How much fuel do you prefer to carry?

writes:

One more time, there is no black and white, cut and dried "method".

Many excellent pilots seem to have methods for doing everything when they fly.
The more methodical they are, the safer they tend to be (and this is not
limited to aviation). I was wondering what their methods might be. There are
regulatory requirements, but beyond that there are many other factors to
consider, as pointed out already, and I was wondering exactly how pilots take
these into account. There's obviously a practical threshold between trying to
consider every possible detail and just flipping a coin (or not thinking about
fuel at all).

I'm sure a few pilots prefer trial and error or guesstimates or simple
negligence when working with fuel, but they are headed for the NTSB database
and learning bad habits doesn't seem very instructive to me.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

One more time, there is no black and white, cut and dried "method".

Many excellent pilots seem to have methods for doing everything when
they fly. The more methodical they are, the safer they tend to be (and
this is not limited to aviation). I was wondering what their methods
might be. There are regulatory requirements, but beyond that there
are many other factors to consider, as pointed out already, and I was
wondering exactly how pilots take these into account. There's
obviously a practical threshold between trying to consider every
possible detail and just flipping a coin (or not thinking about fuel
at all).

I'm sure a few pilots prefer trial and error or guesstimates or simple
negligence when working with fuel, but they are headed for the NTSB
database and learning bad habits doesn't seem very instructive to me.


Anthony, you're question HAS been answered here. Your just too ****ing
stupid to understand it.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).