Most experienced CFI runs out of gas

[Robert M. Gary]

The local news is reporting that a local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
of instruction giving since the early 1960's) ran out of gas just
short of the airport after picking up a P210 and flying back from
Texas to California. Boy, if it can happen to him, it can happen to
anyone. It will be interesting to see the final facts. Perhaps the
plane was burning way more gas than it should have (the plane had been
bought that day).

-Robert

[Mackfly]

>From: (Robert M. Gary)

>The local news is reporting that a local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
>of instruction giving since the early 1960's) ran out of gas just
>short of the airport after picking up a P210 and flying back from
>Texas to California. Boy, if it can happen to him, it can happen to
>anyone.

But it does not happen to everyone! hmmmmmm Mac

[Marco Leon]

Cessna 210's are notorious for running out of gas. Do some web searches. It
has something to do with the fuel tanks and how level the plane is during
refueling. One of my CFI's has it happen to him and I helped him research
the issue. The FAA took no action against him as a result.

Marco

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> The local news is reporting that a local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
> of instruction giving since the early 1960's) ran out of gas just
> short of the airport after picking up a P210 and flying back from
> Texas to California. Boy, if it can happen to him, it can happen to
> anyone. It will be interesting to see the final facts. Perhaps the
> plane was burning way more gas than it should have (the plane had been
> bought that day).
>
> -Robert

[Bob Fry]

(Robert M. Gary) writes:

> local CFI (with over 30,000 hours

Look at the hours. The more time exposed to potential incidents, the
more likely they are to happen.

[Michael]

(Robert M. Gary) wrote
> The local news is reporting that a local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
> of instruction giving since the early 1960's) ran out of gas just
> short of the airport after picking up a P210 and flying back from
> Texas to California. Boy, if it can happen to him, it can happen to
> anyone. It will be interesting to see the final facts. Perhaps the
> plane was burning way more gas than it should have (the plane had been
> bought that day).

I know a few people who have had engine stoppage occur due to excess
air in the fuel lines :) Interestingly, none of them simply forgot
and overflew their range.

One had a carburetor leaking fuel, thus dramatically increasing
consumption. He had paidto have it overhauled, but when it was torn
apart there wasn't a single part in there that was correct for make
and model AND within specs. NTSB called it pilot error.

One had fuel siphoned (stolen) from his tanks. Fortunately he ran a
tank dry way early, switched to another tank, and landed short.

I've had my airplane misfueled due to a slope. As above - I ran a
tank dry, unexpectedly, switched to another tank and landed short.

Note that if either of us had been running on 'both' there would have
been an accident.

The reality is that we have a dumb way of dealing with fuel. We use
the clock. It's dumb because it assumes we know the fuel burn and
that nothing is leaking. Too many assumptions, too easy to go wrong.
What we need are accurate fuel gauges that are cheap enough to make
retrofits sensible. As long as they have to be FAA certified, that
won't happen.

Michael

[C Kingsbury]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> (Robert M. Gary) writes:
>
> > local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
>
> Look at the hours. The more time exposed to potential incidents, the
> more likely they are to happen.

Very true. My CFI said the closest he ever came to grief was a near-gear up
landing while ferrying an Arrow, shortly after he crossed the 10,000-hour
mark. And he's precisely the sort of guy you look at and say, "he could
*never* make a dumb mistake like that."

-cwk.

[PaulH]

There can be plenty of reasons for this besides pilot error. A while
back one of my fuel drains developed a slow leak, and there are
probably a dozen other possibilities.

[George]

Bob Fry > wrote in message >...
> (Robert M. Gary) writes:
>
> > local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
>
> Look at the hours. The more time exposed to potential incidents, the
> more likely they are to happen.

Yup. If it can happen at some stage it will happen. We listen to
others admissions and, hopefully, learn from their experiences.

[Robert M. Gary]

(Mackfly) wrote in message >...
> >From: (Robert M. Gary)
>
> >The local news is reporting that a local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
> >of instruction giving since the early 1960's) ran out of gas just
> >short of the airport after picking up a P210 and flying back from
> >Texas to California. Boy, if it can happen to him, it can happen to
> >anyone.
>
> But it does not happen to everyone! hmmmmmm Mac

I'll reply to that along with the "never gear up" once I hang up my
wings (keeping fingers crossed)
-Robert

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Michael wrote:
> The reality is that we have a dumb way of dealing with fuel. We use
> the clock. It's dumb because it assumes we know the fuel burn and
> that nothing is leaking. Too many assumptions, too easy to go wrong.
> What we need are accurate fuel gauges that are cheap enough to make
> retrofits sensible. As long as they have to be FAA certified, that
> won't happen.

Fuel gauges in many planes *are* good enough, though. There are some
that are terrible (I've never flown a C172 with a fuel gauge that was in
any way useful), but many are fine. The trouble is (especially with old
planes) you have to fly them a few times and check the fuel gauges to
get any idea of whether they are any good.

My old C140 had mechanical fuel gauges. They were very accurate. Other
planes I've found good fuel gauges in - Grumman Tigers/Cheetas, the old
1960 C182 we had in the flying club, Beechcraft (both the Bonanza and
Musketeer I've got to fly had fuel gauges that were worth something).
The fuel gauge in the Auster I tow gliders with is very good. It's a
cork with a little stick indicator on which protrudes out of the top of
the fuel tank!

I don't just use time, I also monitor the fuel gauges. A good job too -
when I was new to our club's old C182, I *thought* it was full of fuel
(visual inspection showed less than an inch between the liquid and the
filler, which was full for my plane). Since it only had 55 gallon tanks,
it's not hard for a cross country to be the full IFR range.

My usual practise is to time AND check the gauges. If the fuel gauges
show less fuel than I think I should have, it's a cause for concern. On
this particular flight, I noted that at the point I should have had half
a tank, I had 2/3rds of a tank indicated on the fuel gauge.
Either the gauges were wrong, or I didn't have as much fuel as I should.
I elected to land at the next airfield to check it out.
Good job too - I had about 45 minutes less fuel than I
thought I really had when I left. If I had pressed onto my desired
destination just using my stopwatch as a fuel gauge, I would have
arrived with about 10 minutes of fuel remaining. Diversions, holding, go
arounds etc. could have easily eaten that in its entirety.

Of course, before takeoff, the gauges were on the 'F' marking, but I
discovered after topping off the tanks at my diversion field that 'F'
isn't really quite full - it's full when the gauge points well past full
(like many car fuel gauges). That last inch was in fact about 10
gallons!
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Richard Hertz]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> The local news is reporting that a local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
> of instruction giving since the early 1960's) ran out of gas just
> short of the airport after picking up a P210 and flying back from
> Texas to California. Boy, if it can happen to him, it can happen to
> anyone.

Um, no. It happens to people who fly with too little fuel.


It will be interesting to see the final facts. Perhaps the
> plane was burning way more gas than it should have (the plane had been
> bought that day).
>
> -Robert

[Richard Hertz]

"PaulH" > wrote in message
om...
> There can be plenty of reasons for this besides pilot error. A while
> back one of my fuel drains developed a slow leak, and there are
> probably a dozen other possibilities.

that is pilot error. You should be able to find that leak - 100LL leaves
stains. If it was so slow not to notice, then it should be slow enough not
to matter in a flight. There are few fuel problems that are not pilot
error.

[Dean Wilkinson]

I flew an Archer from BOI to TTD once, and allowing for the headwind, I
planned with 1 hour in reserve. Despite this, I found upon landing that I
only had 20 minutes left. The guages worked well enough that while I knew I
was low, I also knew I wasn't out, but finding out I had only 20 minutes
left was a shocker.

Turned out that this particular bird burned more fuel than it should for an
unknown reason (club plane). I wished I had known that BEFORE the flight.
Anyway, after it went through its next overhaul, it burned the appropriate
amount again.

Now I know why I never plan on landing with less than 1 hour in the tanks...

Dean

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> The local news is reporting that a local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
> of instruction giving since the early 1960's) ran out of gas just
> short of the airport after picking up a P210 and flying back from
> Texas to California. Boy, if it can happen to him, it can happen to
> anyone. It will be interesting to see the final facts. Perhaps the
> plane was burning way more gas than it should have (the plane had been
> bought that day).
>
> -Robert

[C J Campbell]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> Boy, if it can happen to him, it can happen to
> anyone.

A point that I make constantly to my students and to anyone else who will
listen. Never, not for one second, think that just because you are a good
pilot or an experienced pilot that you will not make mistakes.

[Andrew Sarangan]

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in
om:

> The local news is reporting that a local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
> of instruction giving since the early 1960's) ran out of gas just
> short of the airport after picking up a P210 and flying back from
> Texas to California. Boy, if it can happen to him, it can happen to
> anyone. It will be interesting to see the final facts. Perhaps the
> plane was burning way more gas than it should have (the plane had been
> bought that day).
>
> -Robert


Take a look at the AOPA Nall report. The accident rates with flight
experience drops until you reach about 2000 hrs, then it starts climbing.
Pilots with greater than 10,000 hours accounted for 10% of all the
accidents.

[NW_PILOT]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 45...
> (Robert M. Gary) wrote in
> om:
>
> > The local news is reporting that a local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
> > of instruction giving since the early 1960's) ran out of gas just
> > short of the airport after picking up a P210 and flying back from
> > Texas to California. Boy, if it can happen to him, it can happen to
> > anyone. It will be interesting to see the final facts. Perhaps the
> > plane was burning way more gas than it should have (the plane had been
> > bought that day).
> >
> > -Robert
>
>
> Take a look at the AOPA Nall report. The accident rates with flight
> experience drops until you reach about 2000 hrs, then it starts climbing.
> Pilots with greater than 10,000 hours accounted for 10% of all the
> accidents.
>
>
>
>
Maybe they get to relaxed and over confident?

[C J Campbell]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
> Maybe they get to relaxed and over confident?

It is called "complacency," but I think there is more to it than that. If
you play roulette long enough, sooner or later your number is going to come
up.

[Mike O'Malley]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >
>> >
>> Maybe they get to relaxed and over confident?
>
> It is called "complacency," but I think there is more to it than that. If
> you play roulette long enough, sooner or later your number is going to
> come
> up.
>

Figure in as well, most 10,000+ hour pilots are flying professionally at
least in some way or another. As such, they're also flying much more per
year than other pilots. This dramatically increases their exposure to said
risk. I guess another way of saying it is, I'm guessing that the small
percentage of 10,000+ hour pilots that are out there account for way more
than 10% if the annual flying hours.

[tony roberts]

I believe that it is a huge mistake to teaach student pilots that at a
given power setting their aircraft will average x gallons per hour.

My 172 averages 8 gallons per hour.
About 18 months ago, on a 2.5 hour flight it averaged 12 gallons per
hour. - Fortunately I had full tanks on takeoff.
6 months ago the same thing happened - fuel consumption went from 8
gallons per hour to 12 gallons per hour.
again I was lucky - I had departed with full tanks.

On both occasions it was the same problem. A seal had failed on one of
my fuel caps and the fuel was siphoning out when airborne.

We KNOW that this can and does happen. So why do we continue to tell
students that if they plan for 8 GPH they will be safe?
It simply isn't true, and it is going to kill someone.

How many students are taught to dip the tanks AFTER they land?
None.
And, as most of them are renting, they go away happily believing that
they burned 8 gph - so they continue to plan that way - even if they are
actually burning a lot more.

So - to all of the instructors out there - why not just teach them to
never trust anything, and if they regularly rent the same aircraft, dip
tanks before and after, so they KNOW the fuel consumption, rather than
continue to operate on some totally arbitrary figure based on a new
aircraft, rather that the 30 year old junker that they actually fly.

OK. Pet peeve over. We now retun you to your regular programming :)

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE



In article >,
(Robert M. Gary) wrote:

> The local news is reporting that a local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
> of instruction giving since the early 1960's) ran out of gas just
> short of the airport after picking up a P210 and flying back from
> Texas to California. Boy, if it can happen to him, it can happen to
> anyone. It will be interesting to see the final facts. Perhaps the
> plane was burning way more gas than it should have (the plane had been
> bought that day).
>
> -Robert




--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Gerald Sylvester]

tony roberts wrote:
> I believe that it is a huge mistake to teaach student pilots that at a
> given power setting their aircraft will average x gallons per hour.

so what would you teach them? If you dipped before and after and
noticed the fuel consumption all over the place, they still rent and
can only do it by the book plus a safety margin. That safety margin
can't be 50% like your 8 to 12 gph otherwise we'd never get a XC
in as we'd always be stopping for fuel every 5nm. The only
way around this is to have reliable and accurate gauges. I still
don't know why it is that difficult to make these.

Gerald

[tony roberts]

> so what would you teach them?

What would I teach them?

Obviously I'm not communicating well. ( I appreciate your response - it
is just a subject very dear to my heart, after having come close to
being killed because my flight school didn't care enough to teach me how
things really are)

I would teach them to get to know everything there is to know about the
plane that they regularly fly, and to stop relying on data supplied by a
Cessna test pilot flying a new plane on a perfect day with the sole aim
of attaining the best figures he could get for the Cessna marketing
department to use in their promotions. I'd teach them to take ownership
of the situation, and stop relying on information supplied by people
whose butt is not sitting in the plane on the cross country that you
refer to.

And on their long cross country I'd teach them to land and dip the tanks
at the first opportunity, to confirm that the fuel consumption they
used in their calculations is the one that they are actually attaining.
And even then, understand that the seal can still fail at any time.
So if they have 39 gall tanks, and they have been in the air for more
than 2.5 hours, and they fly over an airport with fuel - land, and check
it.

Accurate fuel guages?
We can crawl out of our caves, discover all of the materials and
technology necessary to build a spacecraft, find the fuel, teach someone
to fly it - with total accuracy to a moon landing, AND throw in a
spacewalk on the way, but when they actually land, if they want to know
how much fuel they have left they have to climb up on the wing and dip
the tank with a stick - possibly the same stick we were clutching when
we crawled out of our cave :)

And round and round we go :)

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE




In article >,
Gerald Sylvester > wrote:

> tony roberts wrote:
> > I believe that it is a huge mistake to teaach student pilots that at a
> > given power setting their aircraft will average x gallons per hour.
>
> so what would you teach them? If you dipped before and after and
> noticed the fuel consumption all over the place, they still rent and
> can only do it by the book plus a safety margin. That safety margin
> can't be 50% like your 8 to 12 gph otherwise we'd never get a XC
> in as we'd always be stopping for fuel every 5nm. The only
> way around this is to have reliable and accurate gauges. I still
> don't know why it is that difficult to make these.
>
> Gerald

[AJW]

About fuel consumption: I use a scheme that would reduce the risk. I taxi out
on the tank I will not be using for take-off as a way of verifying that tank is
OK. Run up is done on the takeoff tank, offering some assurance that tank is
good also. (If I was in an airplane with someone who switched to the more full
tank after run up I'd get out!). I fly away half the available fuel in the take
off tank, switch to the other, fly that to near exhaustion, and when I switch
back to the takeoff tank my rule is, land for fuel.. I've modified IFR flight
plans en route to do this. BTW, it's not a big deal in a Mooney. It has 32
gallons usaable in each wing, I get 9 gph leaned at altitude, and the airplane
has more endurance than my bladder.

I remember talking to a guy who just put a CD player in his Vee tail Bonanza,
got caught up listening to some music and forgot to lean. He expected to burn
11 gph, was burning he said 17. That'd be an embarrising way to crash! Nothing
like checklists, huh?

[Malcolm Teas]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> ...What we need are accurate fuel gauges that are cheap enough to make
> retrofits sensible. As long as they have to be FAA certified, that
> won't happen.

Hm. An FAA certified fuel gauge has to be right on two conditions:
full and empty. No assurances of correctness anywhere else. So, it
could bounce all over the place and then in the last quarter of the
tank rapidly descend to empty. I would like a higher standard myself.

-Malcolm Teas

[Andrew Sarangan]

"Mike O'Malley" > wrote in
:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in
> message ...
>>
>> "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Maybe they get to relaxed and over confident?
>>
>> It is called "complacency," but I think there is more to it than
>> that. If you play roulette long enough, sooner or later your number
>> is going to come
>> up.
>>
>
> Figure in as well, most 10,000+ hour pilots are flying professionally
> at least in some way or another. As such, they're also flying much
> more per year than other pilots. This dramatically increases their
> exposure to said risk. I guess another way of saying it is, I'm
> guessing that the small percentage of 10,000+ hour pilots that are out
> there account for way more than 10% if the annual flying hours.
>
>
>


I think there is something else at play here. The 10,000+ hr pilot is
likely an airline pilot. I don't believe airline cockpit skills are
directly transferably to the GA cockpit. The single-pilot factor, lack
of system redundancies, and aircraft performance place a different set
of demands on a GA pilot. This may be an important factor in GA
accidents caused by airline pilots.

If you take the 10,000+ hr pilots, divide the number of accidents by the
number of hours they spend in a GA cockpit, I think we may find their
accident rate to be greater than other GA pilot groups. This is just a
guess. I don't have numbers to prove it.

Another interesting aspect of the Nall report is that student pilots
accounted for fewer accidents even though they accounted for more flying
hours.



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Robert M. Gary]

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message >...
> "PaulH" > wrote in message
> om...
> > There can be plenty of reasons for this besides pilot error. A while
> > back one of my fuel drains developed a slow leak, and there are
> > probably a dozen other possibilities.
>
> that is pilot error. You should be able to find that leak - 100LL leaves
> stains. If it was so slow not to notice, then it should be slow enough not
> to matter in a flight. There are few fuel problems that are not pilot
> error.

The engine could have been burning too much too. I once rented a 182
topped it will full tanks and flew from Sacramento to Santa Barbara
(about 2.5 hours). I leaned the plane out on the trip. When I landed
there was only a small amount of fuel left in the tank. No evidence of
staining anywhere. The engine seemed to run strong. The FBO ended up
selling the plane so I don't know what the cause was.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message >...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
> > The local news is reporting that a local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
> > of instruction giving since the early 1960's) ran out of gas just
> > short of the airport after picking up a P210 and flying back from
> > Texas to California. Boy, if it can happen to him, it can happen to
> > anyone.
>
> Um, no. It happens to people who fly with too little fuel.

I'm glad you are more confident than I am. Do you fly a retractable too?

-Robert

[Ron Natalie]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>>that is pilot error. You should be able to find that leak - 100LL leaves
>>stains. If it was so slow not to notice, then it should be slow enough not
>>to matter in a flight. There are few fuel problems that are not pilot
>>error.
>
>
> The engine could have been burning too much too. I once rented a 182
> topped it will full tanks and flew from Sacramento to Santa Barbara
> (about 2.5 hours).

Yep, ain't no way you're going to see a fuel leak on my plane. The
plane itself is blue and you can't see the drains in flight (low wing).

A few years ago coming out of annual, we fired up the plane, shut it down
checked under the cowl. Took it out, test flew it, opened it up and
looked problems. The next morning, we departed for Oshkosh. The
fuel consumption was staggering (I computed afterwards it was about
60 gal per hours). We landed and found a rather severe leak from
the fitting going into the engine driven fuel pump. Fuel evaporates
pretty quickly, so you couldn't see any indication of it once the
engine was stopped.

We had a group participant here put his Cardinal down off airport
after a carb problem caused much higher than expected fuel burns.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Gerald
Sylvester wrote:
> in as we'd always be stopping for fuel every 5nm. The only
> way around this is to have reliable and accurate gauges. I still
> don't know why it is that difficult to make these.

It isn't, and many planes DO have reliable and accurate (enough that
it's easy to tell if you've got less fuel than you thought you should
have) gauges.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Brian Case]

Bob Fry > wrote in message >...
> (Robert M. Gary) writes:
>
> > local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
>
> Look at the hours. The more time exposed to potential incidents, the
> more likely they are to happen.


While 30,000 hours is impressive. it really doesn't tell you much. How
did he get the majority of the 30,000. How much is sleeping in the
Bunk of a 747? How much is sitting in the right seat of the C-150? How
much time does he have in 210's?

He could have 30,000 hours and it could have been his 1st flight in a
210. I have little bit of time in a 210 and can attest that you have
to be very careful in determining how much fuel you have on board.


Brian

[Peter Duniho]

"Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message
om...
> Hm. An FAA certified fuel gauge has to be right on two conditions:
> full and empty. No assurances of correctness anywhere else.

Illegal cell phones, and now this old wives tale?

It's retread week!

[Ron Natalie]

Malcolm Teas wrote:
]
>
> Hm. An FAA certified fuel gauge has to be right on two conditions:
> full and empty,
Actually, an FAA certified fuel guage doesn't have any accuracy
requirements at all.

The only thing that the regs say is that the empty mark is supposed
to correspond to no usuable fuel (rather than bone dry).

My "certified" gauge doesn't even read "full". The guage (it has
a disclaimer on it) gives "no indication above 36 gallons". (39.5
usable).

[G.R. Patterson III]

Malcolm Teas wrote:
>
> Hm. An FAA certified fuel gauge has to be right on two conditions:
> full and empty. No assurances of correctness anywhere else.

Not true. It has to display the quantity of fuel in each tank. If it's off by very
much, it is not doing that.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Gerald Sylvester wrote:
>
> tony roberts wrote:
> > I believe that it is a huge mistake to teaach student pilots that at a
> > given power setting their aircraft will average x gallons per hour.
>
> so what would you teach them?

I would teach them to fly by the clock -- *but* --
Land if the gauges read less than 1/4 tank.
Land and find out what's wrong if you've been pulling out of one tank for an hour and
the gauge still reads full.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Robert M. Gary]

(AJW) wrote in message >...
> About fuel consumption: I use a scheme that would reduce the risk. I taxi out
> on the tank I will not be using for take-off as a way of verifying that tank is

That's one reason I don't like the Cessna "both" selection. In my
Mooney if I ever did run out of gas (because of pilot error or
mechanical problems) I should always have another fresh tank to switch
to. If you run out of gas in a 172, you don't have another tank to
switch to!
-Robert

[John Galban]

Dylan Smith > wrote in message >...
<snip>
> My usual practise is to time AND check the gauges. If the fuel gauges
> show less fuel than I think I should have, it's a cause for concern.
<snip>

I use a triple redundant method. I use time to measure fuel burnt
and burn from 1 tank at a time, but I also cross check the gauges. If
a gauge reads substantially less than it should at any point, that
calls for a landing to verify it manually. As a backup to all this,
I burn 1 tank for an hour, switch and burn the other tank until it's
nearly dry. If my calculations are correct, the second tank should be
empty right on schedule. If I have a leak or increased fuel burn for
any reason, the second tank will run out early and I still have plenty
of fuel in tank #1 to find an airport, land and check it out.

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

[Corky Scott]

On 12 Nov 2004 12:27:27 -0800, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:

>If you run out of gas in a 172, you don't have another tank to
>switch to!

I think I'd probably explode in a shower of pee if I stayed up long
enough to run the tanks dry in the 172's I rent. ;-)

Corky Scott

[Peter Duniho]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> I think I'd probably explode in a shower of pee if I stayed up long
> enough to run the tanks dry in the 172's I rent. ;-)

But, at least they're rentals and you wouldn't have to clean up the mess,
right? :)

[Bob Fry]

"NW_PILOT" > writes:

> > Take a look at the AOPA Nall report. The accident rates with flight
> > experience drops until you reach about 2000 hrs, then it starts climbing.
> > Pilots with greater than 10,000 hours accounted for 10% of all the
> > accidents.

> Maybe they get to relaxed and over confident?

<Sigh> You can't infer anything from the above numbers. You need
rates, not totals. It's just as likely--moreso, really--that the
high-time pilots fly a disproportionate number of the total GA hours,
so (assuming their accident rate per flight hour is not greatly lower
than the rate for lower-time pilots) they incur a disproportionate
total number of accidents.

[In Soo]

How did you go abouts and researched it? I am currently doing a qualitative
research on non-standard phraseology, just would like to get your input thx.
In SO

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (Robert M. Gary) writes:
> >
> > > local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
> >
> > Look at the hours. The more time exposed to potential incidents, the
> > more likely they are to happen.
>
> Very true. My CFI said the closest he ever came to grief was a near-gear
up
> landing while ferrying an Arrow, shortly after he crossed the 10,000-hour
> mark. And he's precisely the sort of guy you look at and say, "he could
> *never* make a dumb mistake like that."
>
> -cwk.
>
>

[mike regish]

Yeah, but that's one that's very much in control of the pilot, barring a
leak or other undetectable problem.

mike regish

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> (Robert M. Gary) writes:
>
>> local CFI (with over 30,000 hours
>
> Look at the hours. The more time exposed to potential incidents, the
> more likely they are to happen.
>

[Michael]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote
> I think there is something else at play here. The 10,000+ hr pilot is
> likely an airline pilot. I don't believe airline cockpit skills are
> directly transferably to the GA cockpit.

If there are skills at all. An airline pilot friend of mine frets
about how he is going to operate his Baron. He says that while he
flew the DC-9 and 727, his airline recurrent training and experience
was OK, but now that he is in the Airbus (he refuses to call that
flying) he is really concerned.

I think your points about the crew environment and lack of redundancy
are well taken, but we may be missing the fact that the modern
airliner is just so much easier to fly than the complex single or
light twin typically flown by the airline pilot on his days off that
the skill level may simply have atrophied. If so, expect this to get
worse in the future.

> Another interesting aspect of the Nall report is that student pilots
> accounted for fewer accidents even though they accounted for more flying
> hours.

I don't think that's interesting at all. It's hard to get hurt if you
never do anything. Student pilots fly under restrictions that would
make aviation useless - in fact, they are specifically prohibited from
doing most of the things that would make flying useful at all.
Unfortunately, I am lately seeing a trend among instructors to make
solo endorsements so restrictive that the student is never challenged,
and to avoid challenging flights dual as well. I have no doubt that
makes the training numbers look good, but the important question is
what happens AFTER the training, when the student goes out on his own
and starts using the airplane - especially those first few hundred
hours before real experience is gained, when the student relies most
on his primary training. I bet those numbers don't look so good.

Michael

[Andrew Sarangan]

(Michael) wrote in
om:

> Andrew Sarangan > wrote

>
>> Another interesting aspect of the Nall report is that student pilots
>> accounted for fewer accidents even though they accounted for more
>> flying hours.
>
> I don't think that's interesting at all. It's hard to get hurt if you
> never do anything. Student pilots fly under restrictions that would
> make aviation useless - in fact, they are specifically prohibited from
> doing most of the things that would make flying useful at all.
> Unfortunately, I am lately seeing a trend among instructors to make
> solo endorsements so restrictive that the student is never challenged,
> and to avoid challenging flights dual as well. I have no doubt that
> makes the training numbers look good, but the important question is
> what happens AFTER the training, when the student goes out on his own
> and starts using the airplane - especially those first few hundred
> hours before real experience is gained, when the student relies most
> on his primary training. I bet those numbers don't look so good.
>
> Michael
>



In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were only
1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being
increasingly prohibited from doing useful things?





Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Dave Stadt]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
7...
> (Michael) wrote in
> om:
>
> > Andrew Sarangan > wrote
>
> >
> >> Another interesting aspect of the Nall report is that student pilots
> >> accounted for fewer accidents even though they accounted for more
> >> flying hours.
> >
> > I don't think that's interesting at all. It's hard to get hurt if you
> > never do anything. Student pilots fly under restrictions that would
> > make aviation useless - in fact, they are specifically prohibited from
> > doing most of the things that would make flying useful at all.
> > Unfortunately, I am lately seeing a trend among instructors to make
> > solo endorsements so restrictive that the student is never challenged,
> > and to avoid challenging flights dual as well. I have no doubt that
> > makes the training numbers look good, but the important question is
> > what happens AFTER the training, when the student goes out on his own
> > and starts using the airplane - especially those first few hundred
> > hours before real experience is gained, when the student relies most
> > on his primary training. I bet those numbers don't look so good.
> >
> > Michael
> >
>
>
>
> In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were only
> 1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being
> increasingly prohibited from doing useful things?

Without supporting data those numbers are totally meaningless.

[Andrew Sarangan]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in news:jzfmd.8294$tM7.1298
@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com:

>
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> 7...
>> (Michael) wrote in
>> om:
>>
>> > Andrew Sarangan > wrote
>>
>> >
>> >> Another interesting aspect of the Nall report is that student
pilots
>> >> accounted for fewer accidents even though they accounted for more
>> >> flying hours.
>> >
>> > I don't think that's interesting at all. It's hard to get hurt if
you
>> > never do anything. Student pilots fly under restrictions that
would
>> > make aviation useless - in fact, they are specifically prohibited
from
>> > doing most of the things that would make flying useful at all.
>> > Unfortunately, I am lately seeing a trend among instructors to make
>> > solo endorsements so restrictive that the student is never
challenged,
>> > and to avoid challenging flights dual as well. I have no doubt
that
>> > makes the training numbers look good, but the important question is
>> > what happens AFTER the training, when the student goes out on his
own
>> > and starts using the airplane - especially those first few hundred
>> > hours before real experience is gained, when the student relies
most
>> > on his primary training. I bet those numbers don't look so good.
>> >
>> > Michael
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were
only
>> 1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being
>> increasingly prohibited from doing useful things?
>
> Without supporting data those numbers are totally meaningless.
>

http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.34Statistics%20of%
20Flying.htm#Statistics%20of%20Flying


The Nall report supports the 2003 data.







Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Michael]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote
> In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were only
> 1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being
> increasingly prohibited from doing useful things?

I don't have data for 1947.

In 1955 Piper alone built over 1000 TriPacers - plus other aircraft.
In 2003, all US manufacturers combined didn't build that many piston
airplanes.

Michael

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Andrew Sarangan
wrote:
> In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were only
> 1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being
> increasingly prohibited from doing useful things?

In 1947, not only were virtually all light planes taildraggers (meaning
lots of groundlooping), airfields were short, weather forecasting wasn't
as good, instrumentation for weather flying was not fitted to many light
planes (even most trainers now have the full IFR kit), the planes
were lower powered (the typical trainer of '47 was an 85hp C140 on
the more powerful end, 65hp aircraft were more typical - leading
to higher risk mountain and hot weather flying), wake turbulence
wasn't understood and NAVAIDs in many instances simply didn't exist.

Not to mention in 1947, Cessna made more C140s alone than the entire
light plane industry's output in 2003.

The more telling stats is that despite Britain's more regulated aviation
environment, the British accident rate is HIGHER than in the US.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Malcolm Teas]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Hm. An FAA certified fuel gauge has to be right on two conditions:
> > full and empty. No assurances of correctness anywhere else.
>
> Illegal cell phones, and now this old wives tale?
>
> It's retread week!

I dunno about that. I'm repeating what I learned from an instructor
of mine who's also an A&P. At your kind suggestion above :) I tried
to track it down on the FAA website.

TSO-C55 is titled "FUEL AND OIL QUANTITY INSTRUMENTS (RECIPROCATING
ENGINE AIRCRAFT)", so that looked good. But it just refers me to SAE
Aeronautical Standard AS-405B, "Fuel and Oil Quantity Instruments,"
dated July 15, 1958 for the details. It refers to older standards as
well.

Aeronautical standards are downloadable for $59 each from the SAE site
www.sae.org.

AS-405B was updated in July 2001 to AS-405C and now handles both
float-type and capacitive instruments. (Capacative instruments were
also covered in an earlier standard from 1989.)

Also there's TSO-C47 from 1997 that covers "PRESSURE INSTRUMENTS -
FUEL, OIL, AND HYDRAULIC". Unfortunately it also deadends into a SAE
document. There's nothing in either TSO that answers this question.

I'd expect that at least some of the difference of opinion we're
finding are from older vs newer standards. Like we say in the
computer biz, the nice thing about standards is that there's so many
of them to choose from. Anyone got a extra $59 or so and want to
resolve this? I'm curious, but not $59 curious.

In any case, regardless of the standard, we all know about planes with
fuel gauges that are at best a hint to your fuel condition. Seems
best to track time as well as gauges like someone suggested.

-Malcolm Teas

[Peter Duniho]

"Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message
om...
>> > Hm. An FAA certified fuel gauge has to be right on two conditions:
>> > full and empty. No assurances of correctness anywhere else.
>>
>> Illegal cell phones, and now this old wives tale?
>>
>> It's retread week!
>
> I dunno about that. I'm repeating what I learned from an instructor
> of mine who's also an A&P.

Certification rules require at least two things of fuel gauges: that they
read "empty" when there is 0 usable fuel left (as opposed to dry tanks), and
that they indicate the quantity of fuel in the tank.

People commonly misinterpret the "0 usable fuel" clause to mean that's all a
fuel gauge is required to do, but it's simply not true.

I can't speak to the certification rules prior to the current Part 23, but I
would be very surprised if they also only required an indication of empty or
not. After all, that could satisfied with a simple on/off light, and I've
never heard of an airplane so-equipped.

See FAR 23.1337 for more details.

Pete

[Dave Stadt]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
7...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in news:jzfmd.8294$tM7.1298
> @newssvr16.news.prodigy.com:
>
> >
> > "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> > 7...
> >> (Michael) wrote in
> >> om:
> >>
> >> > Andrew Sarangan > wrote
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Another interesting aspect of the Nall report is that student
> pilots
> >> >> accounted for fewer accidents even though they accounted for more
> >> >> flying hours.
> >> >
> >> > I don't think that's interesting at all. It's hard to get hurt if
> you
> >> > never do anything. Student pilots fly under restrictions that
> would
> >> > make aviation useless - in fact, they are specifically prohibited
> from
> >> > doing most of the things that would make flying useful at all.
> >> > Unfortunately, I am lately seeing a trend among instructors to make
> >> > solo endorsements so restrictive that the student is never
> challenged,
> >> > and to avoid challenging flights dual as well. I have no doubt
> that
> >> > makes the training numbers look good, but the important question is
> >> > what happens AFTER the training, when the student goes out on his
> own
> >> > and starts using the airplane - especially those first few hundred
> >> > hours before real experience is gained, when the student relies
> most
> >> > on his primary training. I bet those numbers don't look so good.
> >> >
> >> > Michael
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were
> only
> >> 1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being
> >> increasingly prohibited from doing useful things?
> >
> > Without supporting data those numbers are totally meaningless.
> >
>
> http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.34Statistics%20of%
> 20Flying.htm#Statistics%20of%20Flying
>
>
> The Nall report supports the 2003 data.

Still useless information for comparison purposes.

[Michael]

Dylan Smith > wrote
> The more telling stats is that despite Britain's more regulated aviation
> environment, the British accident rate is HIGHER than in the US.

Of course. All safety rules inevitably make things less safe.

Michael

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Dylan Smith > wrote
> > The more telling stats is that despite Britain's more regulated aviation
> > environment, the British accident rate is HIGHER than in the US.
>
> Of course. All safety rules inevitably make things less safe.
>
Oddly, it pertains to crime (skyrocketing in the UK) as well.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Andrew Sarangan]

If you have better data to the contrary please let us know. Gene Whitt is a
long time contributor to this group and an experienced CFI. I consider him
a dependable source of information, just as much as AOPA.


"Dave Stadt" > wrote in news:JoBmd.29523$Qv5.27913
@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:


>> >
>>
>> http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.34Statistics%20of%
>> 20Flying.htm#Statistics%20of%20Flying
>>
>>
>> The Nall report supports the 2003 data.
>
> Still useless information for comparison purposes.
>
>

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Matt Barrow wrote:
>> Of course. All safety rules inevitably make things less safe.
>>
> Oddly, it pertains to crime (skyrocketing in the UK) as well.

Really? All the recent figures for the UK (IIRC) show a slight decrease
in the rate in the last couple of years. Of course, as you criminalise
more things, you'll by default get more criminals.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Michael]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote
> If you have better data to the contrary please let us know. Gene Whitt is a
> long time contributor to this group and an experienced CFI. I consider him
> a dependable source of information, just as much as AOPA.

The point is not that the information is undependable - the point is
that it is useless. Total number of accidents tells us nothing unless
we also know ALL of:

Hours flown
Experience level of the pilots
Types of missions flown

We have no real data on the last two, and only rough estimates on the
first. Anecdotally, I've noticed that as time goes on, the mission
profile tends to change.

A good friend of mine learned to fly in the early 1960's. He soloed
at 15. No, it wsn't legal. He was taught by a cropduster in a Champ.
He soloed in 4 hours. He then flew over, picked up a friend, and
they headed up to Wisconsin - from Texas. They flew at night with no
night training - and no lights. And none of this was particularly
unusual then, but it would never happen now.

The mission profile was a lot different then, so comparing accident
totals (or even accident rates) is not meaningful. It's hard to get
hurt if you never do anything.

Michael

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Matt Barrow wrote:
> >> Of course. All safety rules inevitably make things less safe.
> >>
> > Oddly, it pertains to crime (skyrocketing in the UK) as well.
>
> Really? All the recent figures for the UK (IIRC) show a slight decrease
> in the rate in the last couple of years. Of course, as you criminalise
> more things, you'll by default get more criminals.

Really, is that why some of the major stories here are about the CURRENTLY
(2001) skyrocketing VIOLENT crime?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21/205139.shtml

Or this from WSJ Opinion (Don't have the original link)
'Twasn't Ever Thus
Liberal snobbery helps make Britain the world's most crime-ridden country.

BY THEODORE DALRYMPLE
Sunday, December 22, 2002 12:01 a.m.

LONDON--Britain is now the world leader in very little, with the single
possible exception of crime.
Recent figures published by the U.N. show that Britain is now among the most
crime-ridden countries in the world. Its citizens are much more likely to be
attacked or robbed on the street, or have their houses burgled, than their
counterparts in, say, Russia or South Africa, let alone the U.S. Everyday
experience in Britain is quite sufficient to establish that we now live in a
deeply criminalized society.

---------


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO