GA Accidents-Fuel

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, fuellevel said:

The typical Cirrus is an all in proposition  Turbo & FIKI  - So 4 fuel senders and 2 FIKI (one in each wing root) senders per aircraft 

Mooney will be similar - Only one FIKI tank 

----------------

Bob yes - if we get around the vent tube, it shouldn't matter - I am curious how the bladder handles the tube .   

The company, O&N, the bladder STC holder, is in the process of changing hands but I would think finding out about the vent would not be too tough.

I hope your unit fits in to the tank from the cabin side. The bladders do potentially complicate the access hole, or the thickness of the walls around it.

[fuellevel]

Bob-S50   Don't worry - I appear to be the premier king of statements that muddle waters.

[DXB]

Muddle not withstanding, I would be inclined to install this product  if the experience of potential early adopters like Bob (i.e. those with bladders and existing primary JPI gauges) proves favorable, and cost is not exorbitant. I'm not much of an early adopter, but at the same time, there's no reason to cling to technology from the dark ages.

[TWinter]

And as the OP of this thread nearing six pages and now the big Mooney interest in your companies senders and potential sales I'll expect no commission, just a worthy minimal discount for my E will be sufficient when my senders are belly up.. . These do look nice. Hope to see some for the E model in the near future..I do still maintain that pilots need to flight-plan more carefully with respect to usable fuel for the journey.

 

-Tom

[cnoe]

Thanks for the offer but for someone in my position there are other things that would enhance safety more at a similar price point. The gauges in my J are accurate enough to tell me which tank is fullest, or if one is losing fuel via leakage. And my annunciator illuminates if a tank gets low. My k-factor is damn close and I always keep good reserves; I never fly with less than 8 gallons in each tank unless purposely running a tank dry (which I don't do enroute). I simply don't push it with regards to fuel.

I'm a helluva lot more likely to land gear up and think my money would be better spent on a voice gear-up warning. Or maybe an AOA Indication system.

I might feel differently if I was hot for a JPI900, but my 830 works great already.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

Scott P. 

You get some good honest technical feedback with MS.

Best regards,

-a-

[Bob_Belville]

3 hours ago, fuellevel said:

 

I want to help - SO here is the one time KOSH MOONEY Introductory - it will not be repeated as MOONEY factory will take over  aftermarket support next year

--------------------------------

Mooney C , D & E  Model - Reporting to a JPI 900, JPI 930, EI  or Aerospace Voltage or Digital -   $700 Kit 

Offer is good until KOSH 

 

 

I am very interested and plan to come into KOSH with the Mooney Caravan Sunday morning. Please PM me on how to contact you there. I'd be interested in the installation instruction to go over them with my A&P in advance.

1966 M20E, bladders, 27 gal per side. JPI EDM 930. 

Bob

[steingar]

Yeah, interest from this quarter as well depending on installation costs.  Happy to hook up at the show.  I'll be there jealously staring at the Mooney Caravan folks.

[fuellevel]

I moved the commercial discussion over to the vendor forum - I didn't see where sponsorship could be accomplished so i donated,   But we will migrate the commercial concerns/offers there 

 

[fuellevel]

This recent accident report article  illustrates my point perfectly.  This more than anything else I could write here makes my contrary point very clear.

 

Relying too much on fuel gauges contributes to crash

The pilot checked weather and requested that the airplane be serviced with full fuel before the cross-country flight.                                                    Fuel receipts show the Piper PA 28-180 was serviced with 34.5 gallons.

The airplane’s fuel capacity was 50 gallons.                                                                                                                                                                   He performed a preflight inspection including confirming that its fuel tanks were full.

• About an hour after takeoff, he checked the fuel gauges, which indicated that less than 10 gallons was used.
• About two hours after takeoff, they indicated that less than 20 gallons was used.
• About three hours after takeoff, the gauges indicated that 28 gallons was used.

The pilot indicated that he would have stopped for fuel if there were less than 17 gallons of fuel remaining at that point in the flight.

He continued the flight and estimated the airplane had 12 gallons of fuel remaining when it was 17 miles from the destination.

He reported that the left tank fuel pressure decreased with 2.5 gallons showing on the gauge, prompting a switch to the right tank, which showed 6 gallons remaining.

About nine miles from the destination and 1,000 feet above the ground, the airplane flew through brief moderate turbulence.

The right fuel tank level dropped to zero fuel within a minute, along with a drop in fuel pressure.

The pilot started to switch from tank to tank trying to use all the fuel in the tanks. When the airplane lost engine power, he selected a field near Port Isabel, Texas, and performed a forced landing about four hours and 10-minutes after departure.

The airplane sustained substantial fuselage damage during the forced landing.

No fuel leaks were found during the airplane recovery. The left fuel tank contained about one cup of fuel and the right tank did not contain any fuel.

A flight-planning chart in the airplane’s manual indicated that the airplane should burn 10 gallons per hour with a lean mixture.

According to the FAA publication, The Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, “aircraft certification rules require accuracy in fuel gauges only when they read ’empty.’  

Any reading other than ’empty’ should be verified. Do not depend solely on the accuracy of the fuel quantity gauges.”

The NTSB determined the probable cause as a loss of engine power due to the pilot’s improper inflight planning and reliance of fuel gauge readings, which resulted in fuel exhaustion.

NTSB Identification: CEN14CA303

-------------------------------------------------

 

[Hank]

My gages aren't marked like that. I do know that "1/2" is 13 gals, but I fly by my watch using fuel burn confirmed over many flights.

or are you suggesting that your fuel gages are accurate enough to rely on as a sole reference?

Edited June 26, 2016 by Hank

[fuellevel]

Hank - Yes  it was an interesting way to report fuel level I agree  - in some ways almost like he had a totalizer (he might have, no checks were performed)

The gauge face depictions are for a similar aircraft. 

This guy is watch conscious as well - he is charting cardinal hour based references in his flight.

Seems intentional that the Piper gauge is marked in 10 gallon cardinal points    

It was a 3 Hr 50 minute to 4 hr flight - by plan.  

I believe he indicated a 10 g/hr clockwork fuel burn for the aircraft - it is in the pilot report to the NTSB

Not a unloved aircraft 

 

Did you see or fathom the discrepancy that the investigator missed.    

[Andy95W]

The airplane I fly at work can read fuel capacity to a digital accuracy within 10 pounds (+/- less than 2 gallons).

Until that level of accuracy exists for my Mooney, I'll trust my dip stick and watch, thank you very much.  And I made my dipstick for free from a paint stirrer from Lowes, so the price would have to be comparable as well.

[fuellevel]

The pilot example given above also trusted his watch and his careful initial observation of fuel quantity in his aircraft

He had sufficient starting fuel for his planned trip corroborated by line service.  The tanks were topped off.  

Physical fuel level Observed by line service and this pilot.

Its not specifically in the text but it is in the record   This pilot did the same thing you do, Andy 

OK he referenced his fuel gauges as he passed waypoints in his flight plan, you might not do that - As a professional pilot, you probably do something similar. 

This pilot made reference checks on an hourly basis using his watch .   The fact remains that he ran out of fuel, prior to his destination 

Using your  almost exact method you may have met the same result -  He had a warning, and maybe a few  but he chose not to heed it.    

Equally troubling,  the FAA accident investigator missed it as well. 

What is more critical is that this isn't the only example in this aircraft type.    I am up to 30 potential, in review of similar events. 

When you read the text - I imagine there was a few face palms - another not careful pilot following the wrong procedure.   Unfortunately it is not.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The TSO designation for fuel senders is uniform - no quality difference for what we do or for a a larger transport system.  

I spent a lot of my career at Gulfstream. I would safely put our system on that application.    

We exceed the 0.75% highest quality requirement.  Which is what you are saying for your work airplane .  

Say a 737 at this high standard is a 22.5 gallon.   i.e.  3000 gallons per side * 0.075% 

So this level of fuel quantity exists for your Mooney.  A 25 gallon tank  yields a .18 gallon deviation.  

Larger aircraft fuel systems are a just a group of smaller systems doing the same job,

[Tom]

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/us-airman-spots-aircraft-fuel-leak-at-35000-feet-on-narita-bound-flight

This is an example where being able to have gauges that provide high-fidelity information to the pilot would be essential.

Despite the text of the article, my understanding of the event is that the stewardess initially discounted the claims of the airman witness (she supposedly told him it was a normal contrail from the wing).  It was only after the pilot saw the video on the airman's phone that the flight was diverted.

But again, the entire incident makes me question the validity of the fuel gauge where even high-fidelity gauges are available.  Something $hit is going to happen.

Supposedly, once the follow-on flight was made, the airman was given a first-class seat (where he wouldn't be able to notice a safety-of-flight problem).  

[fuellevel]

Tom:   You re hitting the right nail -  if we go back to that example I provided - the whole trust the gauges is an FAA inspector speculating 

and not investigating

Let's take that pilots report in the form of a fuel burn 

Our pilot burned approx.

• 9 gallons the first hour,  (Less than 10 gallons)
• 9 gallons the second hour for a total of 18 (Less than 20 gallons)
• 9 gallons the third hour for a total of 27 (28 gallons consumed )
  • He has 22 gallons onboard 

According to his fuel gauge - he is right on target  - he is averaging a steady 120 or so mph for the duration 

But here is where it gets interesting - 45 minutes remaining and 22 gallons - everything is going well 

17 miles from the airport - 35 minutes later - he now reports 12 gallons of fuel 

He now has burned 10 gallons in 35 minutes - nearly doubling his rate of expected fuel consumption to 17 gallons per hour 

8 miles later or 4 minutes  he has 6 gallons - his fuel burn is increasing exponentially 60 g/hr 

Bad day - 

[carusoam]

The report seems to say the pilot was responsible for not following his gauges or poor inflight planning...

It neglects to discuss the interesting details that we cover here...

1) knowing our useable fuel in each tank.

2) knowing our fuel burn rate in climb.

3) knowing our fuel burn rate in cruise.

4) Knowing our fuel burn rate in descent.

5) actual time of each segment of flight.

6) knowing our fuel level equipment is working.  The piper's was reading one thing and it changed after some turbulence.  It wasn't working.

Follow up questions...

1) How much fuel did he have on board?  50 gallons.

2) How much fuel was required for the trip?  Start/taxi, Climb, cruise, descent + intentional extra reserve fuel. 40 gallons + reserve =  roughly 50 gallons.

3) What was the headwind he was intending vs actual?  Not mentioned.

4) Why would a pilot with no method of knowing accurate FL with a back-up device like FF, plan a flight for maximum distance?

5) where did his reserve extra fuel go?

6) why didn't he stop around the halfway point?  (There seems to be something that a good fuel gauge isn't going to provide)

The FAA seems to have some flexibility to allow for being human? Did they really prove the float sensor's fault?

The Piper pilot ran two tanks out of fuel.  Running one out is a subtle hint that something may not be going as planned.  The second tank should take you to the nearest fuel station or land safely in a field under power.

Having accurate FL and FF are what makes safe flying (from this aspect) fun.  Otherwise the pilot is relying on a simple thing to not go awry.

My M20C had no FF device.  It's burn rates were calculated continuously over a year.  Climb on one tank, cruise on the other.  Measure the gallons used.  Leaned with a single EGT gauge...  From old memories...  Climb 15gph, cruise, 10gph, descent 8gph

Any flight over 3 hours had a refuel stop in the plan.  52 gallon tank.

My ability to be comfortable reading the analog gauges to +/- 2.5 gallons just isn't there.

Nice to have these kinds of technical solutions to an age old problem.

Best regards,

-a-

[fuellevel]

29 minutes ago, carusoam said:

The report seems to say the pilot was responsible for not following his gauges or poor inflight planning...

It neglects to discuss the interesting details that we cover here...

1) knowing our useable fuel in each tank.

2) knowing our fuel burn rate in climb.

3) knowing our fuel burn rate in cruise.

4) Knowing our fuel burn rate in descent.

5) actual time of each segment of flight.

6) knowing our fuel level equipment is working.  The piper's was reading one thing and it changed after some turbulence.  It wasn't working.

Follow up questions...

1) How much fuel did he have on board?

2) How much fuel was required for the trip?  Start/taxi, Climb, cruise, descent + intentional extra reserve fuel.

3) What was the headwind he was intending vs actual?

4) Why would a pilot with no method of knowing accurate FL with a back-up device like FF, plan a flight for maximum distance?

5) where did his reserve extra fuel go?

6) why didn't he stop around the halfway point?  (There seems to be something that a good fuel gauge isn't going to provide)

 

Best regards,

-a-

Sorry I had to save - See the prior post 

yes it was a careful planning white wash - We don't have access to his actual plan 

His careful note of fuel enroute is some indication.  

He had segments indicated near airports he was passing  at 1 hour intervals - seemed to be a cautious pilot or just coincidence that he passed over 

 

I can't deny looking at the Piper gauge and assessing any accuracy - but it really wasn't necessary 

The Piper fuel gauge trend accelerated too fast to potentially capture.  - I don't have a clue where the issue started to occur 

Fuel Flow is key -  you are exactly right

 

My assumption from review of 30 of these  similar events is - and this is strictly an assumption on my part

Is that fuel in PA28 when allowed down below 10 gallons in either tank,  vents fuel  overboard and at an accelerated rate.

Piper has a Fuel Vent Mandatory Service Bulletin  - but this particular issue is not mentioned. 

I agree he has a 4 1/2 hr aircraft on the best day with a reserve - but his trip would be just shy of 4 hr 

 

I also have a good hunch on what made the gauge fall to Zero at the end - I have pictures from a similar extended range flight. 

Remember PA28 have the worst record in regard to this fuel issue - 

 

 

 

 

 

[carusoam]

Phil,

I was still writing the post...  It has been updated slightly.

That is a lot of detail to handle to point out what may have gone wrong with the flight...

Best regards,

-a-

[Andy95W]

2 hours ago, fuellevel said:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The TSO designation for fuel senders is uniform - no quality difference for what we do or for a a larger transport system.  

I spent a lot of my career at Gulfstream. I would safely put our system on that application.    

We exceed the 0.75% highest quality requirement.  Which is what you are saying for your work airplane .  

Say a 737 at this high standard is a 22.5 gallon.   i.e.  3000 gallons per side * 0.075% 

So this level of fuel quantity exists for your Mooney.  A 25 gallon tank  yields a .18 gallon deviation.  

Larger aircraft fuel systems are a just a group of smaller systems doing the same job,

Don't get me wrong, I think the state and accuracy of GA fuel gauges is deplorable.  We have the technology to make them accurate, so a brand new $800k airplane should have reliable fuel gauges, for God's sake.  And I'm glad that your company is making them to retrofit to older airframes.

If my sending units crap out, I'll buy yours.  No question about it.

But in the meantime I won't blame the fuel gauges for a pilot running out of gas, I'll still blame the pilot.  At most, the poor gauges are a contributing factor, not the cause.

[fuellevel]

8 hours ago, N1395W said:

But in the meantime I won't blame the fuel gauges for a pilot running out of gas, I'll still blame the pilot.  At most, the poor gauges are a contributing factor, not the cause.

That is the point to posting that exact, accident report.   The rush to judgement that ALL pilots that run out fuel did something wrong.   Read my fuel flow calculation

This pilot was venting fuel overboard when the tanks got down below 10 gallons.   This pilot is not the only pilot to have experienced this aircraft issue,  Remember the Cherokee landing on video in California late last year.   And the accident that brought this to my attention.   This is an aircraft issue, not a pilot issue .  The gauges aren't the issue here, except if this pilot realized the implication of being so far off of his plan fuel wise, with his destination right in front of him.

 http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/area-pilot-whose-plane-crashed-in-tennessee-recove/ngJD5/

I appreciate that - yes an $800K aircraft should have working everything.  We are lucky that it can be retrofitted to old aircraft.

[DXB]

5 hours ago, fuellevel said:

That is the point to posting that exact, accident report.   The rush to judgement that ALL pilots that run out fuel did something wrong.   Read my fuel flow calculation

This pilot was venting fuel overboard when the tanks got down below 10 gallons.   This pilot is not the only pilot to have experienced this aircraft issue,  Remember the Cherokee landing on video in California late last year.   And the accident that brought this to my attention.   This is an aircraft issue, not a pilot issue .  The gauges aren't the issue here, except if this pilot realized the implication of being so far off of his plan fuel wise, with his destination right in front of him.

 http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/area-pilot-whose-plane-crashed-in-tennessee-recove/ngJD5/

I appreciate that - yes an $800K aircraft should have working everything.  We are lucky that it can be retrofitted to old aircraft.

I read what I could find about this accident and am trying to learn more about this fuel venting issue but am coming up empty. What is the evidence that fuel was dumping overboard in this and other fuel exhaustion accidents conventionally attributed to pilot error? What is the evidence for similar accidents in Mooneys?  If such evidence exists, does it contribute to anything more than a minute fraction of fuel exhaustion accidents?

[Bennett]

Earlier in this thread I asked if anyone knew if the small wingtop gauges were reasonably accurate. They seem to match the "fuel used" in my JPI 830. (Full tank minus fuel used) Has anyone on this forum actually tested the readings against another method such as draining the tanks and filling them noting the sight gauge readings?

[fuellevel]

1 hour ago, DXB said:

What is the evidence for similar accidents in Mooneys?  If such evidence exists, does it contribute to anything more than a minute fraction of fuel exhaustion accidents?

First - I haven't taken a close look at Mooney's.  Mooney pilots have been pretty good, as the FAA post shows.  There are some incidents with fuel starvation that boggle the mind - in re-run they appear to be suicidal.  Marketing wise the added safety of working fuel quantity would apply to Cessna 172's, Bonanza's and PA-28's.    

Second- I only have a working idea on the cause - Piper has a mandatory service bulletin for deteriorated vent tubing, with fuel smell in the cockpit and venting into the wings.   I don't know the mechanism or correlation of low fuel and the potential for a siphoning action 

DXB,  after lots of time wrapping my head around this issue - which is my new job.  I review all accident and incident data, to see what we can do to assist in providing beneficial information to the pilot - so even the weak of mind survive to fly another day.  Think of my position - somebody will run out of fuel utilizing our system based on your understanding of the issue.  

So I believe it is more than a minute fraction, maybe 10% are aircraft phenomena.    I do get the pilot causes, inattention, poor estimation of starting fuel .... lots of causes. and maybe 90% could go the pilot issue side.  But this position of believing all of them keeps us from addressing real safety issues. 

I was interested in PA-28 from the Kent Wingate accident.  ERA14LA227.   The Wingate accident has a few other twists with winds.   However the result was the same.  I dismissed it until somebody on Cirrus Owners and Pilots Forum, in a similar manner of forum statements stating gross pilot error.  A COPA member interjected that he knew Ken.  This pilot was at the airport, and he watched Ken plan, he watched Ken pre-flight,  he was there when Ken called his wife and stated to her,  how much fuel he would land with.  Ken was to those guys at his home airport a pilot's pilot.  A pilot to emulate, meticulous to the point of annoyance.   So I started looking at PA-28 fuel systems.  Kens friend petitioned the NTSB to look further as Ken wasn't one of those pilots that would run out of fuel - I looked as well.   I like the Cirrus guys, I have been at nearly every migration.  

So a lot of pilots in a fuel accident have lawyers present and you don't get anything you can work with dialogue wise, but I have quite a few that read nearly identical.  There should have been more than enough fuel and then where did it go - you are left with two possibilities  Power setting or venting.   

This new accident report shows up - the pilot illustrating a consistent fuel flow to the engine and remaining in the tank and then at the end it appears that fuel flow (from fuel gauge readings) goes exponential. 

So when you re-vist the Kent incident it makes sense.  and when you look at other similar incidents this issue may have been the cause.    I do know that Piper using an oblong float limits the senders ability to tell the pilot he is now out of fuel and misleading him to believe he might just make it.  - remember the turbulence caused gauge reading of the example  - see Kent's fuel senders below. 

[fuellevel]

1 hour ago, DXB said:

Just now, Bennett said:

Earlier in this thread I asked if anyone knew if the small wingtop gauges were reasonably accurate. They seem to match the "fuel used" in my JPI 830. (Full tank minus fuel used) Has anyone on this forum actually tested the readings against another method such as draining the tanks and filling them noting the sight gauge readings?

Bennet as the dial is a coupled reading to through a magnetic drive.   You are able to rotate the gauge relative to float position to calibrate the display to your aircraft.    If set up correctly should work.    I would occasionally check or slosh the wing to insure coupling is working prior to fill.  http://www.rochestergauges.com/products/M6200.html