year they examined in that report.

[Mxsmanic]

Flaps_50! writes:

> I agree that removing the engine might reduce the probability of a
> mechanical failure, and yet the stats say gliders have more
> accidents.

Both gliders and powered aircraft require a source of propulsion, even if it
isn't the same source. Neither source of propulsion is completely reliable.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Flaps_50! writes:
>
> > I agree that removing the engine might reduce the probability of a
> > mechanical failure, and yet the stats say gliders have more
> > accidents.
>
> Both gliders and powered aircraft require a source of propulsion, even if it
> isn't the same source. Neither source of propulsion is completely reliable.

The difference is that a glider's energy source is so UNreliable that no
sane pilot would ever count on it being there, and the glide performance
is necessarily so large, thus a safe landing spot is always kept within
range.

As for the stats, I speculate that the main reason the glider stats are
worse is because the "GA" stat includes lots of big corporate jets which
have more airliner-like safety stats. My *guess* is that comparing small
planes to gliders will reveal more similar levels of risk, but I could
easily be wrong on that.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Nov 30, 5:00 pm, Mark > wrote:
> On Nov 30, 1:53 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Meticulous pilot runs out of gas and can't land in a corn field!
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20091129/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_f...
>
> > Must have got his license from Canadian Tire.
> > Ken
>
> That's what happened to a Beech King Air turbo a
> couple of weeks ago near me. Ran out of gas, for
> as yet undetermined reasons. Shame to see such
> a nice plane totalled, but at least no fatalities.
>
> The guys at Stevens have a good reputation.
>
> http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20091111/NEWS/911110344/1004/...
> Mark

OOPs....
Well for small a/c (I'm Cessna 152), I fill my own and
check for water and of course color.
Otherwise, read the meter of the gas input or trust the
fella loading you.
Every Flight Manual has a fuel consumption rate graph
as a function of power/rpm/cruising speed, so at flight
planning, a time and range can be estimated that does
not rely on the fuel gauge, which is accurate to +/- 10%.
So a cross check of a wrist watch with the fuel gauge
is a no-brainer.
Ken

[Flaps_50!]

On Dec 1, 5:32*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Flaps_50! writes:
>
> > > I agree that removing the engine might reduce the probability of a
> > > mechanical failure, and yet the stats say gliders have more
> > > accidents.
>
> > Both gliders and powered aircraft require a source of propulsion, even if it
> > isn't the same source. Neither source of propulsion is completely reliable.
>
> The difference is that a glider's energy source is so UNreliable that no
> sane pilot would ever count on it being there, and the glide performance
> is necessarily so large, thus a safe landing spot is always kept within
> range.
>
> As for the stats, I speculate that the main reason the glider stats are
> worse is because the "GA" stat includes lots of big corporate jets which
> have more airliner-like safety stats. My *guess* is that comparing small
> planes to gliders will reveal more similar levels of risk, but I could
> easily be wrong on that.
>

I posted the figures for single engine -not usually the class of a
corporate jet...
Seems like glider piloting is a problem (it can't be the iron fairy)
or is there another cause?

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Dec 1, 4:59*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> > I'd like to know how many fuel exhaustions were associated with a
> > successful emergency off-field *landing.
>
> The AOPA writes a yearly report on accidents (seehttp://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html) that addresses questions
> like that; here's the latest one:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/08nall.pdf
>
> Go to page 14 and you should find an approximate answer - at least for the
> year they examined in that report.

Thnx. So many fuel incidents!

Cheers

[VOR_DME]

In article >,
says...

I understand that there are various obstacles
>to having reliable fuel quantity indicators in a light aircraft, but I
>bet that it must be possible. How difficult and expensive would a good
>one end up being, and what would it look like?
>


I don’t know if it still holds true, but as of a year or so ago, Flying mag
indicated there had not yet been a fuel exhaustion accident in any of the new
(post 1998) Cessnas, with improved fuel gauges and low fuel warning lights.

The "old-style" gauges were considered by many to be unreliable. I’m not sure
they were as bad as people claimed - they flick on and off frequently, but you
can usually tell when it is indicating something meaningful and when it is
just off. I can imagine if you fly down to very low levels (guessing here,
because I’ve never done this) the distinction may not be so clear, and
repeated lore has it that pilots have flown the tanks dry thinking their
gauges were simply inop.

I learned the same as most here, to calculate time based on known quantities,
reliable fuel burns and to use dipsticks as well, however I agree with -a-
that an unusual fuel burn or a leak can only be detected if you have
instruments you can trust.
There are fuel exhaustion accidents that result from other causes than running
dry as well. Taxying out on the AUX tank to make sure it is working is a good
idea, but not possible in all planes. Some aircraft return part of the fuel
from the aux tanks to the mains, so you can not switch to aux before burning
away some of what’s in the mains, if they are full. Other planes have tip
tanks which cannot be accessed if you wait until the mains are dry and a vapor
lock develops. Planes have crashed with ample fuel reserves that pilots have
been unable to access (or didn’t know how).
Fuel management in small planes deserves some thought above and beyond the
simple question of "having enough". Switching tanks in flight is usually a
trivial affair, but sometimes meets with unexpected results (blissful
silence). Good idea to give some thought to when and where you are going to do
this, and what options are available if it goes awry.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
VOR_DME > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>
> I understand that there are various obstacles
> >to having reliable fuel quantity indicators in a light aircraft, but I
> >bet that it must be possible. How difficult and expensive would a good
> >one end up being, and what would it look like?
>
> I don’t know if it still holds true, but as of a year or so ago, Flying mag
> indicated there had not yet been a fuel exhaustion accident in any of the new
> (post 1998) Cessnas, with improved fuel gauges and low fuel warning lights.
>
> The "old-style" gauges were considered by many to be unreliable. I’m not sure
> they were as bad as people claimed - they flick on and off frequently, but
> you
> can usually tell when it is indicating something meaningful and when it is
> just off. I can imagine if you fly down to very low levels (guessing here,
> because I’ve never done this) the distinction may not be so clear, and
> repeated lore has it that pilots have flown the tanks dry thinking their
> gauges were simply inop.
>
> I learned the same as most here, to calculate time based on known quantities,
> reliable fuel burns and to use dipsticks as well, however I agree with -a-
> that an unusual fuel burn or a leak can only be detected if you have
> instruments you can trust.
> There are fuel exhaustion accidents that result from other causes than
> running
> dry as well. Taxying out on the AUX tank to make sure it is working is a good
> idea, but not possible in all planes. Some aircraft return part of the fuel
> from the aux tanks to the mains, so you can not switch to aux before burning
> away some of what’s in the mains, if they are full. Other planes have tip
> tanks which cannot be accessed if you wait until the mains are dry and a
> vapor
> lock develops. Planes have crashed with ample fuel reserves that pilots have
> been unable to access (or didn’t know how).
> Fuel management in small planes deserves some thought above and beyond the
> simple question of "having enough". Switching tanks in flight is usually a
> trivial affair, but sometimes meets with unexpected results (blissful
> silence). Good idea to give some thought to when and where you are going to
> do
> this, and what options are available if it goes awry.

Thanks for the discussion and all the info. While I don't know if it'll
ever be directly useful to me, it doesn't hurt to know, and it's all
very interesting.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[a[_3_]]

On Dec 1, 11:17*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *VOR_DME > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
>
> > *I understand that there are various obstacles
> > >to having reliable fuel quantity indicators in a light aircraft, but I
> > >bet that it must be possible. How difficult and expensive would a good
> > >one end up being, and what would it look like?
>
> > I don’t know if it still holds true, but as of a year or so ago, Flying mag
> > indicated there had not yet been a fuel exhaustion accident in any of the new
> > (post 1998) Cessnas, with improved fuel gauges and low fuel warning lights.
>
> > The "old-style" gauges were considered by many to be unreliable. I’m not sure
> > they were as bad as people claimed - they flick on and off frequently, but
> > you
> > can usually tell when it is indicating something meaningful and when it is
> > just off. I can imagine if you fly down to very low levels (guessing here,
> > because I’ve never done this) the distinction may not be so clear, and
> > repeated lore has it that pilots have flown the tanks dry thinking their
> > gauges were simply inop.
>
> > I learned the same as most here, to calculate time based on known quantities,
> > reliable fuel burns and to use dipsticks as well, however I agree with *-a-
> > that an unusual fuel burn or a leak can only be detected if you have
> > instruments you can trust.
> > There are fuel exhaustion accidents that result from other causes than
> > running
> > dry as well. Taxying out on the AUX tank to make sure it is working is a good
> > idea, but not possible in all planes. Some aircraft return part of the fuel
> > from the aux tanks to the mains, so you can not switch to aux before burning
> > away some of what’s in the mains, if they are full. Other planes have tip
> > tanks which cannot be accessed if you wait until the mains are dry and a
> > vapor
> > lock develops. Planes have crashed with ample fuel reserves that pilots have
> > been unable to access (or didn’t know how).
> > Fuel management in small planes deserves some thought above and beyond the
> > simple question of "having enough". Switching tanks in flight is usually a
> > trivial affair, but sometimes meets with unexpected results (blissful
> > silence). Good idea to give some thought to when and where you are going to
> > do
> > this, and what options are available if it goes awry.
>
> Thanks for the discussion and all the info. While I don't know if it'll
> ever be directly useful to me, it doesn't hurt to know, and it's all
> very interesting.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Uh, Mike, that thing you're pushing on the other end of the tow rope
-- in spite of the push it does burn that gas stuff.

Is there ever a time during a tow that you don't have enough energy to
get back to the field?

I've long ago lost the notion of flying around for 'fun', the airplane
has been a point to point tool, pretty much like a car is (that I
smile a lot when flying does NOT make it non-business). Now you have
me thinking all flying need not be expense account stuff. Should you
be thanked, or cursed?

I wonder the same thing about the person who introduced me to golf.
It's a game that provides seconds of delight separated by minutes (or
longer) of agony. Off topic -- I was asked, when attempting a shot
from an impossible lie, if I had practiced that shot before, and
pointed out I hit the ball to where it was with shots I had practiced!

And now, back to work.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 30, 9:02*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> if the pilot practices his
> emergency procedures regularly.

Since you allegedly fly a plane, when was the last time you practiced
your emergency procedures OUTSIDE a simulator?

How often do you practice OUTSIDE a simulator to define regularly?
Once a day, once a month, once a year?

Very direct questions above. Can you give me direct answers?

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
a > wrote:

> > Thanks for the discussion and all the info. While I don't know if it'll
> > ever be directly useful to me, it doesn't hurt to know, and it's all
> > very interesting.
>
> Uh, Mike, that thing you're pushing on the other end of the tow rope
> -- in spite of the push it does burn that gas stuff.

Oh yes! I didn't mean to imply that gas-burners weren't useful to me!
Rather, I simply meant that the tow pilots know way more about this sort
of thing than I do, and so I pretty much just have to trust them to get
things right. (The mutual trust goes both ways, as I could just as
easily get him killed as he could get me killed.)

> Is there ever a time during a tow that you don't have enough energy to
> get back to the field?

Yes there is, for a short period of time.

On a normal tow out of my field, there's a tense zone between about 50ft
and 150ft where I'm too high to land on the remaining runway and too low
to do a 180 back to the runway. If we're operating off runway 27,
there's a decent-looking field off the end that I could use in the event
of an emergency in that region, and it's *likely* that it would just be
a big inconvenience. Off runway 9, there are fields but nothing very
friendly, and it would probably ruin my day to have to go into one.

Aside from this short window, I'm fine. I still don't want to ha

> I've long ago lost the notion of flying around for 'fun', the airplane
> has been a point to point tool, pretty much like a car is (that I
> smile a lot when flying does NOT make it non-business). Now you have
> me thinking all flying need not be expense account stuff. Should you
> be thanked, or cursed?
>
> I wonder the same thing about the person who introduced me to golf.
> It's a game that provides seconds of delight separated by minutes (or
> longer) of agony. Off topic -- I was asked, when attempting a shot
> from an impossible lie, if I had practiced that shot before, and
> pointed out I hit the ball to where it was with shots I had practiced!
>
> And now, back to work.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mike Ash > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> a > wrote:
>
> > > Thanks for the discussion and all the info. While I don't know if it'll
> > > ever be directly useful to me, it doesn't hurt to know, and it's all
> > > very interesting.
> >
> > Uh, Mike, that thing you're pushing on the other end of the tow rope
> > -- in spite of the push it does burn that gas stuff.
>
> Oh yes! I didn't mean to imply that gas-burners weren't useful to me!
> Rather, I simply meant that the tow pilots know way more about this sort
> of thing than I do, and so I pretty much just have to trust them to get
> things right. (The mutual trust goes both ways, as I could just as
> easily get him killed as he could get me killed.)
>
> > Is there ever a time during a tow that you don't have enough energy to
> > get back to the field?
>
> Yes there is, for a short period of time.
>
> On a normal tow out of my field, there's a tense zone between about 50ft
> and 150ft where I'm too high to land on the remaining runway and too low
> to do a 180 back to the runway. If we're operating off runway 27,
> there's a decent-looking field off the end that I could use in the event
> of an emergency in that region, and it's *likely* that it would just be
> a big inconvenience. Off runway 9, there are fields but nothing very
> friendly, and it would probably ruin my day to have to go into one.
>
> Aside from this short window, I'm fine. I still don't want to ha

So, I just discovered that my newsreader has a keyboard shortcut for
sending a message. I did not know this before!

Anyway, to continue....

I still don't want to have anything happen, because the tow plane's
ability to make it back to the airport is far less than my own, and the
guy flying it is probably a friend. And of course, I'd rather not have
to spontaneously test my emergency responses if I can help it (although
once I'm past 1,000ft or so, a premature termination of the tow isn't
really an emergency anymore). But for the bulk of the tow, it's more of
an indirect worry.

> > I've long ago lost the notion of flying around for 'fun', the airplane
> > has been a point to point tool, pretty much like a car is (that I
> > smile a lot when flying does NOT make it non-business). Now you have
> > me thinking all flying need not be expense account stuff. Should you
> > be thanked, or cursed?

That's a great question. Maybe you should go try some fun flying and
see. :)

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> The difference is that a glider's energy source is so UNreliable that no
> sane pilot would ever count on it being there, and the glide performance
> is necessarily so large, thus a safe landing spot is always kept within
> range.

Is it reasonable to think of altitude as the glider equivalent of fuel, or is
that too much of a simplification to be useful? In the sense of a resource
that must be carefully managed, I mean. In a powered aircraft, you can "buy"
more altitude in exchange for fuel, if you run low, but in a glider, you have
only what nature has chosen to provide, although I suppose you can search for
naturally occurring "wellsprings" of altitude from which you can draw to
extend your flight.

[Jeffrey Bloss]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:21:46 -0800 (PST), Flaps_50! wrote:

> I agree that removing the engine might reduce the probability of a
> mechanical failure,

LOL

What does a mechanical failure on a sim have to do with this thread?
--
_?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
grok! Devoted Microsoft User

[Jeffrey Bloss]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:00:51 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:

> That's what happened to a Beech King Air turbo a
> couple of weeks ago near me. Ran out of gas, for
> as yet undetermined reasons.

Uh, lessee, engine burn?
--
_?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
grok! Devoted Microsoft User

[Jeffrey Bloss]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:08:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

> On Nov 30, 9:02*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
>> if the pilot practices his
>> emergency procedures regularly.
>
> Since you allegedly fly a plane, when was the last time you practiced
> your emergency procedures OUTSIDE a simulator?
>
> How often do you practice OUTSIDE a simulator to define regularly?
> Once a day, once a month, once a year?
>
> Very direct questions above. Can you give me direct answers?

As often as Mxsmanic?
--
_?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
grok! Devoted Microsoft User

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Mike Ash writes:
>
> > The difference is that a glider's energy source is so UNreliable that no
> > sane pilot would ever count on it being there, and the glide performance
> > is necessarily so large, thus a safe landing spot is always kept within
> > range.
>
> Is it reasonable to think of altitude as the glider equivalent of fuel, or is
> that too much of a simplification to be useful? In the sense of a resource
> that must be carefully managed, I mean. In a powered aircraft, you can "buy"
> more altitude in exchange for fuel, if you run low, but in a glider, you have
> only what nature has chosen to provide, although I suppose you can search for
> naturally occurring "wellsprings" of altitude from which you can draw to
> extend your flight.

It's somewhat oversimplified, but yes, altitude is essentially fuel for
a glider.

During my wave flight this past weekend, I gave my brother a quiz,
partially to educate him and partially to check us both for signs of
hypoxia. We were somewhere around 10,000ft at the time. The quiz was
this: if we simply turned downwind and went as far as we could, how far
would we get? The answer was amazingly large, something like 80 miles.
We got up to 25 miles away from the home field on that flight, but I
always knew I had enough "fuel" to get us home.

In contrast, if you're down at 1,000ft above the ground, you had better
have a landing spot right there.

I call it "oversimplified" because altitude is fuel for powered aircraft
too, it's just a small proportion of what they usually have on board.
And both also have energy of speed. (A zoom climb from Vne can net me
several hundred feet.) Really, the proper term is energy. Powered
aircraft have three types: fuel on board, altitude, and speed. A glider
still has two of the three.

Searching for those "naturally occurring 'wellsprings'", which we call
"lift" (because it's always a great idea to use the same word for two
completely different things) is the whole point of soaring flight.
Towing up and gliding down gets boring after a while, and isn't really
all that hard, either. I was reasonably good at that only two months
into my training. Three years later, I still feel only semi-decent at
finding and using lift, and fully expect to spend the rest of my life
working at it.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[[email protected]]

On Dec 1, 12:17*pm, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:

> As often as Mxsmanic?

That would be my guess LOL

[vaughn[_2_]]

"Mike Ash" > wrote in message
...
> In contrast, if you're down at 1,000ft above the ground, you had better
> have a landing spot right there.

At that point (depending on your glider and conditions) you have perhaps 3
minutes of fuel in your "tank".

Vaughn

[vaughn[_2_]]

"Flaps_50!" > wrote in message
...

>Seems like glider piloting is a problem (it can't be the iron fairy)
>or is there another cause?

Measuring accidents on the basis of flight hours does not necessarily give you
the whole picture. If you had ever spent much time at a glider training
operation, you would quickly see part of the difference between power training
and glider training, and how the statistics can get skewed when you only look at
flight hours. Glider primary training flights tend to be so short that students
traditionally count "flights" rather than "hours". With gliders or airplanes,
accidents happen overwhelmingly on takeoff or landing. As it turns out, glider
students spend a greater percentage of their flight time in those two
(statistically more dangerous) phases of flight.

Vaughn

[vaughn[_2_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> Well for small a/c (I'm Cessna 152), I fill my own and
> check for water and of course color.
> Otherwise, read the meter of the gas input or trust the
> fella loading you.

No way! (I suspect Ken is another who flies about as much as Mx) I don't care
if you watched the guy top off your tank and now both guages read full. The
wise pilot still visually checks the fuel level before flight (eyeball, finger,
or dip stick). While you are at it, make sure that both filler caps are on
tight.

> Every Flight Manual has a fuel consumption rate graph
> as a function of power/rpm/cruising speed, so at flight
> planning, a time and range can be estimated that does
> not rely on the fuel gauge, which is accurate to +/- 10%.

I would LOVE to have a Cessna with a fuel guage that was accurate to +/- 10%.
On every Cessna I have ever flown, the fuel guages were best described as
semi-usless crap. Do I look at them? Yes; because in-flight they are your only
direct evidence of remaining fuel. Do I trust them? No!

> So a cross check of a wrist watch with the fuel gauge
> is a no-brainer.
> Ken

Vaughn

[a[_3_]]

On Dec 1, 4:09*pm, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > Well for small a/c (I'm Cessna 152), I fill my own and
> > check for water and of course color.
> > Otherwise, read the meter of the gas input or trust the
> > fella loading you.
>
> No way! *(I suspect Ken is another who flies about as much as Mx) *I don't care
> if you watched the guy top off your tank and now both guages read full. *The
> wise pilot still visually checks the fuel level before flight (eyeball, finger,
> or dip stick). *While you are at it, make sure that both filler caps are on
> tight.
>
> > Every Flight Manual has a fuel consumption rate graph
> > as a function of power/rpm/cruising speed, so at flight
> > planning, a time and range can be estimated that does
> > not rely on the fuel gauge, which is accurate to +/- 10%.
>
> I would LOVE to have a Cessna with a fuel guage that was accurate to +/- 10%.
> On every Cessna I have ever flown, the fuel guages were best described as
> semi-usless crap. *Do I look at them? *Yes; because in-flight they are your only
> direct evidence of remaining fuel. *Do I trust them? *No!
>
> > So a cross check of a wrist watch with the fuel gauge
> > is a no-brainer.
> > Ken
>
> Vaughn

The real worry I have about fuel exhaustion, since I almost always
take off with full tanks visually confirmed, is a leak or mis leaning
the engine on a long flight. Not being exact in leaning -- say, going
from 5 to 11 thousand feet without adjusting things -- can change burn
from 9 to 11 or 12 gallons an hour. I do my tank switching by fuel
gauge or clock, whichever is more conservative. As it happens the fuel
gauges on the Mooney are within a few gallons of 16 gallons when they
are indicating half full (they are effectively being calibrated each
time fuel is put into a tank that is thought to be half full) so that
time or gauge redundancy offers some comfort.

Many of the suggestions/comments here may actually cause thoughtful
pilots to modify their check list -- that would mean this newsgroup is
serving a useful purpose.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"vaughn" > wrote:

> "Flaps_50!" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >Seems like glider piloting is a problem (it can't be the iron fairy)
> >or is there another cause?
>
> Measuring accidents on the basis of flight hours does not necessarily give
> you
> the whole picture. If you had ever spent much time at a glider training
> operation, you would quickly see part of the difference between power
> training
> and glider training, and how the statistics can get skewed when you only look
> at
> flight hours. Glider primary training flights tend to be so short that
> students
> traditionally count "flights" rather than "hours". With gliders or
> airplanes,
> accidents happen overwhelmingly on takeoff or landing. As it turns out,
> glider
> students spend a greater percentage of their flight time in those two
> (statistically more dangerous) phases of flight.

Very true, and there are a lot of other factors as well.

1) Gliders spend a significant amount of time flying in close proximity
to tow planes and other gliders. Two people were just killed this past
weekend in California in such an accident. Mid-air collisions are a
bigger threat than they might be in powered aircraft. There's even a
system called FLARM which was designed specifically to warn gliders of
other gliders on a collision course. (Not yet available in the US due to
our lawyerly nature, alas.)

2) A glider pilot's ideal day is very different from a power pilot's
ideal day. A fantastic day with booming lift is not much different from
a dangerous day where the winds are too dangerous, or thunderstorms will
lurk. Activities like ridge running can put gliders in close proximity
to terrain in strong turbulence for extended periods of time.

3) Many gliders are rigged by their pilots every day before flying. A
mistake during rigging can be fatal.

4) Landing patterns must be adjusted to match conditions, because the
pilot only has one shot at it and the amount of energy he has to land
with is relatively small. If the pilot experiences strong sink, strong
winds, or just arriving too low, he must have the mental flexibility to
abandon a standard square pattern and do whatever it takes to get to the
runway safely. Many will get stuck in their habitual pattern and it can
be fatal when it doesn't work out.

Of all of these, the only one that really happens *because* there's no
engine, as opposed to simply being an aspect of a sport that's built on
flying planes with no engines, is the last one. That one is not a
substantial risk as long as you maintain the necessary mental
flexibility in the pattern.

#1 can be managed with smart procedures and equipment, although not
eliminated.

#2 is completely up to the individual pilot. Many people will stay home
on a screaming ridge/wave day because it means strong turbulence and
gusts at the airport, and they don't want to deal with it. I personally
have substantially different standards for my own personal flying as
compared to taking a passenger.

#3, like so many things in aviation, can be mitigated with checklists,
checklists, checklists.

Is gliding more dangerous than regular powered flight? The stats seem to
say so, and I won't disagree. However, I don't see the danger as being
because there's no engine, as people sometimes ask me about, but rather
other factors.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"vaughn" > wrote:

> "Mike Ash" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In contrast, if you're down at 1,000ft above the ground, you had better
> > have a landing spot right there.
>
> At that point (depending on your glider and conditions) you have perhaps 3
> minutes of fuel in your "tank".

More like 7-10 minutes. Minimum sink rate in a typical glider will be
100-150 feet per minute. (Of course our patterns only last about 2
minutes, because we burn it off artificially in order to get down.)

Still a very small amount, and that's why you must have your landing
spot picked out and decided upon by that time.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[-b-[_4_]]

In article >,
says...

>I would LOVE to have a Cessna with a fuel guage that was accurate to +/- 10%.
>On every Cessna I have ever flown, the fuel guages were best described as
>semi-usless crap. Do I look at them? Yes; because in-flight they are your
only
>direct evidence of remaining fuel. Do I trust them? No!
>


One little trick for Cessna drivers -
I've observed on many of the earlier 172's and 182's the fuel gauges are on
the same electrical circuit and fuse as the electric turn coordinator. If your
gauges are pegged at empty, try a few shallow banks to see if the TC is alive.
If not, and if your calculations indicate you should have fuel, you may
consider a simple (and rather common) electrical failure. On the other hand,
if the gauges are on 'E' and the TC is alive, you may want to consider getting
back to terra firma. Your mileage may vary - check your specific airplane.

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Flaps_50! writes:
>
>> I agree that removing the engine might reduce the probability of a
>> mechanical failure, and yet the stats say gliders have more
>> accidents.
>
> Both gliders and powered aircraft require a source of propulsion, even if
> it
> isn't the same source. Neither source of propulsion is completely
> reliable.


Hi Captain Obvious.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Dec 1, 1:09 pm, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > Well for small a/c (I'm Cessna 152), I fill my own and
> > check for water and of course color.
> > Otherwise, read the meter of the gas input or trust the
> > fella loading you.
>
> No way! (I suspect Ken is another who flies about as much as Mx) I don't care
> if you watched the guy top off your tank and now both guages read full. The
> wise pilot still visually checks the fuel level before flight (eyeball, finger,
> or dip stick). While you are at it, make sure that both filler caps are on
> tight.
>
> > Every Flight Manual has a fuel consumption rate graph
> > as a function of power/rpm/cruising speed, so at flight
> > planning, a time and range can be estimated that does
> > not rely on the fuel gauge, which is accurate to +/- 10%.
>
> I would LOVE to have a Cessna with a fuel guage that was accurate to +/- 10%.
> On every Cessna I have ever flown, the fuel guages were best described as
> semi-usless crap. Do I look at them? Yes; because in-flight they are your only
> direct evidence of remaining fuel. Do I trust them? No!
>
> > So a cross check of a wrist watch with the fuel gauge
> > is a no-brainer.
> > Ken
> Vaughn

Vaughn you're a glider enthusiast?
Anyway I'm involved with writing flight sims too.

I can see an unexpected head wind can mess up preflight planning,
cross country, if you're using long hops, which gives the pilot
a navigation problem = divert for fuel, or push to destination.
Aviation weather forecast is usually pretty good.
Ken

[Jeffrey Bloss]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:23:15 -0500, Darkwing wrote:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Flaps_50! writes:
>>
>>> I agree that removing the engine might reduce the probability of a
>>> mechanical failure, and yet the stats say gliders have more
>>> accidents.
>>
>> Both gliders and powered aircraft require a source of propulsion, even if
>> it
>> isn't the same source. Neither source of propulsion is completely
>> reliable.
>
> Hi Captain Obvious.

There you go, troll baiting, off topic comments, you're ruining this
place.
--
_?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
grok! Devoted Microsoft User

[Jeffrey Bloss]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:09:51 -0500, vaughn wrote:

> I would LOVE to have a Cessna with a fuel guage that was accurate to +/- 10%.
> On every Cessna I have ever flown, the fuel guages were best described as
> semi-usless crap. Do I look at them? Yes; because in-flight they are your only
> direct evidence of remaining fuel.

What a crock, you ever fly a Cessna? You're *best* indicator of fuel is
your watch.
--
_?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
grok! Devoted Microsoft User

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Nov 30, 10:53 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> Meticulous pilot runs out of gas and can't land in a corn field!
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20091129/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_f...
>
> Must have got his license from Canadian Tire.
> Ken

Another point I don't understand, is how one would crash
in a corn field(?), it's November, there should only be stauks.
"crashed in a northwest Iowa cornfield,"
when a dead-stick is SOP, unless the field was very rough.
I'm wondering about blood alcohol level(?).
Ken

[Mark]

On Dec 1, 1:16*pm, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:00:51 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:
> > That's what happened to a Beech King Air turbo a
> > couple of weeks ago near me. Ran out of gas, for
> > as yet undetermined reasons.
>
> Uh, lessee, engine burn?

No Blossom, they took off, and within
minutes tried to make it back but failed.
The fuel issue is under investigation.

Also, you know how you use the
little...."LOL" thing in EVERY one of
your posts? Thought you might need
to know it makes you look like a
nutcase.

You're welcome.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

On Dec 1, 2:09 pm, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > Well for small a/c (I'm Cessna 152), I fill my own and
> > check for water and of course color.
> > Otherwise, read the meter of the gas input or trust the
> > fella loading you.
>
> No way! (I suspect Ken is another who flies about as much as Mx) I don't care
> if you watched the guy top off your tank and now both guages read full. The
> wise pilot still visually checks the fuel level before flight (eyeball, finger,
> or dip stick). While you are at it, make sure that both filler caps are on
> tight.
>
> > Every Flight Manual has a fuel consumption rate graph
> > as a function of power/rpm/cruising speed, so at flight
> > planning, a time and range can be estimated that does
> > not rely on the fuel gauge, which is accurate to +/- 10%.
>
> I would LOVE to have a Cessna with a fuel guage that was accurate to +/- 10%.
> On every Cessna I have ever flown, the fuel guages were best described as
> semi-usless crap. Do I look at them? Yes; because in-flight they are your only
> direct evidence of remaining fuel. Do I trust them? No!
>
> > So a cross check of a wrist watch with the fuel gauge
> > is a no-brainer.


Cessna's gauges are maybe within 20% if they're working at
all. Many of them are out of calibration when we work on them.
They're supposed to read Empty when the level is down to the unuseable
fuel level, but sometimes they're reading empty long before that. And
some won't reach the full mark even when the tanks are full. And
there's isn't a lot you can do to fix such problems aside from bending
the float wire a bit. And some floats develop leaks that make them
ride lower in the fuel and eventually sink. If the float wire stop
tabs aren't set properly the float will tap on the tank's top or
bottom and get a hole worn in it.

Dead gauges are illegal. They're not a deferreable item as some
other instruments are. There's a common misconception that they only
have to read Empty when the tank is empty, so dead gauges are OK. But
if you read the law as it's written, they must be working.

Any properly trained pilot knows that you must dip the tanks with
a calibrated dipstick before flight. Trusting the fuel delivery guy is
making the assumption that you had a certain level before filling. And
the dipstick must be calibrated to read empty when the tanks still
contain the unuseable fuel specified in the TCDS. Unuseable fuel is
more than the fuel in the lines or whatever; it's the fuel that won't
reach the tank outlet when the aircraft might be very nose-low (full-
flap approach) or in a Vx climb. Many outlets are halfway back along
the length of the tank, and all are above the bottom a bit so that
dirt and water doesn't get into the system. If your dipstick thinks
the bottom of the tank means empty, it's inaccurate. A dead engine on
approach is the usual, eventual result.

POH fuel consumption figures are predicated on aggressive
leaning. Few PPL's I've encountered do that, so the engine is using
more than they think. And how many know how much fuel the thing is
using in the climb? It's a lot more than cruise figures.

As for the most common causes of engine failure, fuel starvation
is the second most common. Carburetor ice is the most common, by a
wide margin. There's far too little training given on the phenomenon.

Dan

[a[_3_]]

On Dec 1, 7:03*pm, Mark > wrote:
> On Dec 1, 1:16*pm, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:00:51 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:
> > > That's what happened to a Beech King Air turbo a
> > > couple of weeks ago near me. Ran out of gas, for
> > > as yet undetermined reasons.
>
> > Uh, lessee, engine burn?
>
> No Blossom, they took off, and within
> minutes tried to make it back but failed.
> The fuel issue is under investigation.
>
> Also, you know how you use the
> little...."LOL" thing in EVERY one of
> your posts? Thought you might need
> to know it makes you look like a
> nutcase.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> ---
> Mark

Mark, why do you object to him labeling himself "loser on line"?

[Flaps_50!]

On Dec 2, 6:08*am, " > wrote:
> On Nov 30, 9:02*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > if the pilot practices his
> > emergency procedures regularly.
>
> Since you allegedly fly a plane, when was the last time you practiced
> your emergency procedures OUTSIDE a simulator?
>

3 weeks ago. I don't sim -although that might save me $$ -unless I
were to pay to use a full cockpit 737 sim!

> How often do you practice OUTSIDE a simulator to define regularly?
> Once a day, once a month, once a year?
>

About every 2 months. What about you?

> Very direct questions above. *Can you give me direct answers?

If you are trying to 'prove' I don't fly real planes you should just
give up.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Dec 2, 7:13*am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:21:46 -0800 (PST), Flaps_50! wrote:
> > I agree that removing the engine might reduce the probability of a
> > mechanical failure,
>
> LOL
>
> What does a mechanical failure on a sim have to do with this thread?

I've got me a fanboi! Now tell is all what sim is best to run on your
install of Ubuntu.

Bwhahahhahaha!

[Flaps_50!]

On Dec 2, 9:32*am, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >Seems like glider piloting is a problem (it can't be the iron fairy)
> >or is there another cause?
>
> * Measuring accidents on the basis of flight hours does not necessarily give you
> the whole picture. * If you had ever spent much time at a glider training
> operation, you *would quickly see part of the difference between power training
> and glider training, and how the statistics can get skewed when you only look at
> flight hours. *Glider primary training flights tend to be so short that students
> traditionally count "flights" rather than "hours". *With gliders or airplanes,
> accidents happen overwhelmingly on takeoff or landing. * As it turns out, glider
> students spend a greater percentage of their flight time in those two
> (statistically more dangerous) phases of flight.
>
I see. Thanks.
About how many take off and landings does a student do before first
solo? In a powered plane you do about 4 /flight hour in that phase
(looking at my log book). My 3 hours solo consolidation logged 17 take
off and landings. Is that very different to gliders?
Cheers
Cheers

[Mark]

On Dec 2, 9:16*am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:03:18 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 1:16*pm, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:00:51 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:
> >>> That's what happened to a Beech King Air turbo a
> >>> couple of weeks ago near me. Ran out of gas, for
> >>> as yet undetermined reasons.
>
> >> Uh, lessee, engine burn?
>
> > No Blossom, they took off, and within
> > minutes tried to make it back but failed.
> > The fuel issue is under investigation.
>
> Hi, I see your killfile is broken as well along with your ability to
> comprehend. When did Beech KAs not burn fuel?

Duh! When there was none to burn.


> <snicker>
>
> > Also, you know how you use the
> > little...."LOL" thing in EVERY one of
> > your posts? Thought you might need
> > to know it makes you look like a
> > nutcase.
>
> > You're welcome.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> Thanks.
>
> LOL
>
> I'm an asshole but I feel in the Xmas mood so.............
>
> I have some helpful information for you.
>
> There are exactly two categories of people who might read any article
> I post. The first group comprises those who know I'm a liar, a
> plagiarist, a fraud and an idiot.

I thought we were going to talk about me.
Why must everything be about you?

> My lies and incoherent nonsense just give the first group an
> opportunity to laugh at me,

You're babbling at the mirror again.

You should do like me. Read, and listen.
If you accidently mispeak and get corrected,
which I've not done yet, but when I do...
I don't mind saying, "thanks friend".

>and any of the second group who see that
> crap will immediately migrate to the first.

So we're back to talking about you again.
Here's a thought... let us talk about
airplanes, and you go far away.

> If you want to maintain as good an image as possible, your best
bet?

Oh, so you have image advice for ME?

> Shut the **** up.

"How's that workin' out for ya?"- Dr.Phil

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Dec 1, 9:50*pm, a > wrote:
> On Dec 1, 7:03*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 1:16*pm, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:00:51 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:
> > > > That's what happened to a Beech King Air turbo a
> > > > couple of weeks ago near me. Ran out of gas, for
> > > > as yet undetermined reasons.
>
> > > Uh, lessee, engine burn?
>
> > No Blossom, they took off, and within
> > minutes tried to make it back but failed.
> > The fuel issue is under investigation.
>
> > Also, you know how you use the
> > little...."LOL" thing in EVERY one of
> > your posts? Thought you might need
> > to know it makes you look like a
> > nutcase.
>
> > You're welcome.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> Mark, why do you object to him labeling himself "loser on line"?

Oh, thanks friend. My mistake. I thought he
was a lunatic implying laughter in any and
every message, irrespective of content or
relevance.

---
Mark

[a[_3_]]

On Dec 2, 1:33*pm, Mark > wrote:
> On Dec 1, 9:50*pm, a > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 7:03*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 1, 1:16*pm, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:00:51 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:
> > > > > That's what happened to a Beech King Air turbo a
> > > > > couple of weeks ago near me. Ran out of gas, for
> > > > > as yet undetermined reasons.
>
> > > > Uh, lessee, engine burn?
>
> > > No Blossom, they took off, and within
> > > minutes tried to make it back but failed.
> > > The fuel issue is under investigation.
>
> > > Also, you know how you use the
> > > little...."LOL" thing in EVERY one of
> > > your posts? Thought you might need
> > > to know it makes you look like a
> > > nutcase.
>
> > > You're welcome.
>
> > > ---
> > > Mark
>
> > Mark, why do you object to him labeling himself "loser on line"?
>
> Oh, thanks friend. My mistake. I thought he
> was a lunatic implying laughter in any and
> every message, irrespective of content or
> relevance.
>
> ---
> Mark

Mark, I think both interpretations are correct. The thought was, we
could resort to peer review to figure out which was a better fit, but
who other than sock puppets would choose to admit being a peer to JB?
A better model would be to think of him on a dissecting table, trying
to figure out if there was a physical abnormality that was linked to
the psychological one(s).

Hmm. "Operation hell, I thought it was an autopsy!"

[[email protected]]

On Dec 2, 7:14 am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:47:43 -0800 (PST),
> wrote:

> > As for the most common causes of engine failure, fuel starvation
> > is the second most common. Carburetor ice is the most common, by a
> > wide margin. There's far too little training given on the phenomenon.
>
> > Dan
>
> What training I received was mainly about how to detect it not how to
> prevent it, what conditions, what cloud formations, etc etc...that all
> became self-help and assistance from other pilots.

And here's classic proof that the training and understanding is
deficient: That carb ice occurs only in or around clouds.

Carb ice is a threat anytime there's enough humidity and the
temperature is below 100°F. It can occur on a warm summer day. It can
occur on a cool day. It can occur on winter days when the temperature
is around 0°F. Water can exist as a liquid down to -20°C (-6°F? or
so?). The key is the distance between temperature and dewpoint: the
closer they are, the larger the likelyhood of carb ice. Checking temp
and dewpoint should be mandatory before flight but that sort of
training is rare.

And then we hear of accidents where the RPM was dropping so the
pilot pulled the carb heat, buit them the engine ran rough so they
pushed it off again. So the engine iced up and quit. Carb ice melts
into water when it's heated, and the engine runs sorta rough on water,
see, so you need to leave that carb heat on until things sort
themselves out. Sometimes the ice develops to the point that the power
drops off so far that there's no more heat in the exhaust and so no
carb heat. The airplane is doomed at that point.

The mechanics of carb ice are too little understood. The venturi
causes a pressure drop in the carb, which causes a temperature drop.
The fuel vaporizing in the carb throat absorbs heat from the air as it
evaporates, cooling things even further. The temp drop can be as large
as 70°F; add that to the freezing point of 32, and we get 102°.

Googling "carburetor ice" brings up lots of good stuff.

Dan

Dan

[Mark]

On Dec 2, 6:03*pm, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:

> > Oh, so you have image advice for ME?
>
> Sure do. Your image is of an Assclown who got his assclown-ass ignored
> because, well guess what, because everyone knows you're an assclown.

I think the people here (except you) are
quite nice, and I have no complaints. Most
of the posts are informative and appreciated,
and my experience here has been a pleasure.

And you...

Not only do I not know what you're talking
about, it's obvious to us all, that you don't
either.

---
Mark