Running out of fuel

[photofly]

It matters in two ways. Firstly if your ame empties the tanks and you fuel gauges read empty they're not telling you useful information, they're over-reading by 4 gallons, which fails the requirements for fuel gauges.

Secondly if you look in the tank or dipstick them you'd think you had four more gallons of fuel than you can use.

It seems a very important distinction between empty and "zero useable" to me.

[iflyforpie]

As far as pilots are concerned, empty means zero useable. When the props stop, the tanks are empty. When they crucified that poor Keystone Kid for running out of fuel, he couldn't very well say that he still had fuel in the tanks because there was still unusable fuel, now could he?

Only the AMEs maintaining fuel tanks and doing weight and balances are concerned with the unusable fuel.

[Strega]

poor Keystone Kid

you mean the kid that willfully took off without enough fuel to make the destination legally, with a us ap, that overflew suitable airports on the way to the destination that killed a man? that kid?

ya I know who youre talking about..

[pdw]

Is there an accident date/# ... in order to read the whole report.

[floatpilot]

I kind of prefer gauges don't work at all to ones that read incorrectly. Fill them, dip them or park it. Really pretty simple. If you can't ascertain how much petrol you have.....you just shouldn't go at all. Not rocket science. Really.

Easy now. Your going to upset folks talking like that.

[pdw]

poor Keystone Kid

.. you mean the kid that willfully took off without enough fuel to make the destination legally ...

Not according to the factual report (if I selected the correct one) ... he left at 8:19 AM with "3/4 full" ... 'which he estimated to be sufficient' ... including "50 min reserve".
(That was 11 years ago yesterday, June 11 2002)

[photofly]

As far as pilots are concerned, empty means zero useable. When the props stop, the tanks are empty. When they crucified that poor Keystone Kid for running out of fuel, he couldn't very well say that he still had fuel in the tanks because there was still unusable fuel, now could he?

Only the AMEs maintaining fuel tanks and doing weight and balances are concerned with the unusable fuel.

Let's hope the AME's doing the annual checks that Big Pistons Forever was referring to do it the the right way then.

[pelmet]

As well, a fuel leak can go undetected. I ferried a Citabria one time which only had one fuel guage and it was for the right tank. I suppose it was built that way, I don't know. That right side fuel guage was decreasing faster than normal and I diverted. I discovered the leak was at the left fuel cap. Fuel from the right side was being sucked over to the left side via a cross-tube resulting in the greater than normal decrease in quantity. I had experienced this many years earlier in the same type by leaving the cap off after refuelling one time so it was a familiar experience but if the right tank had been leaking, I would not have had the same indications and instead would have had full for a long time, then a quicker than normal drop and maybe just disregarded the funny indications. Who knows.

All Citabrias are like that... at least all of the one I flew... Two tanks, one gauge. The reasoning behind it is they designed the aircraft fuel tanks to cross-feed that way... so it is essentially one big fuel tank. This is no different than lots of other aircraft out there that have several fuel tanks connected like the Beech Baron or Cessna Skymaster... it's just that they are usually on one side of the aircraft.

Like the 172, the Citabria only has a fuel vent on one side, so one tank will drain much faster than the other. This gives the illusion of a fuel leak. About the time the gauge reads zero, there is enough differential pressure to transfer the fuel from the other tank, and the gauge will actually start to go up again.


Another thing to be cautious of with these types of tanks is the cross-feeding when filling and the time it takes to fill the adjoining tanks. If you fill up a Skymaster like you fill up a 172, you are going to be short anything from minutes to hours of fuel depending on how fast your nozzle is. I always top up each main after filling to give the interconnected tanks time to find their levels.

Hmmm.....I used to tow gliders with a Citabria with two fuel gauges. Don't remember an uneven fuel burn per tank although I do remember something about that in 1 or 2 Skyhawks in the old days. I think you will find at least on some C337's, a placard on the cover for the filler cap saying to fill, then do the other side then top up for max fuel load.

Anyways, the Citabria I delivered had a fuel leak for sure with a large stain on top of the wing with the leak and less fuel in the tanks than expected after the diversion. Haven't heard of the fuel tank indication going to empty and then increasing again. I did foolishly in the old days have gauges reading zero on a Citabria but sideslipping made them increase significantly.

[AOW]

Otherwise, most fuel indication problems would be in your MEL

Does anyone know of an aircraft where completely inoperative fuel gauges are MEL-able?

We can operate with 1 U/S, but if both quit, we're grounded.

[Sidebar]

When they crucified that poor Keystone Kid for running out of fuel, he couldn't very well say that he still had fuel in the tanks because there was still unusable fuel, now could he?

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 2c0124.asp

Examination of the aircraft wreckage.... There was no indication of fuel leaking or venting. The fuel pressure and fuel flow gauges were tested and operated normally. About 8.5 US gallons of residual fuel were drained from the fuel system.

Findings:
1. The pilot did not correctly calculate the amount of fuel required to accomplish the flight from Winnipeg to Gunisao Lake and return, and did not ensure that the aircraft carried sufficient fuel for the flight.
2. The ILS approach was flown above the glideslope and beyond the missed approach point, which reduced the possibility of a safe landing at Winnipeg, and increased the risk of collision with terrain.
3. During the missed approach, the aircraft's engines lost power as a result of fuel exhaustion, and the pilot conducted a forced landing at a major city intersection.

[pdw]

Sidebar, the report doesn't include if parked inside a hangar or outside overnight, just that it was filled to max minus 1hr 38min. That will make a difference to fuelweight per gauge indication if only volume sensing. It also doesn't inform what the unusable fuel is supposed to be, just that 8.5gal is collected and none lost.

EDIT: Correction, the report included the equation. 1092lbs useable, plus 60lbs/10gal (math: 1152-1092lbs or 192-182 USgal) unuseable.

[costermonger]

Sidebar, the report doesn't include if parked inside a hangar or outside overnight, just that it was filled to max minus 1hr 38min. That will make a difference to fuelweight per gauge indication if only volume sensing. It also doesn't inform what the unusable fuel is supposed to be, just that 8.5gal is collected and none lost.

F*** me. It happened in June, so unless somebody filled the aircraft with hot fuel, the density relationship works the wrong way (this is ignoring the fact that the temperature change necessary for the aircraft to be short the ~160lbs difference between the [improperly] planned and actual fuel load when it got Winnipeg is something like 140 degrees celcius!).

Also, 10 US gal unusable according to Piper, and yes, that is in the report.

[Meatservo]

Have you guys ever noticed that some kinds of birds, chickens for instance, make really funny sounds? Turkeys too, and some tropical birds. I was just reading this thread and thinking about the funny sounds some birds make. I don't know why. I wonder if the birds themselves think they sound funny, or do they just sound funny to us, because the things birds worry about and take seriously are really silly?

[Prairiefire]

Have you been drinking again?

[Doc]

Have you guys ever noticed that some kinds of birds, chickens for instance, make really funny sounds? Turkeys too, and some tropical birds. I was just reading this thread and thinking about the funny sounds some birds make. I don't know why. I wonder if the birds themselves think they sound funny, or do they just sound funny to us, because the things birds worry about and take seriously are really silly?

Thanks Meat! I have coffee all over my keyboard! Funniest thing you've posted for a long while! Thank you for putting into words what some of us feel!

[Liquid Charlie]

Min fuel is not the same as running out.

It is if you are anywhere but here -- and likely here as well -- ATC is not obliged to give you priority -- you want that you need to declare a "MayDay" to receive it -- most of us here (transport category) have used IFR reserves to land at destination (in good wx) or changed to no alternate --- under no alternate flights usually carry route factor to keep you on the happy side of 30 minutes - and of course do we really know exactly how much fuel is in the tanks and what the real fuel burns are -- there is several error factors at play -- just read Boeing Classic manuals for gage error -- mmm -- --

[Doc]

I don't know there LC, I told Winnipeg Centre I was "on one" because the wx wasn't to my liking......they gave me priority handling, and weren't real happy when the Caravan arrived at the end of the runway....HEHE.....I was "on one"...

[iflyforpie]

The dreaded seven-engine approach.

[Liquid Charlie]

doesn't count Doc cuz it's centre line thrust -- "Thrust" -- she said with a tear in her eye -- lmfaoooooooooo

[MacStork]

OUT OF FUEL
I am wading into this discussion to shed some light on a very serious topic.
I have run out of fuel twice, two events that I am not proud of, but it did happen. I would like to share the events with you to, hopefully prevent anyone else from being put in this uncomfortable and potentially dangerous situation.
Before I start, I want to explain two important issues. The first is that it is very easy to run out of fuel. Every pilot and flight crew are regularly dispatched with minimum fuel / maximum payload. In order for any airline to be profitable, this is an operational necessity. No airline can afford to give up payload for extra fuel. Every pilot flies with this constraint on every flight, whether it is a B747-400 going from Hong Kong to London or a single turbine Otter going from Vancouver Harbour to Nanaimo Harbour. Every aircraft must have the ability to be dispatched with MIN FUEL.
The second issue is the importance of being dispatched with reliable and serviceable fuel gages. Both these issues go hand in hand. You cannot operate any sector with MIN FUEL unless your fuel gages are accurate and serviceable.
Now onto my story. There are some similarities of both flights that will be evident as I relate the stories. The first incident happened on January 8, 1981 on a G-73 Grumman Mallard (C-GIRL). I was dispatched to take 10 loggers from YVR to Tracy Harbour and to return empty to YVR. I did the fuel calculations and I could do the flight with VFR fuel (Destination plus 45 minutes of reserve) and take the 10 passengers and their bags to Tracy Harbour, which was very close to Sullivan Bay, BC. The weather was acceptable (good ceilings and visibility with SE winds of 20-30 knots along the route.
Prior to the flight, I did what I was trained to do and I dipped the fuel tanks to determine the fuel that I currently had on board. I did this with a wooden dipstick that was marked with lines and numerical values that represented the gallons. If I dipped 35 gallons in the starboard tank and needed 80 gallons to do the trip, I would add 45 gallons to the starboard tank. If the port tank dipped 32 gallons and I required 80 gallons, I would add 48 gallons to the port tank. There were electric fuel gages on the Mallard. My recollection was that they were not really all that accurate or reliable. The primary method of determining fuel quantity on board was the dipstick.
Anyhow, as I passed abeam Powell River, I checked the fuel gages to ensure that each gage was indicating a minimum of 30 gallons. This was merely a safety check to ensure that there was fuel onboard the aircraft. Just abeam the mouth of Jervis Inlet I experienced a sudden surge in the starboard engine. I thought I was experiencing a run away propeller, so I shut the engine down and feathered it. I was empty so there was no problem in maintaining altitude on one engine. I was at 1500 and about 25 minutes out of YVR. I considered my options and although Powell River was the closet airport I did not want to attempt a landing there because of the wind and turbulence on the SE approach to Runway 12. I had Sechelt Harbour and YVR as alternative choices. I advised Vancouver Dispatch that I had shut down the right engine and would be landing at YVR on RW 12 in about 22 minutes. As I approached Sechelt Harbour, I was carefully monitoring the port engine gages. Everything appeared normal, but then I noticed that the port fuel pressure gage was starting to flicker. I eased the Mallard over the shoreline to get into a position to land at Sechelt Harbour if the left engine quit. I was doubting my theory about the runaway prop as the port fuel gage continued to flicker. I was nicely established on a good final approach into Porpoise Bay when the port engine quit. I feathered it and set up a dead stick landing into wind at Porpoise Bay. I touched down smoothly and then had to pull the hull out of the water to avoid a log …. My second landing was equally smooth and I fell off the step about 200 feet from Al Campbell’s dock at Tyee Airways. I hailed a fishing boat to render me some assistance and he towed me into the airplane dock at Porpoise Bay. Standing on the dock with a big grin on his face was Black Jack Absouris (Blackie). This was about 16:00 in the afternoon …so I knew I was there for the night. As soon as the Mallard was secured to the dock I dipped both tanks. They were both bone dry …. I was out of fuel. It could have been a lot worse ….there was no damage and no injuries or casualties.
I walked up to the Tyee office with Blackie and then I phoned Jack Pomerleau who was CP at WCAS / Air BC to let him know that I was OK and secured to the dock for the night. Over the next week we went over every detail of the flight trying to figure out why I ran out of fuel. For the next 6 months it remained a mystery. There was no explanation as to why this event occurred. I don’t know if Transport Canada even knew about this incident. I didn’t fill out any incident reports and no one from TC ever interviewed me and I never received any punitive action from them. I never talked to anyone except Doreen Kozack on the radio, so as far as anyone knew, I had just run out of daylight and landed at Porpoise Bay for the night. I don’t think there was any requirement to report such incidents in those days, if there was no damage.
Blackie drove me down to Wakefield Inn for the mandatory debrief session. After a few beers and dinner He dropped me off at the motel and I went to bed. The next morning, WCAS flew an engineer (Jerry Mandella) up to Sechelt to check the Mallard out and to get the props out of feather. We got some gas and then took off for YVR. I landed normally on Runway 12 at YVR and taxied to the Hanger and went to see Jack. The incident was sort of forgotten and I went back on the line flying the Mallard.
About six months later, another WCAS pilot was flying the same aircraft (GIRL) up to Chilko Lake. On his way home, he ran out of fuel and had to dead stick the Mallard in Howe Sound, near to Keats Island. The company flew some fuel out to him and he continued on to YVR. Again, there was no damage and there were no injuries or casualties. He had figured out the reason that GIRL had run out of fuel.
The dip sticks were made from measurements taken from the original tanks and were no longer accurate. GIRL had bladder fuel tanks and the dip sticks had never been upgraded.
It was a mistake that was made at some point …. there were two flame outs on the same aircraft six months apart. It appeared to be an honest mistake, but after this second incident, I always looked at dipsticks with a certain distain and lack of trust.


Fast forward till July of 1997. I was based in Sandspit and was on my way back to work. As I got off the Convair 580 at YZP, I met briefly with the pilot that I was replacing. He was getting on it to start his days off. We only had about 5 minutes to talk so I asked him about our Twin Otter, CF-PAT which was Serial # 2. I asked about the fuel system and he told me that the engineer had just calibrated the fuel gages and they appeared to be working well. We parted and he went south and I went to work. The Twin Otter was all fueled and ready for the one trip to Gavinchy Cove which was only a 10 minute flight. We came back from that and we were done for the day.
The next day were scheduled for two return flights to Langara. It was about a 30 minute flight one way. So I needed a minimum of one hour plus 45 minutes of VFR reserve, a total of 1 hour and 45 minutes of fuel. I flight planned for 1050 pounds of fuel and I fuelled for 1200 lbs. ….150 pounds more than our minimum required fuel.
As CF-PAT was on of the first five Twin Otter, it was considered a prototype. It was different than the Series 100, 200 and 300 aircraft. The main difference was the fuel capacity. The normal Twin Otters had a total fuel capacity of 2458 pounds, where as the prototype aircraft only hand a total fuel capacity of about 2050 pounds …… just over 400 pounds difference.
I could have added more fuel, but we were expecting a full load of 12 passengers and all the bags and fish boxes that we could take. The Transport Canada Inspectors were rumoured to be in the area and I was expecting to be ramped at Alliford Bay on the return flight from Langara. I did not want to be over gross, so I decided to take 1200 pounds of fuel. There was a dipstick on CF-PAT, but it was the same dipstick that was used for the normal Twin Otters. Although the engineers had tried to calibrate the dipstick specifically for CF-PAT, it never seemed to work very well. As CF-PAT had smaller fuel tanks that the other Twin Otters, the modified dipstick did not provide an accurate and reliable indication of the fuel in the tanks. This dipstick was modified by the Borek engineers and was not approved by TC. Like most Twin Otter Captains, I did not trust it. The only means of accurately determining fuel on CF-PAT were the electric fuel gages. Any other method was just a guess.
My co-pilot was a young kid from Montreal, I believe. This was his first job, so he was pretty green. We completed the first trip without incident. We were about 12 minutes longer than I had flight planned for, but as I had a total of 1200 pounds of fuel, this was not really an issue. I put the same amount of fuel on for the second trip and the fuel gages indicated 560 pounds per tank for a total of 1120 pounds, which was less than the first trip but more than the minimum fuel requirements of 1050 pounds. The weather was still good VFR so I was not anticipating any weather issues.
We departed Alliford Bay on the second return leg without incident. This leg was about seven minutes longer than I had originally flight planned. This would leave me with almost precisely the correct amount of fuel for the return leg from Langara to Alliford Bay. We did not have a full load, so we were well under our MGTOW. We departed Langara with about 750 pounds fuel …. 300 pounds for the 30 minute flight and 450 pounds of reserve.
About half way to Alliford Bay, with about 600 pounds of fuel indicating on the fuel gages (about 300 pounds per tank), the Fuel LOW LEVEL light on the FORWARD tank illuminated. I discussed this condition with my FO and we agreed that with about 300 pounds of fuel, it was probably a fuel transfer failure, where the the fuel was not being transferred into the collector cell. We had the fuel, but it was not being transferred into the collector cell.
A couple of minutes later, the lights on the FORWARD fuel tank began to flicker and then the right engine flamed out. After securing the engine, I did a fuel check and I was convinced that I had sufficient fuel to reach Alliford Bay, on one engine. We were just passing abeam Yakoun Lake ( about 10 minutes NW of Alliford Bay). I could not figure out why the starboard engine had flamed out. The reality of the situation was that I did not know how much fuel I had in my tanks. I turned towards Yakoun Lake and set up an approach for a straight in NW bound landing on the lake. I had a quartering tail wind from the right at about 20 knots. I decided not to do a circuit because of the fuel situation. I landed smoothly on the left float and tried to keep the aircraft on the step as long as possible in order to be able to sail the aircraft onto the only sandy beach on the lake. After falling off the step, I attempted to manoever the Twin Otter so as to sail it onto the beach on the North end of the lake. Two minutes later, the left engine flamed out. I was drifting on the rocks, unable to sail the Twin Otter onto the beach. A few minutes later, another Twin Otter landed and nosed up to my floats. I was able to get a rope on the front left ballard and the other Twin Otter pilot skillfully towed me far enough to enable me to sail my aircraft onto the beach. We transferred the passengers, bags and fish and the second Twin Otter departed for Alliford Bay. A Beaver showed up with some fuel and an engineer and subsequently departed for Alliford Bay. There was no damage, no injuries and no casualties.
Had I decided to continue on to Alliford Bay on one engine, I would have crashed, out of fuel, into some very large spruce trees just NW of Queen Charlotte City. There would have been certain injuries and casualties. I had made the right decision, and survived.
The aftermath was very difficult for me. I was immediately suspended for 30 days. I was charged and fined by Transport Canada for running out of fuel. Three months later, I was fired from KBA. I did not contest the fine, I learned a long time ago that you have to pick your battles, and only pick the battles that you can win. You never win going up against Transport Canada. I did file a wrongful dismissal suit against KBA. I represented myself and subsequently won the suit and then moved on. Nobody really wins a law suit, except the lawyers.
Now I am retired, I logged just under 25,000 hours with no accidents. I had a few incidents, I believe I made a few good decisions at appropriate times, that kept me out of harm’s way.
What did I learn?
Firstly, you can never have too much fuel on board, unless you are on fire. If I had added another 200 pounds of fuel, nothing would have happened. Lesson well learned.
Secondly, if I had been ramped at Alliford Bay, and if I had been 200 pounds over my MGTOW, the punitive action and fine would have been far less than having run out of fuel. Further more, it is an arguable point, running out of fuel is not.
Thirdly, if I had added 200 pounds of fuel that would have put me 200 pounds over my MGTOW, I would have been back to legal weights 20 minutes into the flight.
Fouthly, Transport Canada has five floors of lawyers in Ottawa and a couple of floors of lawyers at 800 Burrard Street. You cannot win against legal power like that. Admit your guilt, pay the man and get on with your life.
Fifthly, never pass up an opportunity to add more fuel.
Sixthly, always present your self in person to Accident Investigator from the NTSB. My interview was 20 minutes over the phone, the co-pilot’s interview was in person at 800 Burrard Street and lasted over two hours. I cannot explain that one.
Finally, never trust a dip stick. Fuel gages are merely electrical devices prone to unexplainable inaccuracies.

Well folks, that’s my story. I hope this will prevent some one from experiencing what I went through. For those of you that believe you will never run out of fuel, I hope you are right. With Minimum Fuel operations as the norm, it will not take much to put a flight into a bad situation.
OK ….have at me. If I don’t answer back to one of your comments, remember….. I am retired and I probably just don’t give a shit anymore!
Happy landings …..
JIMBO

[Beefitarian]

Thank you for the stories Stork. I have found dip sticks in rental 172s with the wrong registration on them. Sometimes FTUs have planes with different tanks too.

You can visit CF-PAT at the museum here.

[Rookie50]

Thanks for sharing. Your stories are both of value to this 500 HR low timer. I like how when you realized a problem, you prepared in both cases for a dead stick landing, instead of hoping or wishing to make destination, which may have had a very different outcome.

[Colonel Sanders]

$500, people:



http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/in/ ... essure.php

For the endlessly shrieking and honking legal beagles:

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pdf/fp5stc.pdf

[MacStork]

[quote][/quote]
I believe that my flight was the last commercial flight of CF-PAT. I would love to take my grandson to YYC to see old PAT again.

[Beefitarian]

Sounds like a great day. I might drag my kids back this summer. They enjoyed it the last few times.