How safe is it, really?

"skycaptain" wrote in message
oups.com...
You are (statistically speaking) more likely to get stuck by lightning,
and win the lottery than get injured in a small plane crash. The only
reason you hear about plane crashes on the news is that they happen so
rarely that each time it is considered newsworthy. Imagine if there
were a front page news report everytime there was an auto crash...

References?

In article , Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 07:40:00 -0600, "Dan Luke"
Which is an old wives tale. The amount of water contained in 20-30
gallons of air is insignificant.

A Piper PA28-235 can have 84 gallons of fuel in 4 tanks, so leaving
them half empty, for instance in a humid maritime environment,
overnight where the temperature drops sufficiently to cause the
moisture to condense out of the 40 gallons of air contained in them,
will result in enough water in the fuel system to interfere with
operation of the aircraft's power plant.

I have lived my entire life in humid maritime environments. I have never
lived more than 50 miles from open sal****er despite having lived on two
continents. Where I currently live, it is impossible to be more than 7.5
miles from open water.

However, I have never discovered water condensing in half-full fuel
tanks. It is my practise to make both a visual inspection through the
the filler neck and to sump the tanks before flying whether the plane's
been refuelled or not. In over 1000 hours of light plane flying, the
only time I've found water in the fuel is through leaky fuel caps (the
Beech Musketeer being the worst for this, but also in a Grumman Cheetah)
after a night of rain.

So I'd agree the condensation thing is an OWT, certainly with the fuel
capacities of our planes (the biggest capacity wise that I've regularly
flown are an S-35 Bonanza (74 gal usable) and the Geronimo-mod Apache
(which carried 7 hours of fuel - I don't remember the exact figure in
gallons, but it was a little over 100 gallons capacity in 4 tanks).
With the Geronimo, because it only has 160 hp a side, it's quite
important not to lug around excess fuel.

--
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"

Cub Driver wrote:
The last attempt I
heard about was against Relative Workshop. It was eventually
settled
by the PLAINTIFF (the woman who got hurt) paying the DEFENDANT (the
manufacturer of the parachute system) for legal expenses.

Not in the U.S., I reckon?

You reckon wrong.

This sounds like the British rule, where the loser pays the winner's
legal expenses. Very sensible.

Nope. It was one of the terms of the waiver - that if you sue, or
anyone sues on your behalf, you agree to pay the costs of the defense.
Michael

"Happy Dog" wrote:
Now that the goalposts are in a new location, I declare that you have
scored a touchdown.

How so?

You snipped it before, but here goes again:

ALWAYS refuel after every flight, so that we always have full tanks.

I don't know why more pilots don't do this.

Then:

To be specific, my concern is that I see many pilots who
don't carry more fuel when they could and within reason. OK?
It's irritating to have comments nitpicked by the dedicatedly
pugnacious.

"...when they could and within reason" is quite different from
"ALWAYS...after every flight," wouldn't you say? You substantially changed
your position when challenged; where's the nitpicking?

Why didn't anyone go after the original poster and accuse him
of overloading his plane? After all, he said he *always* tops up.

I quoted both you and the OP in my first response.

That obvious things have to be made boringly clear is, well, Usenet.

Ain't it the truth.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...
"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
link.net...

And without trying to bend the data one way ot the other, taking *all*
of the data for light fixed-wing aircraft, we come to the conclusion
that her husband is more likely to arrive at his destination *without
a scratch* if he flys GA,

That only follows if you use the same definition of injury in assessing both
the automobile and GA accident rates. But that's not the case, is it? The
Nall Report statistics for GA are derived from the NTSB accident database.
But if you have a plane crash in which you and all your passengers break
your noses, fingers, and toes, burn 5% of your skin surface, and spend two
days in the hospital, the NTSB doesn't even consider that serious enough to
be a reportable accident! In contrast, an automobile accident that inflicted
such injuries would certainly be reportable.

--Gary

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Peter,

My
understanding is that having the rubber "wetted" by the fuel helps extend
their lifetime.

"Ah, but my fuel bladders will look pristine to the NTSB guys" , said the
pilot as he crashed into the trees at the end of the runway.

I'm not sure what your point is, but your post seems pretty dumb to me,
especially as a response to my own post. Maybe you'd like to explain
yourself?

In article ,
(June) wrote:

I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
he will be saving money rather than renting.

We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
he has such a young family.

Your opinions would be appreciated.


Bad subject to bring up ... but a lot of 'new' pilots assume their life
insurance covers them while flying. Most will NOT. Check on this,
especially since you have small kids. His insurance carrier can provide
coverage with an addition to the policy.


Edward

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:21:10 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

In article , Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 07:40:00 -0600, "Dan Luke"
Which is an old wives tale. The amount of water contained in 20-30
gallons of air is insignificant.

Just let those tanks inhale and exhale a few times. They do that
every morning and night so there is a *lot* more than 20-30 gallons
involved.


snip

So I'd agree the condensation thing is an OWT, certainly with the fuel


It all depends.


capacities of our planes (the biggest capacity wise that I've regularly
flown are an S-35 Bonanza (74 gal usable) and the Geronimo-mod Apache

I fly a Deb with about the same fuel capacity (not counting the tip
tanks). With half tanks and the plane hangered for two weeks in the
Spring, I drained over two full samplers of water out of one tank and
a half out of the other. None out of the auxiliaries as they were
full.

(which carried 7 hours of fuel - I don't remember the exact figure in
gallons, but it was a little over 100 gallons capacity in 4 tanks).

The Deb will carry 100 when the tip tanks are full.

With the Geronimo, because it only has 160 hp a side, it's quite
important not to lug around excess fuel.

I'm paranoid about fuel, particularly with Michigan weathers tendency
to change rapidly. I might go for a 50 mile jaunt, get a late start
back and end up in Wisconsin, or Kentucky.

I rarely go any where without full tanks, with the exception of the
tip tanks.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger" wrote:
Which is an old wives tale. The amount of water contained in 20-30
gallons of air is insignificant.

Just let those tanks inhale and exhale a few times. They do that
every morning and night so there is a *lot* more than 20-30 gallons
involved.

Another OWT, I'm afraid. Can you produce calculations to show how many
air exchanges/week occur in a half-full 40-gal. tank given a daily
temperature swing of 20 deg. F?

[snip]

I fly a Deb with about the same fuel capacity (not counting the tip
tanks). With half tanks and the plane hangered for two weeks in the
Spring, I drained over two full samplers of water out of one tank and
a half out of the other. None out of the auxiliaries as they were
full.

Since you bring up anecdotal evidence, I'll chip in: I've been parking
my airplane under a shelter within a mile of Mobile Bay for five years.
I never top up the tanks after a flight. In that time, I don't recall
ever sumping a drop of water out of any of the drains. My tanks hold 32
gal. usable each.

[snip]
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:21:10 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote in
::

I have never discovered water condensing in half-full fuel
tanks.

Perhaps the laws of physics have been repealed on the Isle of Man. :-)