Rocket crash

[PMcClure]

I'll add that I don't like to change fuel tanks in critical stages of flight, like landing and take off. I try to plan so I have plenty in the tank that I will be using. 

[N201MKTurbo]

Two things:

Seeing that we are all second guessing what went on in that cockpit, I'll play along.

It says he was doing 90 KTS on approach, a bit fast in my book. At that speed you can arrest your decent for a few seconds or at least lengthen the glide a little.

I'm as cheap as they come, but I'm practical. I have run the numbers and it rarely saves money flying to another airport to buy gas unless that airport is along your intended route and near the departure or destination airport.

Let's use his numbers. He said it would take six gallons to get there (more like 4 or 5) so it would take six gallons to get back. That is $70 worth of fuel. The price difference would need to be like $1.25 to make it worth while.

[chrisk]

Two things:

Seeing that we are all second guessing what went on in that cockpit, I'll play along.

It says he was doing 90 KTS on approach, a bit fast in my book. At that speed you can arrest your decent for a few seconds or at least lengthen the glide a little.

I'm as cheap as they come, but I'm practical. I have run the numbers and it rarely saves money flying to another airport to buy gas unless that airport is along your intended route and near the departure or destination airport.

Let's use his numbers. He said it would take six gallons to get there (more like 4 or 5) so it would take six gallons to get back. That is $70 worth of fuel. The price difference would need to be like $1.25 to make it worth while.

In general I agree with your analysis on the cost to stop and get fuel elsewhere.  It rarely makes sense to make another stop.   However, it seems like the pilot was looking for an excuse to fly the plane on a $100 hamburger run.   With that planned, most of us would choose to fill at the cheaper airport.  --Anyway, I have done similar things.  My 81, 231 holds 78.6 gal, with 75.6 being usable.  --But I have not checked the empty tank capacity yet (on my list), so I am much more conservative.  

 

As for the speed, my poh says a normal landing says final should be 75KTS with full flaps.  I've always assumed this is the over the fence speed, not the base to final speed.  90KTS doesn't seem unreasonable to me, depending on where you are on final.   And if the engine quit and short.  Gear up, flaps up, and best glide of around 75 - 85KTS

[Alan Fox]

That plane has a big 520 engine , burns over 25 GPH on takeoff , climb out , .....I wouldn't even think of going flying with an estimated 20 gallons on board.......I hope he gets better .......

[WardHolbrook]

Fuel management in a Mooney is not as big a problem as it is in some aircraft. I've flown some SE Pipers that had 4 fuel tanks and some twin Cessnas that had six tanks and it took a lot of effort and planning not to end up with your fuel reserve split between all those fuel tanks. There is a tendency to get complacent with our fuel management. We don't have to dip into our reserve fuel very often, but when we do, it's frequently during a time of "heightened stress" - you've missed the approach and you've got to divert to your alternate, unforecast winds or weather have played havoc with your estimates, etc. When we need it the most it is also a very busy time in the cockpit, then on top of everything else, you've got to start screwing around with fuel management. It's not too hard to come up with a scenario where you've boxed yourself into a corner and have to switch tanks multiple times during your diversion to the alternate and subsequent approach. Not very good planning. It's obvious why you want your reserve to be in one tank and that's the tank you want to be using during your approach and landing. Things are a little simpler in Mooneys because they only have two tanks, but the same considerations apply. 

[kmyfm20s]

An argument for running a the tank dry and knowing your tanks and gauges for sure. I have a new plane now so I'm still getting it dialed in but in my last "J" in knew that I had 33.5 gallons in each tank (straight and level) and that the low fuel light comes on when the pilot side had 3 gallons usable and passenger side had 3.5. But if you fly multiple trips over a period of days a lot of variables come into play for disappearing fuel or possibly the last time you filled it to the tabs and not to the top and forgot.

[WardHolbrook]

An argument for running a the tank dry and knowing your tanks and gauges for sure. I have a new plane now so I'm still getting it dialed in but in my last "J" in knew that I had 33.5 gallons in each tank (straight and level) and that the low fuel light comes on when the pilot side had 3 gallons usable and passenger side had 3.5. But if you fly multiple trips over a period of days a lot of variables come into play for disappearing fuel or possibly the last time you filled it to the tabs and not to the top and forgot.

I'm of the opinion that you should be able to know your total fuel onboard to within a gallon or two at any given point in the flight. You don't need fancy electronics or bang on fuel gauges either, the most accurate fuel gauge in any airplane is still a wrist watch. Every one of you guys know exactly how much fuel your airplane burns every hour. (And if you don't you should.) We each fly our airplanes the way we fly our airplane and the fuel burn never varies much. When there's only 1 hour of fuel left, you should be on the ground or at least on short final. How difficult is that? I don't mean to be flippant, but it's simple math, not rocket science. 

[Alan Fox]

Seriously , If you cant manage fuel properly , and flying a plane that burns 20 gallons the first hour , with an hours worth fuel (estimated, and estimated incorrectly) you need to find another hobby..... 

[Cris]

I'd respectfully suggest that the jury is still out on this. In my own case I have been taxiing and pulled the throttle back to slow only to have the engine die. That was due to the throttle linkage being maladjusted but maybe something similar was in play in this incident. With that said a steep turn from base to final with low fuel might have caused loss of fuel flow similar to the POH again in my case that prohibits turning take offs with less than 12 gals. of fuel per side.

[PTK]

I'd respectfully suggest that the jury is still out on this. In my own case I have been taxiing and pulled the throttle back to slow only to have the engine die. That was due to the throttle linkage being maladjusted but maybe something similar was in play in this incident. With that said a steep turn from base to final with low fuel might have caused loss of fuel flow similar to the POH again in my case that prohibits turning take offs with less than 12 gals. of fuel per side.

This is wisdom folks!

[chrisk]

I'm of the opinion that you should be able to know your total fuel onboard to within a gallon or two at any given point in the flight. You don't need fancy electronics or bang on fuel gauges either, the most accurate fuel gauge in any airplane is still a wrist watch. Every one of you guys know exactly how much fuel your airplane burns every hour. (And if you don't you should.) We each fly our airplanes the way we fly our airplane and the fuel burn never varies much. When there's only 1 hour of fuel left, you should be on the ground or at least on short final. How difficult is that? I don't mean to be flippant, but it's simple math, not rocket science. 

 

For me at least, being able to calculate fuel left on board by stop watch to 1 gallon accuracy is a tall order.  There are a lot of variables and different fuel flows:   Start up, taxi, take off, cruise, and decent.    When I use this method, I am always left with more fuel than planned.   3 gph for taxi, 22 gph for take off and climb, 13 gph for the rest.  And with 4+ hours of cruise, being off by 0.5 gph will give more than a 2 gallon error.  It is however a really good way not to run out of fuel.

[WardHolbrook]

For me at least, being able to calculate fuel left on board by stop watch to 1 gallon accuracy is a tall order.  There are a lot of variables and different fuel flows:   Start up, taxi, take off, cruise, and decent.    When I use this method, I am always left with more fuel than planned.   3 gph for taxi, 22 gph for take off and climb, 13 gph for the rest.  And with 4+ hours of cruise, being off by 0.5 gph will give more than a 2 gallon error.  It is however a really good way not to run out of fuel.

The jury is still out on this one, but that doesn't minimize the fuel management aspect of this. It doesn't matter what engine you've got up in the nose, or how varied your fuel flows are, the technique will work. I know, because it works just fine on the 3-hole Falcon 900 that I fly at work. I plan on 3200 pounds of fuel for the first hour and 2400 pounds per hour after that. I use those numbers to back up the computer flight plan and guess what? On a coast to coast trip I can typically predict what my next fuel up load will be within 10 gallons. That's 10 out of 2,850 gallons capacity. I'm not a super pilot or a math wizard, I just know what numbers to use and how to read a clock. If you're ending up with more fuel than you had planned, you're not using the correct numbers. Perhaps 3/22/13 aren't quite right for your airplane, the way you are flying it. It sounds to me that you're actually doing better than that.

 

It's all about keeping your head in the game for the entire flight. In aviation, we call it situational awareness. Fuel issues don't suddenly pop-up out of nowhere, they develop over the duration of the flight, Take a look at any accident where the pilot ran the airplane out of fuel, how many suitable airports were over flown during the last 60 minutes of the flight? There are almost always several. Aviation is both an art and a science. The science part of it is very straight forward, but the art introduces the variables. The science gives us the winds aloft and weather forecasts, the precise fuel flows and speeds, etc. The art part tells us that Mother Nature doesn't always bother to read the weather forecasts and ATC can, and occasionally does, muff up the best, most well thought out flight plan. But it can not fool a wrist watch.

 

All of us fly with a watch, many of us have fuel computers interfaced to our nav systems and all of us have access to the same free computerized flight planning that turbine pilots have been using for years. Using a watch alone, there is no excuse to run an airplane out of fuel. Throw a fuel computer with a GPS interface and a computerized flight plan and you simply have no excuse. But you still have to keep your head in the game and have the fuel where it can be readily and easily accessed without distraction when it is needed.

 

I'm sorry about the rant, but this topic happen to be one of my pet peeves. I'll shut up now.

[Alan Fox]

Well I had lunch today with Joe at the table , and he has recovered , well and is in good spirits, He basically in so many words told he didn't like my post or my opinion or respect me very much.......And I am glad he is here to dislike me....... 

[phecksel]

Well I had lunch today with Joe at the table , and he has recovered , well and is in good spirits, He basically in so many words told he didn't like my post or my opinion or respect me very much.......And I am glad he is here to dislike me....... 

I had a highly respected flight instructor who was ticketed in multiple warbirds explain it to me in a manner that even I could understand.

 

Don't do something will cause your friends to read the NTSB report and 2nd guess your decision making.

[N9201A]

Glad to hear the gentleman who was injured is recovered.  I hope he gets back in the air soon!