It might be best to get a top up enroute

[pelmet]

If he had done that halfway to destination, he would have had an extra couple of hours of fuel to play with....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLlWf-Fk_YM

[lownslow]

Don’t push two things...

[rookiepilot]

Per the video, 5:30 of fuel for a 3:45 flight.

Also per the video, which I'm familiar with, there are multiple core issues that led to the accident, starting on the ground.

Fuel would be last of those in my view.

[pelmet]

Per the video, 5:30 of fuel for a 3:45 flight.

Also per the video, which I'm familiar with, there are multiple core issues that led to the accident, starting on the ground.

Fuel would be last of those in my view.

I have to admit that this is the first time that I have heard someone mention in a fuel exhaustion accident that fuel is the last issue that led to the accident. But I guess it depends on how you look at it and word it.

You are correct that there are multiple issues and decision making is a big part. Asking ATC to divert somewhere with an ILS would have resolved everything.

One decision that I would suggest considering on a planned flight like this where the weather is poor and it would not be a surprise that it remains poor is to arrive with significantly extra fuel. In this case, the only way to do that would be via an enroute stop to get more fuel.

In the end more fuel will make up for unexpected weather, poor decision-making, and errors in aircraft management. In the end, the amount of fuel on board meant everything. How to get from having a comfortable amount to none at all is, as you say, part of the core issues.

[rookiepilot]

In the end more fuel will make up for unexpected weather, poor decision-making, and errors in aircraft management. In the end, the amount of fuel on board meant everything. How to get to that point of having a comfortable amount to none at all is, as you say, part of the core issues.

No it wouldn't, this particular accident as portrayed in the video might have still occurred if the aircraft was hooked up to a KC 35. Fuel was the last issue whatsoever.

But it appears you do not wish a discussion, you want everyone to tell you you're right. So, you're right then.

[pelmet]

In the end more fuel will make up for unexpected weather, poor decision-making, and errors in aircraft management. In the end, the amount of fuel on board meant everything. How to get to that point of having a comfortable amount to none at all is, as you say, part of the core issues.

No it wouldn't, this particular accident as portrayed in the video might have still occurred if the aircraft was hooked up to a KC 35. Fuel was the last issue whatsoever.

But it appears you do not wish a discussion, you want everyone to tell you you're right. So, you're right then.

If you think that having more fuel wouldn’t have improve his odds of survival and hopefully finally going somewhere with an ILS then....Ok, thanks for your perspective.

I’ll let others decide what they feel is the better analysis and who is ‘right’.

There is a reason why there is a saying about the most useless things while flying, which includes the fuel on the ground.

Think of the extra fuel as an insurance policy not only for decision-making errors but for unforecast weather deterioration, unexpected airport closures, untimely issues with aircraft systems, etc.

[digits_]

I'm honestly a bit worried if pilots watch that video and conclude that fuel was the issue. He had many options that he didn't use. As soon as he had to divert, he didn't come up with a clear plan. He was bouncing around trying anything that seemed remotely ok. He was not in control of that airplane anymore. I have the feeling if ATC told him the weather in Hong Kong was great, he probably would have accepted vectors there.

He didn't communicate his fuel situation either. He was either unaware of it, or kept it secret. Not sure which option would have been worse.

I'm also not convinced an extra hour, or even 2 hours of fuel would have saved him in this weather. It was constantly going up and down, he might have done a few more approaches, but he/his plane seemed incapable of landing in the current conditions. If the weather would have improved, he probably would have managed to land, but I'd consider that more a weather factor than a fuel factor. You can land at any airport if you have unlimited fuel to hold for several days.

[valleyboy]

Putting most of it aside it boils down to a low time inexperienced pilot, a surgeon with plenty of other stuff on his mind. How often has this exact scenario played out before. He also falls into the trap I have witnessed more than once with low timers. They call up and get weather and think it's a briefing and in reality the dude on the other end is just reading forecasts which anyone can do, never stopping to look at the history and try and check if the wx is actually following the forecast. Then they launch with the belief that the magic will start as scripted and certainly no thought to a back door. This guy was in way over his head with the inability to clue into that. He was always a time bomb and his end was preordained, it was just a matter of when.

[iflyforpie]

Nothing to do with fuel. An enroute stop would have prolonged his life another two or three hours... or maybe a few years until he got himself into the same situation.

The root cause of this accident was lack of assertiveness combined with either lack of situational awareness or resignation. He didn’t have a backup plan. He didn’t carry through with decisions he’d made until their conclusion. He wasn’t aware of his fuel status.

He didn’t become assertive until the plane was out of fuel at which point he had no options. His emergency started 45 minutes before that.

[pelmet]

Putting most of it aside it boils down to a low time inexperienced pilot, a surgeon with plenty of other stuff on his mind. How often has this exact scenario played out before. He also falls into the trap I have witnessed more than once with low timers. They call up and get weather and think it's a briefing and in reality the dude on the other end is just reading forecasts which anyone can do, never stopping to look at the history and try and check if the wx is actually following the forecast. Then they launch with the belief that the magic will start as scripted and certainly no thought to a back door.

Exactly. The chance of the weather clearing from three hundred broken to twenty five thousand feet broken right at 21Z(around his planned arrival time) as forecast at DCA is almost zero, meaning it will either be earlier or later. Plan on it being later and delay for a while of consider an enroute stop to pick up some fuel. Being low time and inexperienced is another good reason to vary some granny fuel.

Funny how some airline companies do the same, based on personal experience. You are going to a destination known for daytime thunderstorms and you are supposed to arrive 25 minutes before the thunderstorms are forecast, so no destination holding fuel is required as you are arriving before the thunderstorms will start.

[digits_]

consider an enroute stop to pick up some fuel.

What do you think this pilot would have done differently if he had 2 hours of extra fuel in his tanks?

[pelmet]

consider an enroute stop to pick up some fuel.

What do you think this pilot would have done differently if he had 2 hours of extra fuel in his tanks?

One can only guess. First of all, maybe he would have gotten into 33N(the airport he was going to when he ran out of gas). It didn't have a weather report so who knows. Perhaps the weather would have improved as forecast stated it would and he would have gotten in somewhere else. It had to clear eventually. Or if it didn't, maybe common sense would have kicked in and he would have finally asked for an approach with an ILS.

No guarantees but to guarantee that it never would have helped out is of course....foolish.

There is also one other important thing to think about....instead of using the mindset of this pilot, my advice is for all the other pilots who might have a similar cross-country flight. Yeah...maybe the good doctor was doomed to crash no matter what, but the next guy may not be, and an extra couple of hours fuel creates great flexibility.

Top up, if you can on these longer flights to marginal weather destinations where you will arrive with legal but not necessarily, a desirable fuel level.

[rookiepilot]

Nothing to do with fuel. An enroute stop would have prolonged his life another two or three hours... or maybe a few years until he got himself into the same situation.

The root cause of this accident was lack of assertiveness combined with either lack of situational awareness or resignation. He didn’t have a backup plan. He didn’t carry through with decisions he’d made until their conclusion. He wasn’t aware of his fuel status.

He didn’t become assertive until the plane was out of fuel at which point he had no options. His emergency started 45 minutes before that.

+ 1

[pelmet]

Nothing to do with fuel. An enroute stop would have prolonged his life another two or three hours... or maybe a few years until he got himself into the same situation.

+ 1

Glad you both agree with me. By saying that he might have lived a few extra years, you agree that it could have saved the day. It was sheer luck that no on was killed on the ground, and there could have been a passenger. And after a few years, like so many of us that made big mistakes, he would have been a pilot who learned a big lesson. I am trying to help that sort of pilot learn the easy way. If only he had five(or 25) more gallons.

Consider topping up on a long flight with a destination in poor weather.

By the way, the accident report states that he only had 5:15 minutes instead of the 5:30 minutes fuel stated in the flightplan and that did not include climb fuel. 15 perhaps 20 crucial minutes. Another reason to plan more conservatively and arrive with some extra. And if you are the kind of pilot who doesn't run a tank dry, then you will likely have even less endurance prior to encountering a power loss.

a surgeon with plenty of other stuff on his mind. How often has this exact scenario played out before.

Doctors, lawyers, and business guys. It is amazing how many of these guys who are assumed to be so smart end up in accidents where people shake their heads and wonder what the hell were they doing.

[AuxBatOn]

So, should we start planning a fuel stop at every possible airport enroute because you know, fuel on the ground...?

There is always a need to balance safety with effectiveness (or we would never get anything done). He had more than enough gas to get to places. There was another military airport close to Salisbury that could have provided a PAR (Pax River, SW of Salisbury) or he could have flown the ILS in Salisbury and get in. He had enough gas and he had options. He just made bad decisions.

[pelmet]

So, should we start planning a fuel stop at every possible airport enroute because you know, fuel on the ground...?

There is always a need to balance safety with effectiveness (or we would never get anything done). He had more than enough gas to get to places. There was another military airport close to Salisbury that could have provided a PAR (Pax River, SW of Salisbury) or he could have flown the ILS in Salisbury and get in. He had enough gas and he had options. He just made bad decisions.

I always laugh when I see these extreme interpretations of a recommendation. I say you might want to stop and get some fuel if the weather is iffy and you may have less fuel than what could be desirable and someone then asks if they should stop at every enroute airport as an argument or a reason to dispute a recommendation. Is it really a serious statement.

We all know that there were military airports around and that the pilot opted not to use them. He obviously didn't even know that there was an ILS at one of the airports where he was screwing up non-precision approaches. Lets face it folks, there are plenty of incompetent or inexperienced pilots out there flying GA planes IFR as we saw in this case and read about on a regular basis. Obviously it takes time for them to figure things out. The smart guys out there who would never make mistakes obviously don't need extra fuel to cover for poor flying. But for those of us who do, and who could get caught by a bad forecast....

Consider stopping enroute(or maybe at every airport enroute) to get a top up. It can help make up for some bad decisions/unexpected situations. There is no doubt this guy had decent reserves, so think of the recommendation aside from this particular incident.

[AuxBatOn]

Where do you draw the line between legal fuel and stopping every suitable airport?

[Illya Kuryakin]

I've never had too much fuel. Ever.
Cheers
Illya

[rookiepilot]

It had to clear eventually. Or if it didn't, maybe common sense would have kicked in and he would have finally asked for an approach with an ILS.

On what basis, after a flight with multiple failed approaches and a passive attitude, do you attest "common sense would have kicked in".

Is it your belief inexperienced pilots under a lot of fatigue and stress make better decisions as a situation detoriates, or worse?

I'm trying to understand, after hours in the air, where this sudden burst of situation awareness, decision making ability, and a plan, would come from, after not having been there, prior.

[AuxBatOn]

I've never had too much fuel. Ever.
Cheers
Illya

That’s a silly statement. If you always want full tanks, stay in the ground. There are rules regarding minimum fuel reserves and there are guidances in company policies. Follow those, make smart decisions and you’ll be fine.

FWIW, I was in some situations where I had too much fuel.