231 Down in North Georgia pasture

[exM20K]

7 minutes ago, M016576 said:

Great question, and I was wondering the same thing...

 

Has anyone else thought about this?  
 

The tank on each wing in a E/F/J/K holds ~32 gallons usable... so you’re telling me that if I have 35% fuel remaining in that wing tank, I might lose my engine if I bank up a little?  Would the ferry pilot have regained his engine if he’d just switched tanks when the engine started to stumble? (My guess is yes).  Man... having to ditch an aircraft for fuel starvation when you’ve got 20+ gallons on board, in an airplane with 64 gallon tanks; just seems all wrong.

In my TN, the G1000 goes yellow with 8-10 gallons remaining in level flight.  The ship’s annunciation and G1000 red are at 6. This is in level flight.  In the descent, it’s a couple gallons higher. 
 

ive never run a talk dry.  Maybe I should try this, and maybe I should do it in a descent pitch attitude.  Anyone want to come along for a test flight?

-de

[aviatoreb]

42 minutes ago, M016576 said:

Great question, and I was wondering the same thing...

 

Has anyone else thought about this?  
 

The tank on each wing in a E/F/J/K holds ~32 gallons usable... so you’re telling me that if I have 35% fuel remaining in that wing tank, I might lose my engine if I bank up a little?  Would the ferry pilot have regained his engine if he’d just switched tanks when the engine started to stumble? (My guess is yes).  Man... having to ditch an aircraft for fuel starvation when you’ve got 20+ gallons on board, in an airplane with 64 gallon tanks; just seems all wrong.

Right - 

It was well said above that coordinated flight in roll shouldn't unport no matter how low.  Still...what's recommendation.

One interpretation of what was said about the 12 gal rule in each wing, then the assertion would be 12 gal in one wing and 32 gal in the other wing but rolling away from the 12 gallon wing uncoordinated, and then lost engine.  This would be good to know what factory says.

If that scenario is true, then in principle coordinated flight, whether by centering the ball by opposing rudder or just leveling the wings, and fuel flow should restore and windmilling proper engine might restart.  One would hope.

Still I feel this is quite drastic a restriction if true.

[carusoam]

The system isn’t THAT bad...

But, all the various conditions to cause fuel to significantly unport are pretty well known... at this time...

But, the best way to get a technical answer would be to get it directly from the source...  Mooney.com

While flying an M20C doing maintenance flights... it is possible to T/O, fly the pattern, and unport the fuel pick-up, on the descent on short final...

The engine goes from quiet to really quiet... as you point towards the landing aim point...

Flipping the selector valve is pretty fast...

waiting for fuel to arrive past the carb is many seconds elapsed...

 

So... somebody asked how much attitude does it take nose down..? A normal descent for landing would be enough... when the fuel tanks only have a few gallons in each one...

PP thoughts only, about an M20C, not the airplane being discussed here...

Best regards,

-a-

[carusoam]

52 minutes ago, exM20K said:

In my TN, the G1000 goes yellow with 8-10 gallons remaining in level flight.  The ship’s annunciation and G1000 red are at 6. This is in level flight.  In the descent, it’s a couple gallons higher. 
 

ive never run a talk dry.  Maybe I should try this, and maybe I should do it in a descent pitch attitude.  Anyone want to come along for a test flight?

-de

Dan,

I’m pretty confident in your plane and your skills...

Let me know if you want to run that test... I’ll offer to take data from the right seat...

To add excitement... do it at the flight levels to test the high altitude restart functions of the TNs...

The procedure for the high altitude restart may include a minimum re-start altitude...

PP thoughts only, angling for a ride in the FLs, in an awesome Acclaim, not a mechanic or CFI...  

Best regards,

-a-

[skydvrboy]

2 hours ago, kortopates said:

Confused between never show up without flight following vs all your flights show as position only.
I assume they are all being picked up as Ads/b positional data?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only flights with flight following show up.  All flights that actually show up say position only.  If I don’t get flight following, the flight will not ever appear on flight aware.  Further, only the portion of the flight with flight following shows up, the rest of the flight is missing.

[aviatoreb]

3 minutes ago, skydvrboy said:

Only flights with flight following show up.  All flights that actually show up say position only.  If I don’t get flight following, the flight will not ever appear on flight aware.  Further, only the portion of the flight with flight following shows up, the rest of the flight is missing.

Ever since I got ADSB-out all of my flights show up it seems with or without flight following.

[skydvrboy]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

Ever since I got ADSB-out all of my flights show up it seems with or without flight following.

I wonder if it’s regional or equipment differences that explain the difference.  My 90 day flight aware data only shows 3 flights, but looking at my logbook, I’ve flown about 30 times during that time.

Perhaps it’s because I’m using 978 instead of 1090 for my ads-b out solution?

[exM20K]

44 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Dan,

I’m pretty confident in your plane and your skills...

Let me know if you want to run that test... I’ll offer to take data from the right seat...

To add excitement... do it at the flight levels to test the high altitude restart functions of the TNs...

The procedure for the high altitude restart may include a minimum re-start altitude...

PP thoughts only, angling for a ride in the FLs, in an awesome Acclaim, not a mechanic or CFI...  

Best regards,

-a-

You’re hired.  I’ll pm you after the new year.

-Dan

[spistora]

20 hours ago, skydvrboy said:

I wonder if it’s regional or equipment differences that explain the difference.  My 90 day flight aware data only shows 3 flights, but looking at my logbook, I’ve flown about 30 times during that time.

Perhaps it’s because I’m using 978 instead of 1090 for my ads-b out solution?

Most of my flights are also missing, except when using flight following.  Today was the exception, about half of my flight today was captured by flightaware and I didn't use flight following.

[Yetti]

Most of my flights show up, but I have one of those FAA radar thingys spinning around the airport. 

12 gallons is a third of a tank.  Not sure where the 12 gallons were located

This plane looks like one that has been on for sale sites.

I would be in the usually gear down for more impact absorption.  Some chance of steering on the ground.  If I am heading for the trees, I am going try a power slide.

[kortopates]

23 hours ago, skydvrboy said:

Only flights with flight following show up.  All flights that actually show up say position only.  If I don’t get flight following, the flight will not ever appear on flight aware.  Further, only the portion of the flight with flight following shows up, the rest of the flight is missing.

Mark, I looked at your flight from 11/29, that begins south of Abilene at 1300'. Initially you're being picked up by Ads/B 978 UAT, until you get to cruise altitude of 8500'. Then we see the positions source change to coming from Kansas City Center.

Do you recall this flight? I would think that the transition from ADS/B position to Kansas City center is when you starting squawking a Flight Following code assigned by Kansas City or perhaps it when the controller identified you/ or  tagged you up - which was right at reaching cruise altitude. But the I believe the first few minutes in climb is Ads/B positional data and then it changes to flight following data.

I don't know if you departed from your home field on this flight but since it has you as soon as you get to 1300'; I'd think it would always catch you at above that altitude if that is where you're based. But your saying not.

Wish I understood why, but this flight shows Ads/B is picking you up in this area once above 1300'

[Cyril Gibb]

On 12/24/2020 at 5:12 PM, Heidiho said:

Witnesses say after conducting a couple of test flights around 9A5, he took off again to the South for a 12 minute  flight to home drone 1A0 with less than 12 gallons of fuel in each tank.

How did witnesses (plural?) know that less than 12 gallons was in each tank?  How much is less than 12 gallons? 10 gallons... 2 gallons?  Was fuel visible in each filler?  Why were multiple people checking the fuel level in that aircraft just before that flight?  That's a curious piece of information that begs for more detail.

[M016576]

On 12/25/2020 at 7:54 PM, aviatoreb said:

Ever since I got ADSB-out all of my flights show up it seems with or without flight following.

Same with me

[skydvrboy]

21 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Do you recall this flight?

Yes, I left out of KSLN and picked up flight following with KC center shortly after leaving the class D airspace. My track on this flight and, it seems all others, starts when I first squawk a discrete code for flight following. 

The flight on November 19th shows this perfectly. I left from KSLN and picked up flight following as I went by Wichita. Once past the busy airspace they dropped me from flight following and I went on to KWLD. On the  return, I again picked up flight following as I got close to Wichita and kept it the rest of the way home. During the flight, I flew directly over the ads-b tower at KEWK, yet was not shown on flight aware until I got flight following from Wichita approach. 

[skykrawler]

Why don't insurance companies  write policies that say if you run the aircraft out of fuel (absent any leakage issue) that they do not pay?

[Yetti]

11 hours ago, Cyril Gibb said:

How did witnesses (plural?) know that less than 12 gallons was in each tank?  How much is less than 12 gallons? 10 gallons... 2 gallons?  Was fuel visible in each filler?  Why were multiple people checking the fuel level in that aircraft just before that flight?  That's a curious piece of information that begs for more detail.

My understanding is that the NTSB and FAA are not traveling for Accident Investigations.   They just call and do phone interviews.   I think that statement is a combination of observations.

[ArtVandelay]

Why don't insurance companies  write policies that say of you run the aircraft out of fuel (absent any leakage issue) that they do not pay?

I would just generalize this: “pilot error is not covered”.

[skykrawler]

1 minute ago, ArtVandelay said:

I would just generalize this: “pilot error is not covered”.

Don't think that is true.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, ArtVandelay said:

I would just generalize this: “pilot error is not covered”.

Then insurance would only pay out on a very small percentage of accidents. Aren't NTSB stats >80% pilot error? Maybe approaching 90%? That would be really poor coverage . . . .

[toto]

1 minute ago, Hank said:

Then insurance would only pay out on a very small percentage of accidents. Aren't NTSB stats >80% pilot error? Maybe approaching 90%? That would be really poor coverage . . . .

I'm no insurance expert, but I would venture a guess that nearly all insurance claims in all contexts ultimately result from human error. If insurance coverage is limited to mechanical problems or manufacturing defects, then it's basically just an extended warranty. 

[exM20K]

3 hours ago, skykrawler said:

Why don't insurance companies  write policies that say if you run the aircraft out of fuel (absent any leakage issue) that they do not pay?

Do you think a lender would accept such a policy?

- dan

 

[mike_elliott]

We cannot fix ignorance, incompetence or poor decision making thru insurance small print, disclaimers or other "its not my fault then" tactics. Training and education can fix 2 of the 3. Proper maintenance and training will go a LONG way to solving a lot of issues. Does it seems like the guys who worry most about insurance hikes because of issues are also the ones most adverse in spending in these 2 areas? Some of the best pilots I know are pros that are constantly wanting to train in their little bug smashers. I learn a lot from these guys... 

[EricJ]

4 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

I would just generalize this: “pilot error is not covered”.

One step further:   "human error is not covered".

Insurance would be cheap!   People would rarely get a payout, on anything, but the premiums would be cheap!

You can actually pretty much do this now by just getting liability insurance.

 

[kortopates]

9 hours ago, skykrawler said:

Why don't insurance companies  write policies that say if you run the aircraft out of fuel (absent any leakage issue) that they do not pay?

Pilots that don't need insurance or want to pay for it for their screw up's self insure or just purchase liability insurance as Eric mentioned. But the US, and maybe Canada*,  is about the the only country you can fly without liability insurance. 

*I didn't have prove I had insurance in Canada, but every other country I've flown in I had too entering.

[skykrawler]

Insurance is a requirement in the state of Virginia.