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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Running dry?
In September 2004 issue of AOPA Flight Training, Mark Cook has an article,
"No Fueln' Around". Under the "Selector boy" side article, he mentions that he runs some of his tanks dry in his Bellanca Viking. In at least one of John Deakin's articles (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182044-1.html), he not only recommends running tanks dry but puts forth a powerful argument that it's a responsible fuel management strategy. Furthermore, Deakin also offers that he has never found an NTSB accident report related to a failed engine start when running a tank dry and switching to the next. Both guys recommend setting a timer a couple of minutes before the tank should run dry; which acts of both early warning and as validation of your anticipated fuel consumption. Is this common? How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel management strategy? If you don't run dry, why not? Aside from the heat beat skipping which is sure to follow the first couple of times, what's the down side to this strategy? Lastly, I did cross post this message as I feel it's of value to both student and general pilot population alike. Cheers, Greg |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Copeland wrote:
Is this common? How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel management strategy? If you don't run dry, why not? Aside from the heat beat skipping which is sure to follow the first couple of times, what's the down side to this strategy? I would like to do this just one time for each of the two main tanks in the Bonanza V35 I fly if for no other reason than to validate the actual duration and total gallons. However, I have yet to take the time or have the courage to do so. As far as disadvantages, I am concerned about what might happen with the sediment in these aging fuel bladders as the fuel empties. But, I have read articles that dispel this myth so perhaps this is a non-issue. -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:58:18 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
Greg Copeland wrote: Is this common? How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel management strategy? If you don't run dry, why not? Aside from the hea[r]t beat skipping which is sure to follow the first couple of times, what's the down side to this strategy? I would like to do this just one time for each of the two main tanks in the Bonanza V35 I fly if for no other reason than to validate the actual duration and total gallons. However, I have yet to take the time or have the courage to do so. As far as disadvantages, I am concerned about what might happen with the sediment in these aging fuel bladders as the fuel empties. But, I have read articles that dispel this myth so perhaps this is a non-issue. Deakin's article specifically mentions this. I recommend you read the article. He argues this is nothing to worry about and even indirectly offers this is a reason to run your tanks dry. Greg |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:58:18 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
Greg Copeland wrote: As far as disadvantages, I am concerned about what might happen with the sediment in these aging fuel bladders as the fuel empties. But, I have read articles that dispel this myth so perhaps this is a non-issue. Opps. I misread that. I read that has "have not"...obviously you have. Ignore my suggestion to read the article. Greg |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Copeland wrote:
(http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182044-1.html), he not only recommends running tanks dry but puts forth a powerful argument that it's a responsible fuel management strategy. Furthermore, Deakin also offers that he has never found an NTSB accident report related to a failed engine start when running a tank dry and switching to the next. WE had one of our Lances crash at RDU one foggy morning that I believe was due to the pilot running one tank dry while on the ILS inbound from the outer marker. He hit the tops of the trees, spun around and down one and landed flat in a densely wooded area to the north of the field. The resulting fire destroyed the aircraft pretty completely. Fortunately, the pilot walked away from it with just a superficial cut on his forehead. He may have tried to restart but just didn't have enough time before he sank into the trees. Clean, a Lance will come down at 1100 FPM; it's gonna be considerably faster with the gear hanging out like it would after intercepting the glideslope. http://www8.landings.com/cgi-bin/nph...at&pos =71003 I've got some pictures of this wreck; you wouldn't believe it was possible for anyone to survive. Here's one of them: http://home.carolina.rr.com/jayhanig/crash4.jpg Now, to get back to the first question: how often does one run a tank dry intentionally? If I was in a Cherokee Six with four tanks and had passengers, hopefully never. The downside of this is that if you left just a couple of estimated gallons in each tank, you have lost a significant amount of useful fuel. If I were trying to stretch a flight and even then only if I were alone, I might consider running one dry. But I have to tell you: running a tank dry in a Cherokee results in te longest 30 seconds of your life. I ran a C-210 tank dry once and almost the second I hit the boost after switching the fuel selector I got a restart. Not so in the Cherokee... it takes a while. A loooong while. Kind of scarey. -- Mortimer Schnerd, RN VE |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
WE had one of our Lances crash at RDU one foggy morning that I believe was due to the pilot running one tank dry while on the ILS inbound from the outer marker. snip I would certainly hope that if one desired to *deliberately* run a tank dry, that pilot would not choose the approach phase to do so. -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Peter R. wrote:
I would certainly hope that if one desired to *deliberately* run a tank dry, that pilot would not choose the approach phase to do so. Well, it runs dry when it's empty. I wouldn't have picked that particular moment myself. In this case, I believe the pilot was an idiot. He used to joke about how far he would fly without refueling. I didn't see that he had a future in aviation. The boss canned him after the Lance went down. -- Mortimer Schnerd, RN VE |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:19:04 +0000, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
WE had one of our Lances crash at RDU one foggy morning that I believe was due to the pilot running one tank dry while on the ILS inbound from the outer marker. He hit the tops of the trees, spun around and down one and landed flat in a densely wooded area to the north of the field. The resulting fire destroyed the aircraft pretty completely. Fortunately, the pilot walked away from it with just a superficial cut on his forehead. Let me be clear here, I am not talking about accidentally running a tank dry. In fact, if done as Deakin and Cook prescribe, it probably would of prevented the accident you mention. He may have tried to restart but just didn't have enough time before he sank into the trees. Clean, a Lance will come down at 1100 FPM; it's gonna be considerably faster with the gear hanging out like it would after intercepting the glideslope. http://www8.landings.com/cgi-bin/nph...at&pos =71003 Again, this sounds like an accident caused by poor planning. This is not what I'm talking about. Poor fuel management is poor fuel management. Let's not confuse the two. Now, to get back to the first question: how often does one run a tank dry intentionally? If I was in a Cherokee Six with four tanks and had passengers, hopefully never. The downside of this is that if you left just a couple of estimated gallons in each tank, you have lost a significant amount of useful fuel. Deakin specifically addresses the issue with passengers on board. In his opinion, proper passenger briefing, a timer, and calm behavior on part of the pilot is key. If I were trying to stretch a flight and even then only if I were alone, I might consider running one dry. But I have to tell you: running a tank dry in a Cherokee results in te longest 30 seconds of your life. I ran a C-210 tank dry once and almost the second I hit the boost after switching the fuel selector I got a restart. Not so in the Cherokee... it takes a while. A loooong while. Kind of scarey. If you have not done so, please read his article and see what you think. I must say, my impression of your position is one of fear not one of reason. Am I wrong? I must admit, I certainly would not expect something like a 30-second delay. I would expect something more in line of a couple of seconds at most. Perhaps it was a could of seconds but felt like 30? Greg |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Who needs the added risk and worry of running a tank dry? There is
always a small chance that an engine will not start if you allow it to actually be fuel starved. I don't recommend doing engine outs by pulling the mixture knob either. But people do it and usually get away with it. I wouldn't recommend it. Airlines ops don't allow it, for good reasons. You simply don't want the added risk, stress and decision making. I want to keep my engine running! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message .com... Peter R. wrote: I would certainly hope that if one desired to *deliberately* run a tank dry, that pilot would not choose the approach phase to do so. Well, it runs dry when it's empty. I wouldn't have picked that particular moment myself. In this case, I believe the pilot was an idiot. He used to joke about how far he would fly without refueling. I didn't see that he had a future in aviation. The boss canned him after the Lance went down. Actually, the boss should have canned him when he started joking about how far he could fly without refueling. If I had a pilot working for me doing this, even joking, I'd have him in my office in five seconds to either straighten him out or get rid of him. This kind of talk, even around the flight office, can have a very bad effect on a commercial operation, and no pilot who ever worked for me would have survived with me long enough to run dry on the localizer. Dudley Henriques |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Time, running out of fuel and fuel gauges | Dylan Smith | Piloting | 29 | February 3rd 08 07:04 PM |
Engine running again, the good, bad and ugly | Corky Scott | Home Built | 34 | July 6th 05 05:04 PM |
It's finally running! | Corky Scott | Home Built | 19 | April 29th 05 04:53 PM |
Rotax 503 won't stop running | Tracy | Home Built | 2 | March 28th 04 04:56 PM |
Leaving all engines running at the gate | John | Piloting | 12 | February 5th 04 03:46 AM |