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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 02:11:16 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:59:02 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote: Let's not rule out the one advantage of the fuel dump we haven't discussed - that anyone who had to deadstick in due to fuel starvation could then claim he had dumped the fuel to prepare for the deadstick landing. Sure, he'd have some 'splainin' to do when the beast fires right up when resupplied with go-juice, but he could always pull a Unka BOb and claim it was just one of those evil intermittent auto engine systems. Actually, he might not have to explain too much. This sort of scenario does happen (where the engine runs OK afterwards), and the NTSB usually just chalks it up to "Engine failure for undetermined reasons." Ron Wanttaja in australia it is usually chalked up to carby ice. Stealth Pilot |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Rowley writes:
I think I'd prefer to maximise the chances of keeping all the remaining fuel safely in the tanks after landing. My view is that any reduction in landing weight is more than offset by the chances of having fuel still in the dump system on landing and making fire more likely. Yeah, but think of the path of that fire (as it spreads to the areas now peppered with fuel). It'd be like a big burning arrow pointing right at your plane. It should make it easy to find your body. --kyler |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:06:19 +0800, Stealth Pilot
wrote: Actually, he might not have to explain too much. This sort of scenario does happen (where the engine runs OK afterwards), and the NTSB usually just chalks it up to "Engine failure for undetermined reasons." in australia it is usually chalked up to carby ice. If the conditions were favorable for carb ice, the NTSB reports usual say so, and often ascribe the accident to it. But in a lot of cases, they don't mention it; they just do the "undetermined" shrug. Ron Wanttaja |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Regarding how data for incident reports are gathered. Someone had
mentioned the experimental that ground looped and was whisked away before any pesky official types nosed around. Another guy I know lost an oil line on his Rotax 912 and, after the engine siezed, landed in the brush out near Hemet. He hiked out, and came back with a trailer, nothing reported even though he made a call on the radio on his glide down from 6,000 AGL. I also understand that an emergency off airport landing is not a reported incident if there is no property damage. So if I lose power and land on a freeway, as long as I'm able to merge with traffic and not hit anything, it doesn't end up in the statistics. So this means the incident stats are showing a more rosey impression than is real of the state of reliability of GA. Ron Wanttaja wrote in message . .. On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:59:02 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote: Let's not rule out the one advantage of the fuel dump we haven't discussed - that anyone who had to deadstick in due to fuel starvation could then claim he had dumped the fuel to prepare for the deadstick landing. Sure, he'd have some 'splainin' to do when the beast fires right up when resupplied with go-juice, but he could always pull a Unka BOb and claim it was just one of those evil intermittent auto engine systems. Actually, he might not have to explain too much. This sort of scenario does happen (where the engine runs OK afterwards), and the NTSB usually just chalks it up to "Engine failure for undetermined reasons." Ron Wanttaja |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:09:52 GMT, Kyler Laird
wrote: Andrew Rowley writes: I think I'd prefer to maximise the chances of keeping all the remaining fuel safely in the tanks after landing. My view is that any reduction in landing weight is more than offset by the chances of having fuel still in the dump system on landing and making fire more likely. Yeah, but think of the path of that fire (as it spreads to the areas now peppered with fuel). It'd be like a big burning arrow pointing right at your plane. It should make it easy to find your body. --kyler Giving one of those redwood tree squatters a fuel shower might tick him/her off enough to put the spark to your flaming arrow. Watch your six! |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Yo! Fuel Tank! | Veeduber | Home Built | 15 | October 25th 03 02:57 AM |
Pumping fuel backwards through an electric fuel pump | Greg Reid | Home Built | 15 | October 7th 03 07:09 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 2nd 03 03:07 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | August 7th 03 05:12 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |