Any landing you walk away from....

I was at the airport late yesterday afternoon and decided it would be no fun up there.

I'll hazard a guess the "downdrafts" caused the fuel to unport...
 
The article said that there was enough fuel in the tank to fly for another hour. Weird.
 
Sounds like someone got a little complacent and didn't check the forecasts and current winds... yesterday was NASTY around here.
 
Greebo said:
Sounds like someone got a little complacent and didn't check the forecasts and current winds... yesterday was NASTY around here.
Click to expand...

Montgomery County traffic reporting. I'm betting there was a bit of pressure to "go"...
 
Sounds odd. Makes me wonder if the plane was low on fuel and then something about the bumps caused it to be unable to suck fuel back in to restart the engine after a bump moved it around.

What were the winds yesterday there? The article said gusts of up to 25 mph, which I wouldn't be concerned about in a 182. 35 might be pushing it a bit more, but still not something I'd be worried about.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Sounds odd. Makes me wonder if the plane was low on fuel and then something about the bumps caused it to be unable to suck fuel back in to restart the engine after a bump moved it around.

What were the winds yesterday there? The article said gusts of up to 25 mph, which I wouldn't be concerned about in a 182. 35 might be pushing it a bit more, but still not something I'd be worried about.
Click to expand...

Well, if they got hit by big windshear on a down push, then the tanks would be pushed down but the gas inside would be all sloshed around - big bubbles in the lines perhaps.

And of course, traffic patrol only flies at a few hundred feet around here - so once the engine goes out, there isn't time for a long restart procedure.
 
Greebo said:
And of course, traffic patrol only flies at a few hundred feet around here - so once the engine goes out, there isn't time for a long restart procedure.
Click to expand...

That would seem like a likely issue.

When I'm flying in the bumps, I like having as much fuel as possible, and keep as much of it as possible in the outermost tanks. Helps stability.
 
Given the attitude the plane came to rest in, there should still be fuel in the tanks...if there before the engine quit.
 
I really just have a hard time thinking that some rough air and windshear cut off the fuel supply long enough for it to shutdown and not start again. I wonder how much fuel was actually in the tanks....Perhaps there was some other mechanical failure.

A whole lot of Skylanes have flown through some god awful air and I haven't heard of many completely losing fuel flow over it - unless of course there was hardly any fuel or none at all.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
I really just have a hard time thinking that some rough air and windshear cut off the fuel supply long enough for it to shutdown and not start again. I wonder how much fuel was actually in the tanks....Perhaps there was some other mechanical failure.

A whole lot of Skylanes have flown through some god awful air and I haven't heard of many completely losing fuel flow over it - unless of course there was hardly any fuel or none at all.
Click to expand...

I believe a hazmat crew was called to clean up a fuel spill. If true, the tanks weren't empty.
 
I don't know what the fuel burn rate is in that Cessna, but I doubt one hours worth is much more than ten or twelve gallons. That is not much fuel to be sloshing around in two tanks. She also, due to the wind shear and turbulence, could have had one tank siphon over to the other tank, that could explain the sudden silence.

John
 
Good Jesus do I resemble this thread's title or what?

Let he who is without pilot error cast the first stone...
 
My trainer had left/right, but not a "both" setting. Once things got down to 7gal in a tank, then putting the wing low (banking, turning in the pattern) would unport and the engine would sputter. The boost pump would help recovery, but really, you'd want to pick the proper tank for the pattern you're flying.

In this situation, I think the electric pump could have helped, but downdrafts near the ground plus engine out could easily lead to pilot overload.

It reminds me of another saying, "You can never have too much fuel unless you're on fire."
 
The airplane is based at KGAI where I fly out of and I actually have about 5 hours in that very same airframe... Some of you may remember my story about an electrical fire that I had a year ago that forced me into DCA, it was on THAT very same airplane. That same day I quit because I discovered that plane and a few others in the school that I was employed at at the time, was over its TBO, some buy hundreds and I one was even 1200 TBO!!! (and a year later, they still havent overhauled that engine). Looks like my decision to quit was a good one.

The DOT started using that 182 a few months ago. Normally they use a skymaster but they found a crack in the skymaster wingspar and the 182 was the backup untill they could find a replacment plane.


I know the pilot, she has loads of experiance flying everything from the 152 to the Pilatus and I am sure that this was more a mechanical faliure than pilot error. Sure, DOT flies in about any weather, but besides for some gusty conditions, it was good flying weather that day.

They brought the plane back to the airport and they dumped it behind the school that I teach at now (Washington International Flight Academy) for the FAA and NTSB to have their go at it. I will snap some photos and post them either today or tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
Ummm, I guess I do not understand your 'horror' over the engines being beyond TBO -which is advisory only and based on averages... It is well known that engines which are run frequently/daily will go far longer in running hours before needing rings/bearings/etc. than engines which are run infrequently... A warrior on my field that was flown 3 to 4 hours a day went 3400+ hours before it stuck a valve and they decided to go for a factory overhauled engine rather than just replace the jug... So, if the engines are well maintained, good mags, the leak down's are within limits, and there is no metal on the oil, why not IRAN and continue to run the engines?
And, you equate their running of high time engines to somehow causing this crash... Seems a bit of a stretch until we get the NTSB report on the actual cause of the engine stoppage...

My port side engine is currently in the 6800 hour range without an actual overhaul - though it is well maintained, starts immediately, idles like a kitten, does not foul plugs, and uses a quart per 3 hours... Should I be worried?

denny-o
 
Dr. O said:
Ummm, I guess I do not understand your 'horror' over the engines being beyond TBO -which is advisory only and based on averages... It is well known that engines which are run frequently/daily will go far longer in running hours before needing rings/bearings/etc. than engines which are run infrequently... A warrior on my field that was flown 3 to 4 hours a day went 3400+ hours before it stuck a valve and they decided to go for a factory overhauled engine rather than just replace the jug... So, if the engines are well maintained, good mags, the leak down's are within limits, and there is no metal on the oil, why not IRAN and continue to run the engines?
And, you equate their running of high time engines to somehow causing this crash... Seems a bit of a stretch until we get the NTSB report on the actual cause of the engine stoppage...

My port side engine is currently in the 6800 hour range without an actual overhaul - though it is well maintained, starts immediately, idles like a kitten, does not foul plugs, and uses a quart per 3 hours... Should I be worried?

denny-o
Click to expand...

The TBOs are just one part of it. They had another engine failure just last summer (on the 1200 past tbo) on a plane that they knew that had engine trouble and they still rented it out for a trip from MD to TX. I had two occassions of major oil leaks from the past TBO engines during lessons. And I also had an RPM drop of about 500 during flight on a students second lesson. Yeah, TBOs are not mandatory, I get that, and I know that with proper TLC the engine will be fine well past it, I just got some info from certain people that pretty much indicated to me that those planes are not getting the TLC they need. So I am not saying that its because that the engine is over TBO, I am saying that I wouldnt be surprised if its a mechanical issue over pilot error.
 
I'd agree from what you've said, Ben, but Denny makes a good point. Your original post made it sound like being over TBO was the cause of the problem. The state police have a T206 that they bought brand new and has gone through mags about every 100 hours. New planes/engines have problems sometimes, too.

The NTSB report will be interesting.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'd agree from what you've said, Ben, but Denny makes a good point. Your original post made it sound like being over TBO was the cause of the problem. The state police have a T206 that they bought brand new and has gone through mags about every 100 hours. New planes/engines have problems sometimes, too.

The NTSB report will be interesting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I just re-read my original post and I did kinda pin the TBO for the incident, that wasnt what I meant.
 
That is the biggest problem with many flight schools. They are operating on a shoestring and once they get past their fixed expenses like rent, payroll, utilities, etc., there is not much left, if anything, for keeping their fleets up.

A small, local airport, flying school is probably the most expensive way to learn to fly, and definitely the most dangerous when it comes to their equipment. Most are desperate for cash and will not hesitate to have their "pay as you go" students do considerably more flying than is even remotely necessary.

They need that airplane rental cash and have little concern about the safety of their renters. The only thing they are meticulous about maintaining is their liability insurance.

The school I made the mistake of attending, simply because I knew nothing about airplanes or aviation at the time, would go to any extreme to save money. They had their own mechanic on staff, yet would ignore needed repairs.

I was flying a filthy old Warrior that had a problem with the left seat. It was wobbly and felt like it was going to just go over backward on every take off. I filled out squawk sheets, I told the owners for months. Nothing was ever done about it. It finally went with a student and instructor aboard on take off. If it was not for the instructor, the plane and it's occupants would probably have been done in.

The owner of the school was acting like he was completely surprised and flat out said he had no clue there had been a problem with the seat, while I was standing right there. I saw things like that, things like replacing tires with used tires. Little things that should not have been a financial burden to fix.

John
 
John Baker said:
That is the biggest problem with many flight schools. They are operating on a shoestring and once they get past their fixed expenses like rent, payroll, utilities, etc., there is not much left, if anything, for keeping their fleets up.
Click to expand...
This is not true in many cases.

Sure, many flight schools are operating on a shoestring. And just as many flight schools have leaseback airplanes on the flight line. The repair bills go to the plane's owner, not to the flight school.

-Skip
 
Skip, I didn't say all flight schools, I said many flight schools, sadly, way too many flight schools. There are some excellent flight schools scattered around the country, but they are usually the larger ones and are quite often associated with other institutions of higher learning.

It is the small ones with old airplanes that should be scrutinized carefully. How do their airplanes look? Are they kept clean and in good repair. Can you look at the belly and not see a layer of black grease, dirt, and oil? How do the tires look, the paint, does the inside look and smell clean or does it stink of stale vomit?

The school itself, how does it look? Does it have a decent classroom or flight planning area? Is it clean and well kept or does it look like it was furnished from stuff left on the curbside?

To sum it up, does the school look prosperous or does it look old and tired? Is the operator nickle and diming it, does he look like he's hanging on for dear life?

There are many more criteria to determine the quality of a flight school, I'm just aiming toward the first impression. If a school can pass that test, then it would be worthwhile asking to see and hear more.

As far as using leaseback airplanes where the owner takes care of maintenance, that is definitely not a guarantee of a safe airplane. If the owner could afford the plane, I doubt he would have it on leaseback. The only things that would get fixed are the absolute necessities related to airworthiness certification, and then as cheaply as possible.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top