jetdriven

here are some ASRS reports from pilots who lost their primary attitude indicator while in IFR. What is surprising is the amount of them that completely lost control of their aircraft, some even striking trees or coming out of the clouds looking at corn. Of course, these are the pilots who didnt crash. We did Oshkosh and put 25 hours on the airplane. We also flew it about 4 hours IFR. One thing I noticed was in anything other than light turbulence the T/C isn't particularly reliable, it dances around a lot. Any yaw fools it into thinking you are in a turn. We are installing a Castleberry attitude indicator to replace our T/C this month. enjoy reading these. Some are outright shocking. http://www.37000feet.com/report/717298/Mooney-M20J-pilot-has-loss-of-the-attitude-indicator-ai-while-in http://www.37000feet.com/report/520339/PA34-pilot-had-the-attitude-indicator-fail-in-IMC-in-gsp-class http://www.37000feet.com/report/771044/light-twin-lost-the-attitude-indicator-and-vacuum-system-in-cruise http://www.37000feet.com/report/338877/Attitude-indicator-failure-No-backup-gyroscope-and-reporter-temporarily-lost-control-of http://www.37000feet.com/report/857535/C182-pilot-on-IFR-flight-plan-in-VMC-experienced-attitude-indicator-failure http://www.37000feet.com/report/691506/PA-31T-at-FL250-entered-an-unusual-attitude-after-losing-both-attitude-indicators http://www.37000feet.com/report/457606/Mooney-M20E-recovers-from-unusual-attitude-with-gyro-failure-in-night-IMC http://www.37000feet.com/report/132446/GA-small-transport-developed-instrument-problems-on-night-cross-country-IMC *****"Also in moderate chop, the turn coordinator was bouncing around, so it was not useful in giving me bank information."***** http://www.37000feet.com/report/698988/Cessna-P210-pilot-has-vacuum-system-fail-and-aircraft-has-altitude-excursion http://www.37000feet.com/report/282151/Loss-of-aircraft-control-altitude-deviation-altitude-excursion http://www.37000feet.com/report/603317/Mooney-231-pilot-had-a-malfunctioning-instrument-vacuum-system-that-caused-problems http://www.37000feet.com/report/863226/C172-instructor-experiences-spatial-disorientation-and-compromise-of-aircraft-control-while-training http://www.37000feet.com/report/135152/Small-aircraft-pilot-experiences-loss-of-aircraft-control-on-ILS-approach-to *****Then I lost control of aircraft totally and became totally disoriented. Sheer panic for a couple of mins. Aircraft would not seem to ascend. Bank indicator and attitude gyros disagreed? Aircraft shook (probably close to stall). ***** deviated from the instrument approach procedure due to gyro instrument failure (vacuum) which caused some disorientation on my part. While on a flight from ZZZ1 to ZZZ, I chose to make a localizer approach into runway 34 at drake field. I was on localizer, a little below the GS about 1 mi from the touchdown zone. My wife (passenger) was looking out the windows to see ground (we were in the clouds). My wife hollered 'trees.' I was watching the aircraft instruments. Upon her exclamation, I gave full throttle and pulled back on the yoke. I heard the noise of scraping tree tops on the aircraft. I looked back at my instruments and the aircraft attitude indicator had tumbled and my directional gyro was spinning to the right and taking the aircraft with it. http://www.37000feet.com/report/547636/M20-pilot-strikes-tree-tops-on-lda-DME-approach-and-experiences-primary

well if the fuel selector was selected ot an empty tank, and the doubt of fuel being in the other tank suggests the NTSB is right, fuel mismanagement. I am looking for a case where the fuel is available and the engine would not relight. Quote: 201-FLYER Sorry....you asked the question and I thought I was answering it According to the article...The report also raises the question of if she followed the proper procedure for restarting an engine in flight when a tank runs dry.

Again, ran the RESERVE tanks dry, and starved the engines inadvertently. The reserve tanks were found empty, and the selectors were positioned to reserve. The pilot also lost control of the aircraft. simple. fuel. mismanagement. http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/183014-1.html So keep looking. I would like to see a documented event where the pilot had fuel onboard the aircraft, switched to it, and could not get the engine to restart. Since that is such a common fear oft repeated on here. The aircraft must be demonstrated to the FAA for certification to run a tank out, interrupting the fuel flow, and then be able to restart it on another tank. Quote: 201-FLYER Points To Ponder Aircraft Systems Anyone attempting to fly this P-40 should first get a thorough checkout on its systems and quirks. Older airplanes do not follow modern certification rules on switch positions or operation of their systems. For example, fuel systems can be incredibly complex on even small, single-engine airplanes. Flying without first doing one’s homework and fully understanding the airplane's systems is too often fatal. Even a devoted warbird pilot such as Jeff Ethell apparently made his final error with a fuel system of the P-38, running a tank dry under conditions in which he could not restart the engine. [EDITOR'S NOTE: AVweb includes the NTSB's final report on the Jeff Ethell P-38 crash.] Before you get in, know how to get at all the fuel in the airplane, where any return fuel from a fuel-injected engine goes so you don’t overfill a tank (early Bonanzas return fuel to the left tank, Cessna 310s return fuel to the mains only), and how to shut off all of the fuel to the engine(s) should you desire. Does the fuel selector handle function by pointing the long or short end at the detent? Is the electrical system 12- or 24-volt? Does it matter? Why? How does it work in an emergency? How much oil does the engine hold? What is the minimum amount? The older the airplane, the more likely the systems are to have a design philosophy which is unfamiliar and probably counterintuitive to you. It is wise to have a good working knowledge of the systems when something goes south in flight rather than to try and puzzle things out under stress.

here is the link to the actual NTSB report. http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20070626X00811&ntsbno=ANC07FA051&akey=1 The fuel selector was found on the left tank and the left tank was empty. Some witnesses saw fuel pouring out of the right wing after the crash. So what is your point? This is simple fuel starvation. THe condition I am advocating preventing. Quote: 201-FLYER Low gas level caused crash, report says BY MICHAEL ARMSTRONG STAFF WRITER Lack of fuel probably caused a Yukon Island plane crash last year that injured the pilot and three passengers of a Smokey Bay Air flight from Seldovia to Homer, the National Transportation Safety Board concluded in a report released May 28. Photo by Ben Mitchell Rescuers respond to the Yukon Island crash last year "It is probable that the pilot inadvertently allowed the left tank to run dry, and was unable to restart the engine prior to the emergency landing," NTSB investigator Scott Erickson wrote in his report. The Cessna 206 piloted by Jenn Foltz crashed on a beach on the island about six miles from Homer on June 19, 2008. The accident severely injured Foltz and passengers James Pastro, both of Homer, Teresa Cook of Nanwalek and Cledia Larrison of Seldovia. Cook was seven months pregnant and lost her infant son, Joakim Adam Cook, in the accident. A rapid response from Homer Volunteer Fire Department emergency medical technicians and doctors and EMTs with a kayaking tour on the island helped save the lives of the victims. Maritime Helicopters flew an EMT to the scene and picked up the patients. Smokey Bay Air owner Claire McCann criticized the report, emphasizing that it determines a probable not a definite cause of the accident. "That's what people have to remember," she said. "They (the NTSB) haven't determined what caused the accident. Their determinations aren't clear and wouldn't stand up in a court of law." According to the accident investigation, the Cessna 206 had a half-gallon of fuel in its left wing tank. The right wing tank had been breached in the crash, and two witnesses said they saw fuel draining onto the beach. The Cessna 206 stores fuel in a bladder inside the left and right wings. The NTSB report said the fuel selector was turned to the left tank at the time of the crash, with "about a drop of fuel" in the engine manifold. Investigators recovered the engine from the crash and restarted it without trouble on a test stand. At issue is how much fuel Foltz put in the accident plane and how much remained before the crash. Why or how she switched from a tank that possibly held fuel to one almost empty, or if she switched at all, is not explained in the report. The report also raises the question of if she followed the proper procedure for restarting an engine in flight when a tank runs dry. When interviewed in July 2007, Foltz said she had no memory of the crash or of the flight beyond taking off from Seldovia. She submitted a statement to the NTSB saying she did not remember how much fuel she put in the accident plane, but said that she typically would add about 30 gallons. Foltz started her work day at about 8:32 a.m., and flew three flights in another Smokey Bay Air Cessna 206. The NTSB reported that a Smokey Bay Air employee said he saw Foltz switch to the accident plane, N72067, also a Cessna 206, and fuel the plane at about 9:45 a.m. The employee didn't know how much fuel Foltz put in. Foltz's log book showed that she switched to the accident plane at 10:14 a.m., but the report doesn't explain the discrepancy between the time when the employee said he saw her fuel the accident plane and the time she logged taking over the plane. The NTSB said McCann told them the usual procedure was for pilots to fill the left wing tank, which held about 40 usable gallons of fuel. The pilot would put a reserve of one hour of fuel in the right tank, or about 16 gallons of usable fuel, McCann said. According to Cessna 206 operating manuals, and because of the Cessna's design, about two gallons of fuel can't be used in each tank. McCann said her pilots have the responsibility to check the fuel and make sure there's enough fuel for the flight. Her pilots tend to fuel the plane heavy, that is, with more fuel than might be needed, she said. "The pilot knows how much fuel is on board that plane," McCann said. "They would never intentionally depart with a discrepancy even the thought they wouldn't have enough fuel to make a round trip." Foltz flew the Cessna from Homer to Seldovia, landed, then went to Nanwalek, where she picked up two passengers, Pastro and Cook. She then returned to Seldovia, where she picked up Larrison and 246 pounds of cargo. She left Seldovia and crashed on the return to Homer. Smokey Bay Air measured fuel burn this April for its Cessna 206s, and calculated a fuel consumption rate of about 15.07 gallons an hour. Erickson calculated the Cessna 206 would have burned 8 gallons on takeoffs. Based on Foltz's flight logs, Erickson calculated her flight time between 10:14 a.m. until the crash at 11:03 a.m. as being about 41 minutes, not including time on the ground. Using fuel calculations provided by Smokey Bay Air for the accident airplane, and assuming Foltz did not refuel the plane, it would have had 19.45 gallons of usable fuel in both tanks left over from the previous pilot when Foltz took over the plane, Erickson wrote in the report. With 41 minutes of flight, the accident plane would have burned about 10.30 gallons, and with four takeoffs, about 18.30 gallons of fuel burned in total. "Fuel remaining calculations by the operator and the NTSB IIC (investigator) are based on unverified amounts of fuel that were remaining in the accident airplane when it was received from the first pilot," Erickson wrote. "As the actual amount of fuel left in the airplane by the previous pilot could not be determined, the actual amount of fuel remaining in the airplane at the time of the accident is unknown." The NTSB report said other factors might have contributed to the crash, including that Foltz allowed airspeed to drop, causing a stall. "The probable cause is the best thing we could come up with," Erickson said in explaining how the NTSB made its report. "Lacking firm findings or factual findings, you have to go through that process: What do we know for sure? What are the findings? What's the probable result of that?" "Basically, we'll probably never know what happened," McCann said. McCann said Smokey Bay Air has changed its fuel-logging policies as a result of the crash and introduced more redundancies. "Now there's a company sharing of responsibility of everything that goes on," she said. "It was there before, but it wasn't a written procedure. We've made written policy changes." Foltz is still recovering from her injuries and has not returned to work as a pilot. McCann didn't know her future plans. "She made the best of a bad situation," McCann said of the crash. One witness to the crash praised Foltz's flying. "Jenn did a very good job of getting the plane to the beach," Brian Miller, a Halibut Cove resident who saw the accident from his boat, said after the accident. Pastro is still on medical leave from his job with the borough, said his supervisor, Richard Campbell. The NTSB report, including a full narrative, is available as a link online through the Homer News Web site at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070626X00811&key=1.

A challenge to all of those "run a tank dry it won't restart" believers. Can anyone find an accident report where a pilot ran a tank dry and could not restart the engine on the other tank containing fuel? This seems to be a big fear of the pilots who have never ran a tank empty.

I agree not to run a tank all the way to shutdown on a turbo engine at high altitude. You can run it until the fuel pressure wavers though. Running a tank extends the range of your aircraft and allows you to land with a tank still above a reasonable margin. you also can get the 3 gallons unusable fuel too. It swhat professional pilots do, but they are all "reckless" by some comments on this board. I have PIC time in 60 different makes of airplanes and somehow its dangerous behavior. Dividing your remaining fuel among two or more tanks can be hazardous. Some airplanes have as many as 7 tanks, should you leave an hour of fuel in each of those? There are those who say they will "never" run low on fuel but these are the ones who run out of fuel at night because there was no fuel stop, thery werent sure how many gallons were in each tank, and they have to get to work in the morning. The plane always can fly for 3:45 but after that? Who knows? At least see it under controlled conditions. Yes, the same reason we practice stalls. Further, yes, I have landed with less than 45 minutes fuel about 4 times in 12 years and something like 7000 flights. I also remained in control of the situation and always left myself an "out". Keeping careful tabs on your fuel, and your time enroute will avoid a fuel starvation and exhaustion event. There are those pilots who will "never" get close to a stall and come ove the numbers at 90 knots. "never" land in a crosswind, and then lose control in a crosswind at their home field when winds are not as forecast. "never" fly at night until they are delayed at departure. The number one description of a plane crash pilot was he was a "careful, cautious, pilot". Cautious meaning don't approach limits. Until the needs of the situation demand them, and the pilot cannot deliver. It seems we have the high time ATP's on one side saying they have been running tanks to empty for 20 years and 10,000 hours and the 100-400 hour private pilots calling them "stupid". Step back and examine that for a minute. If your airplane does not start after running a tank dry then it is not airworthy. It is a certification requirement. But you don't know if it will or not. BTW if you have never ran a tank to empty and refilled it how do you know how much fuel the tank holds? Have you ever personally verified it? Do you really have 89 gallons? If you want to increase safety, don't practice partial panel. Modernize the system. Get rid of the turn coordinator and get yourself a second attitude indicator. The information is out there but it is infinitely safer. than needle - ball - airspeed. No partial panel condition is possible if you have two attitude indicators. It is surprising sometimes what people think of for safety and what is overlooked. Just suggestions. you can have utility as well as safety with your airplane. What is even more surprising is pilots considering flying their airplane over gross weight, which is a FAR violation, but that same set of pilots refuses to runa tank below 10 gallons a side! Quote: orangemtl I believe there's a subtle difference between stall & slip practice, and measuring fuel tank capacity. One is flying an aircraft: the other is measuring. A. Tank. I have a turbo. From everything that I can see, emptying tanks is not a particularly valuable practice with turbos. I switch my tanks frequently, and keep fuel totals even within about 15%. I have a builtin reminder at 30 minute intervals on the panel, so as to avoid forgetting. I monitor both gauges religiously. I NEVER allow myself to get into the yellow on both tanks, and I carry 89 gallons at the tabs. Tell me: where's the upside of emptying a tank? Curiosity? Not that curious. Practice? If a tank runs out, I'll switch to the other, say a few prayers, and probably it's going to restart. Unless it doesn't, whereupon all the tank measurements in the world don't mean d--k. Stall practice is important. Partial panel is important. Emergency procedures are important. Having a backup means of navigation is important. Emptying my tanks? Thanks; I'll just go play in traffic, instead.

I second AVQ for a nice fuel stop. I have flown that route in reverse, but my routing was cross that ridge by Gorman or Tehachapi, then to Victorville, TNP - AVQ - TUS and onward.

I would like to point out it is Scott who hijacked this thread with his political rant. Of course since I have a differing opinion then I must be a "nazi" "socialist" "sick" or some other name you saw on Fox News. No wonder GA is going away with some of the attitudes I see on here. As it is, my wife and I must be the only under 50 somethings who own an airplane on this board. Probably a reason for that as well given some of the sentiment diplayed here. Perhaps we are all hopelessly divided. Everyone heil to the Republican Party, Fox News, Drudge Report! Give everything away to serve your corporate masters! Anyone who doesn't agree with that should be marched out and shot!

Perhaps in a few years the rest of the bottom 90% will not have a job, and lose everything. Then the wealthy 10% can complaint they are paying ALL the taxes! Of course, they own 90% of the wealth in this country. The bottom 40% only own 2%. Lets take all that too. And once again, if it is so hard to be a "taxed to death" company in the US, then why are companies sitting on 2 TRILLION dollars in cash, and why aren't they putting this to work, creating jobs, juat as FOX news says? Because its all a big lie. Quote: KSMooniac After the Bush tax cuts took effect, the "wealthy" shouldered a LARGER burden of the total tax share in this country, and it has gotten much, much more disproportionate as the economy has gone in the tank. The 2008 data shows the top 1% earned 20% of the income and paid 38% of all taxes. The top 5% earned 34.7% of the total income and paid 58.7% of the total taxes. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html) Our income tax code has gotten more progressive every time the political class adjusts it...which is why the entire system should be scrapped and replaced with the Fair Tax! The idea that a "tiny" tax increase would make a huge dent in the deficit is nothing more than a liberal dream. We do not have an inadequate taxation problem by any stretch of the imagination. We have a SPENDING problem. The facts are that the government could CONFISCATE all earnings above $250k (and assume that the people would not change their behavior and keep working hard just to give all of that to the government) and only take in $1.4 trillion. The entire Fortune 500 earned about $400 billion in total profit... Combine these and it just gets us to a little over halfway thru a fiscal year with the federal government! (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=568737) The federal government has grown way outside it's historical boundaries in terms of share of GDP, and it is so far past it's constitutional bounds that the fence isn't even visible any more.

The seats, rails, etc are designed for a 9G impact. FAR 23 airplanes like the Cirrus are 26G I believe.

I like the scheme on the left but done in red with silver or gray accents. but thats just me Take a look at Jezzie's plane. Its similar i think.

How much do they lower cruise speed? 4.5 knots? In another thread on here about VG's there was a link to a study that shows the stall speed is lower, but when it does stall, its more complete and total. Given Mooney's stall characteristics I wonder about the increased safety margin of the VGs.

The TBM created a class of airplane. Unfortunately, 1983 was a terrible time for aircraft and boat makers. They lost the 301.

Lynyrd Skynyrd's crash was never solved. The aircraft ran out of fuel, but the closest theory they could determine was the right engine had a bad mag, and the crew ran it in auto-rich to cover up the rough running. Convair 240 N55VM did not have a fuel dump switch, either. http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/LynyrdSkynyrd-N55VM.htm

This guy flew around the world in his M20J in 204 hours. No weight given, but he mentions 20%, so that would be ~600 Lb. from : http://www.priortrip.com/ 14) An airplane can successfully handle surprisingly more weight than I had been led to believe. While hardly good routine practice, ferry pilots will tell you, and I can now concur, that 20% or more overgross operation is quite possible safely. (You need an appropriate FAA sign off and Ferry Permit, plus a thorough briefing from a seasoned ferry pilot first!) Climb rate is obviously the most adversely impacted performance parameter, but after struggling up to cruise altitude, the Mooney flew only 7 - 10 knots slower than at normal gross weight. This speed penalty declined as fuel was burned over time. Adding this extra fuel weight near the aft CG limit helped a little, as the resulting reduced aerodynamic downward force on the tail in trimmed level flight partially offset the added weight. Needless to say, pitch stability suffered, though, and I had to fight phugoid oscillations for the first couple hours of each fully fuelled flight. Terrain and manmade obstacles near the departure airports became of paramount importance, as initial climb rates were an anemic 200 - 300 fpm maximum. As was first suggested to me by Barry Andrews when he and I visited the airport at Johor Bahru, Malaysia, the best way to get good information about local terrain and obstacles along a proposed departure path was to visit the local ATC Tower and get a briefing on suggested climbout routes. Outside the US where security is far less restrictive, I was routinely able to do this with minimal fuss as long as I wore my uniform and carried a pilot picture ID. Tower controllers were universally cordial and helpful, and the view from their elevated tower cabs provided a good preparation for the overgross takeoff.

You could land it 1000 lb overgross but it better be smooth and of course the approach speed is higher.

Name calling. Nice. I didnt even read the article. I chose it from a google image search for "military spending % disctretionary budget" for the chart. Seeing as how this senseless war was only to secure our oil interests which involves spending 200B a year now and killing a few hundred thousand foreign citizens in their home country, well, I hope getting your kids to school in a Tahoe is worth all that. But hey, its our birthright, manifest destiny is an American trait. Those hippies and slackers have the balls to demonstrate. Perhaps only they realize the "transfer of wealth" happening now is going from the middle class to the top .1 or 1%. When you lose your job and home, perhaps you will see it too. Quote: alex Seriously? I think you may have shown your true colors with this link. And you say we have fallen for it? Liberalism is a sickness, honestly. Get yourself checked. warresisters.org Who We Are The United States’ oldest secular pacifist organization, the War Resisters League has been resisting war at home and war abroad since 1923. Our work for nonviolent revolution has spanned decades and has been shaped by the new visions and strategies of each generation’s peacemakers. Bunch of hippies/slackers like the ones that are littering wall street right now.

the parts catalog does not show a different part number break at 24-1676 for the fuselage or landing gear components.

Different tube thickness or marketing ploy to keep older airframes from having a 1200 LB useful load? Thats the first I heard of different tube thickness.

300-400$ per credit hour http://www.uh.edu/financial/graduate/tuition-fees/tuition/ undergrad is around 200-250$ per hour.

good reading here, too. Note the days it takes for corrosion to take hold in their tests. http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-14819878/Oil-supplements-worth-it-for.html

there is a restaurant on top of Pikes Peak 14,100'. I was too tired to eat there though. http://www.visitpikespeak.com/cafe.htm

W100+ has TCP, but camguard has a lot more things than that. There is no direct comparison

Peter, yes you are correct. The government does not add value like a corporation does. It does, however, do the jobs nobody else wants to do, or can be trusted to do. Such as roads, building codes, fire and police protection, even the space program. How about the SBA? Student loans? Pell grants? Also, look at medicare, the amount of money used to administer the program is unmatched by private industry. Is there waste? certainly. Is the government too big? Eliminate half the military and ask yourself the same thing. The thing the government does is also protect us from corporations by regulation. Look at the Triangle Shirtwaist fire to see an industry with no regulation. Come to Nigeria where they have spilled 100 million barrels of oil since they started drilling there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_Delta I see no EPA enforcing the cleanup and I see no companies cleaning it up either. Yet people here believe somehow industry will self-regulate and do what is right. The cuyahoga river and the houston ship channel would also catch fire they were so polluted. Again, no one has come forward to endorse the practice of not insuring people with pre-existing conditions or rescinding policies. That is illegal under the new healthcare law. Quote: allsmiles Becca, if I may interject, I think you are incorrect. Big government invariably finds itself needing to get bigger in order to sustain itself. This translates to bigger and bigger debt that the taxpayers must bear in order to feed it. GOVERNMENT DOES NOT PRODUCE VALUE. The people do and increasingly government in a major hinderence. It is the same taxpayer who pays to sustain bigger and bigger government and frankly it's high time the government got out of the way.

Yep, it is not, but pretty graphic. There are other sources that show the military is half of all discretionary spending.