Ran out of Gas/Fuel Mismanagement Thread

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Huh, I recall it being loaded in lbs instead of kilos and the crew accepting that, but I don't recall the crew dipping the tanks. I should watch the Mayday episode.

That aside, my point was that one can admire their accomplishment and at the same time, condemn their mistake. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[pelmet]

Huh, I recall it being loaded in lbs instead of kilos and the crew accepting that, but I don't recall the crew dipping the tanks. I should watch the Mayday episode.

That aside, my point was that one can admire their accomplishment and at the same time, condemn their mistake. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Bottom line...follow the MEL. They didn't....and that is why you can buy baggage tags from the airframe.

[digits_]

That aside, my point was that one can admire their accomplishment and at the same time, condemn their mistake. The two are not mutually exclusive.

True, but that prevents them from being called heroes in my opinion.

But it's an interesting comparison, on the one hand we have a student pilot, preparing for the most (or second most) stressful flight of his life. Potentially misreading the dipstick value from the fuel in his tanks. Then going on a flight of unkown length and destination, in an order and direction he doesn't control. With no indication of the fuel burn. They run out of fuel, and the general consensus is to punish him, as he should have failed his check ride.

On the other hand, we have a very experienced crew, with 61 pax on board, flying an advanced aircraft, on a route where the flight time is pretty much calculated and guaranteed within 5 to 10 minutes, with a preset fuel burn. They misread the fuel on board, have very accurate fuel flow data available, run out of fuel, nobody dies, and the general consensus is praise and potentially be labeled as a hero.

Double standards?

[pelmet]

Double standards?

Going strictly from memory, there may be one significant difference between the two when it comes to accolades.......a union.

If I remember correctly, the 767 crew were initially disciplined. Union assistance led to an award.

Maybe student pilots need to form a union. Then they could have one requirement be that they always pass the flight test.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

That aside, my point was that one can admire their accomplishment and at the same time, condemn their mistake. The two are not mutually exclusive.

True, but that prevents them from being called heroes in my opinion.

But it's an interesting comparison, on the one hand we have a student pilot, preparing for the most (or second most) stressful flight of his life. Potentially misreading the dipstick value from the fuel in his tanks. Then going on a flight of unkown length and destination, in an order and direction he doesn't control. With no indication of the fuel burn. They run out of fuel, and the general consensus is to punish him, as he should have failed his check ride.

On the other hand, we have a very experienced crew, with 61 pax on board, flying an advanced aircraft, on a route where the flight time is pretty much calculated and guaranteed within 5 to 10 minutes, with a preset fuel burn. They misread the fuel on board, have very accurate fuel flow data available, run out of fuel, nobody dies, and the general consensus is praise and potentially be labeled as a hero.

Double standards?

You make a hell of a point, sir. I also do not consider them heroes - but they did one hell of a job, mistake notwithstanding.

I'll just make the one comment that one of those aircraft was more complex than the other. When was the last time you put a 767 into a full rudder sideslip?

To be fair - I do fault the Gimli Glider crew for taking off with half the required fuel. In both cases, these mistakes are enough to warrant a license suspension (IMHO). But you can't exactly compare landing a 172 in a parking lot to landing a 767 on a long dead runway full of merrymakers.

Since we're comparing this to airliners running out of fuel - who would you fault for Avianca 52? To me this is a similar situation to what has been posited in this thread - in that, there is only so much a crew can do when the PIC insists on continuing to fly without sufficient fuel.

[shimmydampner]

They run out of fuel, and the general consensus is to punish him, as he should have failed his check ride.

No need for hyperbole. Failing a ride is not a punishment. It's nothing more than an accurate and impartial assessment of the candidate's clearly demonstrated unsuitability to hold a pilot's license due to their inability to manage their fuel situation in a fully functional aircraft.

[digits_]

They run out of fuel, and the general consensus is to punish him, as he should have failed his check ride.

No need for hyperbole. Failing a ride is not a punishment. It's nothing more than an accurate and impartial assessment of the candidate's clearly demonstrated unsuitability to hold a pilot's license due to their inability to manage their fuel situation in a fully functional aircraft.

It wasn't meant as hyperbole. I don't think the candidate would consider it hyperbole.

Either way, doesn't affect my point that the Gimli glider crew did all those thing, and worse, with paying pax in the back and with superior systems, yet they are considered heroes.

[pelmet]

Still had some gas......

C-GDPY, a Piper PA-34-200T aircraft operated by KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. was conducting a
photo survey of an area approximately 50 miles north of the Sioux Lookout (CYXL), ON. with only
the pilot onboard. While conducting the survey, the pilot noticed the main fuel cells were low on fuel
and selected the auxiliary fuel pumps on. Shortly after, the left engine began to sputter and then
lost power. The pilot then selected cross-feed and was able to restart the engine. The pilot decided
to conduct a precautionary landing on a logging road approximately 24 miles north of CYXL. After
touchdown, the aircraft wings struck some bush and directional control was lost. The aircraft came
to a rest off the right side of the logging road in an upright position, approximately 50 feet into the
bush. The pilot was not injured. The aircraft sustained substantial damage. Shortly after, the pilot
was picked up by a passing vehicle and taken to CYXL.

It was reported that the left auxiliary fuel cell had fuel remaining after the occurrence, while the
other auxiliary and main cells appeared empty. Post-occurrence examination and testing of the left
auxiliary fuel boost pump indicates that it was defective. The operator has submitted a service
difficulty report with Transport Canada.

[pelmet]

C-FDLX, a float equipped Republic RC-3 was on a VFR flight from Powell Lake Water Aerodrome
(CAQ8), BC to Boundary Bay Airport (CZBB), BC with 2 persons onboard. After being cleared for
an approach to Runway 13 by CZBB Tower, the engine (Franklin 6A8-215-B9F) failed. The pilot
communicated the engine failure to CZBB tower but did not declare a MAYDAY. The pilot was able
to force land the aircraft on the South arm of the Fraser River approximately 2NM South East of
Vancouver International Airport (CYVR), BC. The pilot declined CZBB tower's offer for fire fighter
or coast guard hovercraft assistance. The aircraft was towed to a nearby boat launch by a private
boater where it was pulled up to the parking lot. There were no injuries and the aircraft was not
damaged.

Upon inspection by an AME it was discovered that the fuel gauge read approximately 6 gallons
more than what was actually onboard. The fuel system was recalibrated, the aircraft was fueled,
and a flight to CZBB was completed without further incident. It was concluded that the engine failed
due to fuel exhaustion.

[pelmet]

I have used dipsticks on several aircraft types, but I don't think I have ever seen an ungraduated one......

"The privately registered Cessna 182A, C-GWAW, was operating a recreational flight from
Westlock, AB (CES4) to Josephburg, AB (CFB6). While conducting preflight checks of the aircraft,
the pilot noted that the fuel gauges read below half and checked the fuel tank level with an
ungraduated fuel dipstick. On the final approach to Runway 08 at CFB6, the engine (Teledyne
Continental O-470-L) subsequently lost power and the pilot initiated a forced landing; the aircraft
collided with trees 0.3 nm short of runway. The pilot and the two passengers evacuated the aircraft
with no issues. The pilot received minor injuries; the two passengers were uninjured. The aircraft
was substantially damaged and the ELT did not activate. The RCMP conducted a post occurrence
examination of the aircraft and observed no fuel in either fuel tank."

[spiceagent11]

There are a few different stories or interpretations of the change - and with TC does that come as a surprise? According to a TC Inspector, the change was a result of the Department of Justice nosing about (the CARs being "held" by the DOJ, as of how ever many years ago) and deciding that there could be a question of "liability" (read, blame) in the event something went wrong during a flight test

[pelmet]

Using Google Translate.....

"C-GHNN, a privately operated Cessna 182B, was on visual flight rules
(VFR) from Alma Airport, QC (CYTF) to Joliette, QC (CSG3). While
the aircraft was on a cruise between the municipalities of St-Paulin and St-Alexis des Monts, a
engine failure occurred due to lack of fuel. The pilot, alone on board, carried out
a forced landing on Route 349. At an altitude of about 30 feet AGL, the aircraft struck
electrical wires before hitting the ground and sustained major damage. The pilot was
hurt slightly."

[pelmet]

Possibly fuel starvation versus exhaustion.......


C-FRTV, a privately operated Piper Cherokee PA-28-140, was conducting a local flight from
Romeo Leblanc International Airport, Moncton NB (CYQM). While in cruise, the engine
experienced a fuel starvation for undetermined reasons. The pilot conducted a forced approach
into a field approximately 41 nm south south east of CYQM. The aircraft sustained substantial
damage and the pilot reported no injuries. Two weeks prior to this occurrence, the aircraft had a
power loss resulting in a forced landing, and the aircraft was not damaged. Subsequently,
maintenance had inspected and replaced a carburetor heat hose before returning the aircraft to
service.

[pelmet]

Bought it and ran out of gas on his first flight. Wonder if it was that one I saw advertised in southern Ontario for a few years. I was tempted by it.

C-GPEP, a privately owned PZL Wilga aircraft was on route from Timmins, Ontario (CYTS) to
Sault Ste Marie, Ontario (CYAM) with the pilot as the sole occupant. The aircraft had been filled
with 52 gallons of fuel prior to departure and the pilot/owner determined it was sufficient fuel to
reach CYAM. On route, the aircraft encountered head winds which increased fuel consumption.
Power was reduced and mixture leaned to increase range but as the aircraft approached CYAM
the pilot reported minimum fuel to the tower and was provided a straight in approach. Prior to the
approach the engine quit due to fuel exhaustion and the pilot performed a forced landing in an area
covered with small trees. The pilot was not injured but the aircraft suffered substantial damage.
This was the pilot's first flight since obtaining the aircraft.

[WANP]

There is no excuse for running a plane out of gas, or jet fuel.

Those idiots in the gimli glider are not heroes, they should have been punished, and lost their licenses forever.
It is not hard to know how much fuel you have onboard before taking off, calculating fuel burn, and making sure to land with a healthy reserve left in the tanks.
That is day 1 of flight training.
The PIC is always responsible for making sure that they don't just have enough fuel to make it to a safe landing, but landing with reserves.
If you have to divert, and make a stop for fuel you hadn't planned on, so be it.
If all else fails, check the gauges, or sight tubes if in something like a cub.
If still unsure, land and top off the tanks.

[photofly]

If all else fails, check the gauges, or sight tubes if in something like a cub.

Definitely one should check the fuel gauges if you can’t think of any other way to tell how much fuel you have. But you didn’t give instructions on how to tell if you’re in something like a cub. That seems important.

[Bede]

Those idiots in the gimli glider are not heroes, they should have been punished, and lost their licenses forever.
It is not hard to know how much fuel you have onboard before taking off, calculating fuel burn, and making sure to land with a healthy reserve left in the tanks.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Your posts add nothing of value to this forum.

[WANP]

Those idiots in the gimli glider are not heroes, they should have been punished, and lost their licenses forever.
It is not hard to know how much fuel you have onboard before taking off, calculating fuel burn, and making sure to land with a healthy reserve left in the tanks.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Your posts add nothing of value to this forum.

I obviously know a lot more than the captain on that air Canada 767 does. I have never once come close to running out of fuel.
Your posts add zip.

[WANP]

If all else fails, check the gauges, or sight tubes if in something like a cub.

Definitely one should check the fuel gauges if you can’t think of any other way to tell how much fuel you have. But you didn’t give instructions on how to tell if you’re in something like a cub. That seems important.

The pilot can look left and up, then right and up, there is a tube on each side, at the wings root. Look at the tubes, seeing the fuel in them, and where it is, tells you how much is left.
Carry a flashlight for night flight.

[photofly]

If all else fails, check the gauges, or sight tubes if in something like a cub.

Definitely one should check the fuel gauges if you can’t think of any other way to tell how much fuel you have. But you didn’t give instructions on how to tell if you’re in something like a cub. That seems important.

The pilot can look left and up, then right and up, there is a tube on each side, at the wings root. Look at the tubes, seeing the fuel in them, and where it is, tells you how much is left.
Carry a flashlight for night flight.

I think you misunderstood. I wanted your advice on how to tell whether you're in a cub, not "how to tell - if you're in a cub."

So if you look left and up, and right and up, and there isn't a tube on each side, then ... you're not in a cub?