Small aircraft - What are going to do if the fuel pressure is very low?

[pelmet]

Land soon and be ready to land anywhere.

I know it is an ad but it is worth watching this.

Fuel off once the fire starts would help as well.

https://buy-ei.com/ei-mvp-50/

A while back, the person who flew the aircraft right after me on the same day had a big fuel leak. No indications on that type except fuel smell and fortunately, no fire. It can happen.

[photofly]

Interesting video.

I'm not sure I buy into the implied idea that only this manufacturer's engine monitor would have saved the day. If I saw fuel flow anomalies on two separate instruments (digital fuel flow and analogue fuel pressure gauge) there's no way I'm carrying on with a cross country flight.

Following which, the fuel selector valve is going to "off" about a quarter second after I smell smoke, if not earlier, regardless of terrain.

They were damn lucky to make it back to an airport - was that the choice other people would have made?

[pelmet]

They were damn lucky to make it back to an airport - was that the choice other people would have made?

With low fuel flow and everything else indicating normally....probably.

[photofly]

They had 2psi of fuel pressure and 56 gph of fuel flow. Normal fuel flow for a 182 is about 13gph. If that doesn't say "massive fuel leak forward of the firewall - find somewhere to land, now", what does?

Knowing where the fuel flow transducer is installed in my 182 that would mean the other 43 gallons per hour of 100LL was being sprayed all over the top of the engine and draining down the cylinders. Sounds like an excellent time to get on the ground.

[pelmet]

They had 2psi of fuel pressure and 56 gph of fuel flow. Normal fuel flow for a 182 is about 13gph. If that doesn't say "massive fuel leak forward of the firewall - find somewhere to land, now", what does?

Knowing where the fuel flow transducer is installed in my 182 that would mean the other 43 gallons per hour of 100LL was being sprayed all over the top of the engine and draining down the cylinders. Sounds like an excellent time to get on the ground.

While not the actual location of the aircraft, the terrain in the video is extremely rugged. Would you be willing to accept a landing guaranteed to significantly damage the aircraft? What if it was over endless forest. Would you land in it? What if 30 minutes from land over the cold water? What if over the Rockies? What if over Saskatchewan farmland?

I would probably hope for the best and continue at a low altitude where a quick landing could be made if fire broke out.

How do you know where the leak is precisely located?

[lownslow]

How do you know where the leak is precisely located?

On a Cessna single I would think if you're not soaked in Avgas then it has to be leaking ahead of the firewall.

[photofly]

While not the actual location of the aircraft, the terrain in the video is extremely rugged. Would you be willing to accept a landing guaranteed to significantly damage the aircraft?

Right.. so if over the terrain in the video, then no, I wouldn't land out there, but because of the significant risk of death landing on rocky non-flat terrain. If you have a realistic indication of a heavy fuel leak forward of the firewall then of course any kind of fire is not only going to total the airframe but likely kill you in short order too. I'll gladly accept any kind of airframe damage in return for my survival in a fuel fire scenario.

So if I thought I could make a survivable landing I'd do so, sooner, to avoid a fire. If an easy emergency landing isn't possible I'd head towards flat ground, but only until I smelled smoke. Then I'm afraid it's get down at the cost of any but certainly fatal injuries, for me.

What if it was over endless forest. Would you land in it?

With those fuel flow issues, then at the first sign of smoke, the fuel selector would go to off, without question.

What if 30 minutes from land over the cold water?

Life jackets on, and yes, after fuel flow issues and at the first sign of smoke, fuel off and ditch immediately. I don't fly 30 minutes over cold water without a survival suit on.

What if over the rockies?

It's not an appealing choice is it? But once there's smoke, the fuel goes to 'off' and I'd put it down, the best place I could. I'd rather have a chance at crawling out with two broken legs than suffer certain death due to an in flight break up or burns.

My suspicion is that in the flight in question they weren't over rocky terrain, that was done for dramatic effect and to make their decision to return rather than to land out look more palatable. However - what they did do worked out - just. I acknowledge that.

How do you know where the leak is precisely located?

The fuel transducer was showing a massive 56gph fuel flow, so the leak must be downstream of that. In my 182 the fuel transducer is six inches before the fuel spider, on top of the engine. The most likely place for the leak would have to be at the hose joints either out of the transducer, or into the spider. Or that hose failed. The owner was boasting about very recently installing this engine monitor system; let's guess that the fuel flow transducer was changed or worked on at the same time. That's the most likely location for the problem.



On reflection, I'd be less inclined to thank the manufacturer of the engine monitor system for saving my life than to go and see the people who made up the hoses and recently installed the fuel transducer in the fuel line and talk to them about whether the work was done properly. It's quite likely that the components of the system and/or the recent installation caused the problem that nearly killed me.

The one thing I certainly wouldn't do is start boasting about it in a video ad.

[pelmet]

Thanks, so in general you would land for smoke not the leak. Same with me.

[photofly]

To be clear, I would 100% land for the leak, even without smoke, on the first bit of approximately flat ground, even risking significant airframe damage in the process. I definitely would not expect to fly long enough to return to an airport with 40gph of 100LL pouring over a hot engine.

I think a fire under those circumstances is inevitable, quite soon, and so it proved to be. So best get on the ground soonest, even if you bend something.

[rookiepilot]

I've always been extremely anal about the condition and placement of hoses during any maintenance. Chafing can easily occur. Worth paying significant attention to.

[pelmet]

To be clear, I would 100% land for the leak, even without smoke, on the first bit of approximately flat ground, even risking significant airframe damage in the process. I definitely would not expect to fly long enough to return to an airport with 40gph of 100LL pouring over a hot engine.

I think a fire under those circumstances is inevitable, quite soon, and so it proved to be. So best get on the ground soonest, even if you bend something.

then you discover in your damaged airframe that a bad wire connection was responsible for the faulty indication.

[photofly]

Right, you'd need to have good evidence of a leak.

In this case, the pilots said they had a high fuel flow (from the electronic fuel flow transducer) and a low fuel pressure measurement on the analogue fuel flow gauge. There is no wiring fault that could cause both anomalies; in fact the only thing it could be is a leak after the transducer.

If I saw both those indications that would be evidence enough to risk the airframe in an off-field landing.

I'm familiar with instrumentation error in fuel flow transducers; I spent a couple of years chasing one problem. I didn't land out though because the evidence didn't warrant it.

[5x5]

then you discover in your damaged airframe that a bad wire connection was responsible for the faulty indication.

I'm with Photofly and I wouldn't care particularly what was found after the fact. The decision I made was prudent with the info available at the time. An aircraft is simply a machine and compared to human life and safety a disposable item.

If it turned out that I had misdiagnosed the situation, I would take away the newfound knowledge and it would allow me to make better decisions in the future but nothing can go back and change the decision I made in the past - it was the best I could at the time.

[photofly]

I think this is the incident in question:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/federal- ... 754962815/

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/02/c ... ident.html

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... l&IType=LA


https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/59000-59499 ... 599011.pdf

"Subsequent examination of the airplane revealed that the aluminum nipple fitting that connected the fuel line "T" to the carburetor was fractured and had separated, which allowed fuel to be pumped into the engine compartment. The nipple fitting was likely original to the airframe, which had about 4,010 total hours of operation."

For the record, Republic Airport is in the middle of Long Island, NY. Not many snow capped mountains near there. The planned flight was KFRG KPOU:

IMG_2153.JPG (486.93 KiB) Viewed 1838 times

According to the first link above, and his report to the NTSB, the pilot shut off the electrical system after the fire was established, because the smell led him to believe it was an electrical fire; at no stage did he shut off the fuel.

I also note the discrepancy between the marketing video ("our lives were saved because this engine monitor was more reliable than others that had been installed in the plane") and the pilot's report to the NTSB ("called NY departure to alert to the problem which we thought was instrumentation").

[pelmet]

For the record, Republic Airport is in the middle of Long Island, NY. Not many snow capped mountains near there.

Correct, but plenty of airports within fifteen to twenty minutes, which is where personally, I would be heading for prior to any evidence of fire, not on some nearby freeway or a cornfield where one might flip over.

But, that does increase the time airborne. Something worse could happen. These are the choices we sometimes have to make and you don't know for sure until the incident is over which choice provided the best outcome.

[photofly]

I wonder where the promo video was shot? Washington State?

[oldtimer]

Although I fortunately have never had to make a sudden life or death decision, I have witnessed or been involved in the aftermath or have read about pilots who have come to extreme difficulties while trying to minimise damage to their airplanes. Usually a determining factor was the lack of insurance and still paying for the machine.
Pilots are willing to put their lives at risk trying to prevent damage to their airplane.
All single engine airplanes have to have a stall speed in the landing configuration of 61 knots or less and that is so a forced landing in rude places has a very high chance of survival. Not a guarantee, just a high probability of success. Just slow the airplane as much as possible with full flaps and take what ever happens. If the problem is at night, turn on the landing lights. If the terrain is not suitable. turn the landing lights off.
If the airplane is fully insured, after landing, be sure to phone the insurance company to tell them what happened to THEIR airplane.

[DonutHole]

On the engine monitor stc's I have installed they have called for steel fittings on the fuel flow transducer.

[cncpc]

To young pilots on here who don't think they know everything yet.

You are seeing some bad advice on here.

If you have leaking fuel and do the just above stall speed thing into rocks or other ugly things that are going to make you stop suddenly, then you are most likely going to die anyways. Either from the impact or that and the fire which will surely follow.

Unless you can get to a place on ground where you will remain conscious after the landing,. land in the water, close to shore, in as shallow a water as you can find, with the doors open, and into wind. You won't be unconscious. You won't even be hurt. There will be no explosion. If you are lucky, you will just stand it on the nose. Get out. Help the people in the back seat get out. If you've picked the right spot, you'll be up to your knees in water.

FFS. Great thread for whoever started it. Not well thought out theories on what to do. If you anticipate a fire on landing or before, or already have one, your first choice if a suitable landing surface is not immediately available is water close to shore.

[photofly]

Once you have a fuel-fed fire forward of the firewall, the only sensible thing to do is immediately turn off the fuel selector valve which will starve the fire of fuel very quickly. You are then of course forced into an immediate descent and landing, but you are not at any more risk of an explosion than in any other forced landing scenario, once the fire has extinguished itself.

If at that point you want to ditch, and water is available in which to do so, so be it.

I wouldn't fly any distance at all deliberately leaving a fuel fire burning by not switching off the fuel in the hope of reaching water or anywhere else; the risk of the fire spreading to the cabin and/or an inflight breakup is too great.