Blah, blah, blah
Cue the sound of the air raid siren....
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Blah, blah, blah
Dad,C.W.E. wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 10:07 am Rockie you should read the rules of posting on this forum.
What you have said is untrue and it is trashing my career record and I am getting tired of it.
I have no idea of who you are but I post under my real name.
Bla, bla, bla does not change the fact you are wrong.
goingnowherefast wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 5:20 am The TSB investigates more than just the immediate facts. They ask why, and then ask why again and again and again.
They look at why they didn't take enough gas. Well they thought they had enough. Well why did they think that? The pilot before them said there was lots remaining. Well why did they trust him? Because thats how its been for years, and the gauges looked about right. Why did the gauges lie and why is company culture so lax about fuel? Gauges lied because a float was half sunk. Company culture was like this because that's what the old boss taught everybody. Well now we have one finding as to cause, not following the company fuel policy. Now why was the float half sunk? There was a pin hole in the top. Why was there a hole in the float? Better go through all the tech logs and find out that the sender was replaced 12 months ago. Did the hole develop recently or manufacturing defect?
We've gone from "pilots ran out of gas, they're liable for millions, pull their license" to a part defect and possibly an AD for a certain brand of fuel sender. This is just demonstrating the why path that lead to the results, there's also the why's that don't lead anywhere.
Every time you ask why it takes time to investigate. You don't go through a year of maintenance paperwork in 3 hours. Did the fuel gauge lie because the gauge sucked, resistance problem in old wires, which sender was it? Takes time to rip the plane apart and investigate every component.
Or why did that fuel leak develop. Or why did automotive diesel get into the tanks. Could ask why a million times for every senario.
You are also at the end of your career/retired, so you don't have to be afraid of evil ops managers or chief pilots or other powers that be to try and sabotage your career because they disagree with something you posted on AvCanada.
O.K. here is a reply.by goingnowherefast » Mon May 28, 2018 12:58 pm
Still waiting for CWE to reply to my post. He seems more interested in petty bickering than backing up his opinions.
They do?goingnowherefast wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 5:20 am
The TSB investigates more than just the immediate facts. They ask why, and then ask why again and again and again.
They look at why they didn't take enough gas. Well they thought they had enough. Well why did they think that? The pilot before them said there was lots remaining. Well why did they trust him? Because thats how its been for years, and the gauges looked about right.
And who is responsible to fix such company culture?Why did the gauges lie and why is company culture so lax about fuel? Gauges lied because a float was half sunk. Company culture was like this because that's what the old boss taught everybody. Well now we have one finding as to cause, not following the company fuel policy. Now why was the float half sunk? There was a pin hole in the top. Why was there a hole in the float? Better go through all the tech logs and find out that the sender was replaced 12 months ago. Did the hole develop recently or manufacturing defect?
Sure, there are so few Navajo's flying and they are such new aircraft that we just have not had time to get to know them yet.We've gone from "pilots ran out of gas, they're liable for millions, pull their license" to a part defect and possibly an AD for a certain brand of fuel sender. This is just demonstrating the why path that lead to the results, there's also the why's that don't lead anywhere.
Am I to believe that there are that many pilots flying for these companies that no one wrote up a report that there was one or more faulty fuel gauges they just guess at how much fuel they have before flying?Every time you ask why it takes time to investigate. You don't go through a year of maintenance paperwork in 3 hours. Did the fuel gauge lie because the gauge sucked, resistance problem in old wires, which sender was it? Takes time to rip the plane apart and investigate every component.
A fuel leak will be visible as soon as they look at the airplane.Or why did that fuel leak develop.
That also will be evident on the first inspection.Or why did automotive diesel get into the tanks.
Could ask why a million times for every senario.
So if you work for Aircanada for instance you can be penalised for posting on Avcanada?You are also at the end of your career/retired, so you don't have to be afraid of evil ops managers or chief pilots or other powers that be to try and sabotage your career because they disagree with something you posted on AvCanada.
If it's the light I'm thinking of, it will illuminate when the fuel pressure on the outlet side of the primary electric fuel pumps drops below a certain threshold. There are really only 4 things that will set it off. No fuel, vapour lock, pump failure or the pump turned off. It is actually the first pump in a series of 3 separate pumps per side, so no other combination of fuel pumps will cause the light to extinguish.
Looks like they are getting quicker. That being said, an analysis and Probable Cause(which the NTSB is mandated by law to provide) would be nice.
So ran the outboards dry and didn’t switch to mains?
So that relieves the pilots from the responsibility of knowing how to properly operate the airplane?Some chief pilot or consultant wrote a SOP into the Ops Manual that omitted switching to the inner tanks from the descent checklist - as specified in the manufacturer flight manual.
The Transport Canada folks in charge of approving Ops Manuals didn't notice.
+1.So that relieves the pilots from the responsibility of knowing how to properly operate the airplane?
Surely you jest!RatherBeFlying wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:06 pm Some chief pilot or consultant wrote a SOP into the Ops Manual that omitted switching to the inner tanks from the descent checklist - as specified in the manufacturer flight manual.
The Transport Canada folks in charge of approving Ops Manuals didn't notice.
Unfortunately the pilots followed the faulty SOP and were short of time to troubleshoot.
The SOP was an accident waiting to happen.