Coordinate that turn to final

[pelmet]

It's a bit like heading a discussion of the sinking of the Titanic with "don't sail to New York in winter."

A meaningless statement. The thread has had some good discussion about the title of the topic.....the critical importance of being in coordinated flight when fuel quantities are extremely low.

The only thing that is stunning is your assumptions of what the pilot did as if they are fact when in fact, it is based on no evidence. Which is unlike myself that started off with the statement...."Of course, the exact details of this accident are unknown but...…" and then discussed about the thread title.

By the way...the Titanic sank in the spring of 1912.

[photofly]

As I said, I don’t really care what this particular individual pilot did or didn’t do, except that he or she landed with one dry tank. Which is a terrible idea because it can easily lead to an engine stoppage. To the extent they failed to prevent that, they suck. let’s all try not to suck: let’s all try to have some fuel in both tanks, and be feeding fuel from both tanks, when we land a 172.

The fact that the Titanic actually sank in Springtime makes this thread even more like one titled “Lessons from the RMS Titanic: Don’t sail to New York in winter.”

[TT1900]

As I said, I don’t really care what this particular individual pilot did or didn’t do, except that he or she landed with one dry tank.

How do you know it was “dry”? Weren’t you part of a big thing about usable/unusable/measureable fuel? I’ll admit, I know nothing of Cessna fuel systems other than what you posted. Seems like it could have been reading empty with up to 2gal remaining that would still be feeding. So I ask again, how do you know it was dry? (Hint: You don’t).

You don’t care what the pilot did or didn’t do to get to the point where he binned an aircraft for the most horrendously simple (paraphrasing you) error going? You’re not curious about what led to his actions/inactions leading up to the event, assuming it was within his control? Screw learning how to address root error, just don’t make the mistake and the mistake won’t happen. Fantastic philosophy......SMH.

[C.W.E.]

Screw learning how to address root error,

So tell us all about addressing root error, it sure sounds interesting.

[photofly]

As I said, I don’t really care what this particular individual pilot did or didn’t do, except that he or she landed with one dry tank.

How do you know it was “dry”? Weren’t you part of a big thing about usable/unusable/measureable fuel? I’ll admit, I know nothing of Cessna fuel systems other than what you posted. Seems like it could have been reading empty with up to 2gal remaining that would still be feeding. So I ask again, how do you know it was dry? (Hint: You don’t).

There are two possible explanations:

Either the fuel selector was not on BOTH at the time of landing, which contravenes the operation procedures in the POH and the mandatory placards in front of the pilot. (Note that the pilot did not report that he or she failed to follow the mandatory procedure, so let’s take them at their word.)

Or, alternatively, one tank was completely dry and the selector valve was set to both so late in the landing procedure that the empty tank didn’t have time to refil from the partially full tank. For sure, with only 5 gallons in the “full” tank, it won’t cross feed very fast.

If there had been the two gallons of “unusable” fuel in the left tank, and 20 litres of usable fuel in the right, the engine would not have quit.

We will never find out exactly the sequence of errors that pooched this flight. Never. Let’s instead learn not to empty a tank, and remind ourselves, if we need to, to make sure the fuel selector valve is set to BOTH as the manufacturer demands.

I’m curious to know what anyone else thinks the root error is. Perhaps the pilot should have had more rest, or not eaten the prawn cocktail for lunch.

[TT1900]

CWE,

For this particular incident I can’t because I don’t know specifics. Neither do you, Photofly, nor anyone outside of the investigative team or the pilot. That’s my first point. Nobody here KNOWS the full picture, it’s speculative at best.

Assuming it was an error on the pilots behalf that created the situation the biggest question that needs answering is why? Perceptive error, cognitive error, lack of training, improper training, etc. If you’re truly interested in the perceptive/cognitive side look into the research from DCIEM (DRDC Toronto).

After witnessing the disagreements within this thread about what is permitted/non-permitted, best-practice, “common knowledge”, about the 172 fuel system I would start with training. Photofly is likely correct about the wording, implications, and application of the 172 flight manual given his knowledge, but if people are being taught differently that may be creating problems. He may be correct in saying don’t make that mistake, but without understanding why it’s likely to keep occurring.

[TT1900]

As I said, I don’t really care what this particular individual pilot did or didn’t do, except that he or she landed with one dry tank.

How do you know it was “dry”? Weren’t you part of a big thing about usable/unusable/measureable fuel? I’ll admit, I know nothing of Cessna fuel systems other than what you posted. Seems like it could have been reading empty with up to 2gal remaining that would still be feeding. So I ask again, how do you know it was dry? (Hint: You don’t).

There are two possible explanations:

Either the fuel selector was not on BOTH at the time of landing, which contravenes the operation procedures in the POH and the mandatory placards in front of the pilot. (Note that the pilot did not report that he or she failed to follow the mandatory procedure, so let’s take them at their word.)

Or, alternatively, one tank was completely dry and the selector valve was set to both so late in the landing procedure that the empty tank didn’t have time to refil from the partially full tank. For sure, with only 5 gallons in the “full” tank, it won’t cross feed very fast.

If there had been the two gallons of “unusable” fuel in the left tank, and 20 litres of usable fuel in the right, the engine would not have quit.

We will never find out exactly the sequence of errors that pooched this flight. Never. Let’s instead learn not to empty a tank, and remind ourselves, if we need to, to make sure the fuel selector valve is set to BOTH as the manufacturer demands.

I’m curious to know what anyone else thinks the root error is. Perhaps the pilot should have had more rest, or not eaten the prawn cocktail for lunch.

I think you nailed it. We need to learn and to learn we need to know why it happened. Accepting all the assumptions as listed (fuel to both, no mechanical issues, no water in the tanks) I would look at training. If he wasn’t trained to leave fuel in the tanks when it’s mandatory there’s a problem. If he was trained to leave fuel in the tanks but didn’t then we’re back to why. Distracted, complacent, task saturated....lots of options.

Saying you don’t care why hampers understanding.

[pelmet]

Or, alternatively, one tank was completely dry and the selector valve was set to both so late in the landing procedure that the empty tank didn’t have time to refil from the partially full tank. For sure, with only 5 gallons in the “full” tank, it won’t cross feed very fast.

Exactly. So you can follow the POH procedures and......if you don't keep that turn to final coordinated, you may end up like this guy. Now you know why the thread is titled the way it is. You can follow all the recommendations and still end up like this guy if you don't Coordinate That Turn To Final.

[photofly]

Nope.

If you leave the 2 gallons of unusable fuel in the tank then you can fly uncoordinated during your turn to final. Also known as a slipping turn. Or land uncoordinated, also known as landing in a crosswind.

it’s sheer idiocy to mismanage your fuel to such an extent that those two manoeuvres can no longer safely be achieved.

Actually, that’s unfair to idiots, most of whom would never be that stupid. It’s worse than idiocy.

if you’re a licensed pilot you’re expected to know what the “unusable fuel” in a tank means, and if you’re pilot in command of a 172 I would expect you to have read the POH and know that the unusable fuel in each tank is 2 gallons. Therefore you should absolutely know that if you run to below two gallons in any tank, even if you otherwise follow the POH, the engine may stop in some certified manoeuvre.

Don’t run a tank dry in a 172.

[TT1900]

2gal = unuseable = not shown on instruments? How do you know if you’re below 2gal if there isn’t any indication?

Why don’t 172 drivers fly around on “Both” during all regular flying?

Not playing dumb, just trying to understand the 172. I understand how being able to isolate a tank is beneficial in case of emergency, but I don’t understand why you would try to feed from a single tank on a regular basis.

[C.W.E.]

it’s sheer idiocy to mismanage your fuel to such an extent that those two manoeuvres can no longer safely be achieved.

Exactly and we do not need a degree in how the mind works to come to that logical conclusion.

Assuming of course there was not some other cause for the event.

One thing for sure discussing it is a positive thing because it may sink into someones head reading these discussions that you have to maintain situational awareness when you are operating any mechanical device such as an airplane.

I'm still wondering why that Navajo landed in the street in Calgary.

Maybe some day in the far off future we will find out if the TSB ever figures it out.

[TT1900]

You don’t need a degree to figure out fuel mismanagement to the point of starvation is “idiotic”. You also don’t need a degree to fly an aircraft well. Flying isn’t overly academic or intellectual, excepting a very few specialties, and most pilots are of average intelligence. A relevant post-secondary education, combined with aviation experience, helps when figuring out why a trained professional pilot decided to be “an idiot” and run himself out of fuel.

C.W.E, I respect your experience, but your disdain for university education and resentment towards all government aviation bodies is evident and confuses me. More confusing is your apparent dismissal of accident cause. Does it not make sense to figure it out and make logical changes if required, vice preaching “don’t do this”. Does it really matter what level of education the person solving the problem has? If you can give solid reasons why something should not be done, or better yet train from the outset to think differently and avoid the problem altogether, people are more likely to comply and minimize repeat occurrences.

[C.W.E.]

C.W.E, I respect your experience, but your disdain for university education

I do not have disdain for university education that is your opinion and you are incorrect.

and resentment towards all government aviation bodies is evident and confuses me.

Again you are making a broad sweeping assumption. I do have issues with some government officials who abuse their power.

More confusing is your apparent dismissal of accident cause. Does it not make sense to figure it out and make logical changes if required, vice preaching “don’t do this”. Does it really matter what level of education the person solving the problem has? If you can give solid reasons why something should not be done, or better yet train from the outset to think differently and avoid the problem altogether, people are more likely to comply and minimize repeat occurrences.

Thanks for the advice.

However teaching flying was a very big part of my flying career for almost half a century and I was very successful in my flight training business which was focused on safety through understanding all the different skills and subjects involved in aviation.

Many times on these forums I have stated clearly that in my opinion teaching flying is the highest accomplishment a pilot can aspire to.

And safety trumps all other accomplishments.

[photofly]

You can be a really smart person and still make the dumbest mistakes. It’s not a moral defect or venal sin; we’ve all done stupid things, and most of us have got away without terrible consequences. There’s absolutely no “holier than thou” about this, very much more “there but for the grace of God go I”. The pilot learned a really really cheap lesson here, and was able to land safely with no power on final, which shows some presence of mind. For the rest of us the lesson isn’t even cheap, it’s completely free. The only bit that still puzzles me is why not everyone is eager to learn it. I’m still scratching my head about that.

[C.W.E.]

You can be a really smart person and still make the dumbest mistakes. It’s not a moral defect or venal sin; we’ve all done stupid things, and most of us have got away without terrible consequences.

That is true we all make mistakes, however we also should know how to quickly correct the mistakes and at least lessen the damage the mistake might cause.

I like to think that I got through my career without wrecking any aircraft at least partly by always thinking ahead of where I was in the aircraft, and of course a lot of luck had to be involved.

Why are some people accident prone?

[TT1900]

CWE,

I’m not giving you advice. I’m asking questions to try and better understand where you’re coming from and presenting my opinion so you get an idea where I’m coming from. No sense offering advice to a guy no longer in the game. Serves no purpose.

I agree that safety is a worthy goal in aviation. My point was only that there are people other than pilots, some with significant education, that help further that cause. Why be dismissive of that?

[C.W.E.]

TT1900 , it is quite possible I am unable to grasp complex issues such as the psychological processes involved in aviation incidences, accidents due to my lack of formal education so it would be nice if you cut me some slack. However I do have enough intelligence to be interested in the subject of why people smash up airplanes.

I am still wondering why that Navajo landed in the street in Calgary because it was such a close call to someone being injured or killed.

So I am wondering what you really smart people think caused them to end up there with both engines feathered.

Am I being just to inquisitive and should I just wait for the accident report to be made public sometime in the far off future?

I don't want to come across as unprofessional and impatient to know the cause, maybe you can guide me in how to be patient while the real pros seek the answer?

[TT1900]

So I am wondering what you really smart people think

should I just wait for the accident report to be made public?

maybe you can guide me in how to be patient while the real pros seek the answer?

Why are you lumping me in with the smart people? I know just enough to realize I know very little about accident investigation. Let the qualified people (not me) do their jobs.

Yes.

Get a hobby?

I’m happy to continue debating the finer points of accident investigations, accident statistics, education vs intellect, TSB timelines, or whatever other diversion you choose, but it won’t be in this thread. I’ve helped drift it far enough.