![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Rocky Stevens wrote in
: On Aug 10, 12:42 am, "Viperdoc" wrote: Somone will always answer his initial innocent post, only to have him follow on with some ridiculous non relevant statements that provoke further responses. OK viperdoc, thrill me: what did the OP say that was so ridiculous before you weighed in with your (non-helpful) first post? Oh and not for nothing, but based on the amount of NTSB reports that indicate lack of fuel was the cause for the accident, I would say fuel management is a very important issue. The ASF would agree; that is probably why they have a section on it (http://www.aopa.org/asf/ safety_topics.html#fuel). I think we need an RFC for a new group: rev.aviation.smug. Did Anthony give you a good hand job for that post? If not, just give yourself one and it will be from Antohny, you dip **** sock puppet. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Howdy Doody Time" wrote in
: wrote in message ... Mxsmanic wrote: writes: Yeah, it is based on using good judgement, knowledge of your airplane's characteristics, and proper preflight planning. No doubt. So what is the method? One more time, there is no black and white, cut and dried "method". -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Keep feeding it, idiot. It can't stop. Can you? Spoken like the Peanut Gallery flunk out you are. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 10, 1:07 am, "Viperdoc" wrote:
Good point- but where was your response? Why not just answer Anthony's question rather than respond to mine? Yeah, you have a point. As I mentioned in another thread I am a bit of a hypocrite; most of my posts on this group are a reaction to a reaction to Anthony, so it ain't like I'm contributing a whole lot of relevant stuff myself. That being said, I did respond with what I thought was a pretty interesting link (airlines running lower on fuel to save $$) since the OP asked about the cost savings of carrying a minimal amount of fuel. I couldn't answer the question directly because the only "method" I have is telling my instructor if the tanks are not full on preflight, and then the fuel fairies come and fill the tanks. I could have given a textbook answer involving GPH and calculating winds and whatnot, but I am pretty sure the OP is interested in what pilots do in the real world. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 17:00:50 -0500, "Viperdoc"
wrote: The only time you have too much fuel is when the bloody thing is on fire. the famous quote of Sir Charles Kingsford Smith. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 10, 9:08*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote: On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 17:00:50 -0500, "Viperdoc" wrote: The only time you have too much fuel is when the bloody thing is on fire.. the famous quote of Sir Charles Kingsford Smith. It's a cute quotation, but not true of course. Stuff 4 people into a 172 on a hot day or on a short strip and too much fuel on board will contribute the fire because the airplane was too heavy for the conditions. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 10, 4:15 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Rocky Stevens writes: Oh and not for nothing, but based on the amount of NTSB reports that indicate lack of fuel was the cause for the accident, I would say fuel management is a very important issue. The ASF would agree; that is probably why they have a section on it (http://www.aopa.org/asf/ safety_topics.html#fuel). Reading about the prevalence of fuel-related accidents was what prompted my question. It is shocking to me how many of these accidents exist; and it ain't just new pilots. For example, the head instructor of the accelerated school that was the subject of "getting my license in 7 days" (http:// http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/2092132.html) died because he ran out of gas. Right now if you were to ask me where my greatest risk of dying lay, I would say it would be doing something stupid like landing on the wrong runway or something (just the other day I told ATC that I was midfield when it turns out I was really on the upwind. Yeah, I've got a ways to go). I could also see myself getting lost, and running out of fuel that way. First thing I do once I get my ticket is buying a GPS. A large number of accidents are not because of running out of fuel per se, but bad "fuel management," i.e. forgetting to switch tanks. I'm not quite sure why the two tanks are not connected in such a way that they drain at an equal rate. In my current plane I do not have to worry about that since I only have one tank. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Rocky Stevens wrote:
A large number of accidents are not because of running out of fuel per se, but bad "fuel management," i.e. forgetting to switch tanks. Got a citation for that? Very high on the emergency checklist of every multiple tanked aircraft I've ever flown is "switch tanks". There's also an item on approach lists mentioning proper tank choice in some manner. I'm not quite sure why the two tanks are not connected in such a way that they drain at an equal rate. Some are, like a 172. On those, when you're out, you're done. At least with a selector valve you've got a serious warning once one runs dry. Personally, if I'm down to minimum fuel, I'd rather have it most of it in one tank, for reliable pickup. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 10, 10:51 am, B A R R Y wrote:
Rocky Stevens wrote: A large number of accidents are not because of running out of fuel per se, but bad "fuel management," i.e. forgetting to switch tanks. Got a citation for that? Very high on the emergency checklist of every multiple tanked aircraft I've ever flown is "switch tanks". There's also an item on approach lists mentioning proper tank choice in some manner. I probably misspoke; I just seem to recall reading a lot of reports that featured one tank running empty while the other was full. I'm not quite sure why the two tanks are not connected in such a way that they drain at an equal rate. Some are, like a 172. On those, when you're out, you're done. At least with a selector valve you've got a serious warning once one runs dry. Never thought of it that way. I ride a motorcycle, and motorcycles have a "reserve" tank (not really a separate tank) that you can switch to when you "run out" of gas This way you know when you are low on fuel, since most motorcycles do not have fuel gauges. Personally I would rather have a damned fuel gauge; trying to turn a valve by your knee while riding at highway speeds, all the while losing engine power, is not the safest way to go. (Sorry for the non-aviation blurb; lack of a fuel gauge in motorcycles is just a pet peeve of mine). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
One More Reason I Prefer GA | Kyle Boatright | Piloting | 19 | December 27th 06 11:53 PM |
Is it a habit we prefer mechnical instruments? | [email protected] | Home Built | 80 | April 28th 06 04:05 AM |
Does V-22 Go Twices as Far, carry Twice as Much? | Nick Lappos | Rotorcraft | 26 | October 12th 05 08:11 PM |
Headset wanted - prefer David Clark | Marty from Sunny Florida | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 5th 04 02:54 PM |
things to carry | Gary Drescher | Piloting | 62 | July 20th 04 03:08 AM |