Bonanza makes emergency landing but could this one be avoided?

Not in the cockpit with him, but I regard my fuel gauges as a secondary indicator - I trust the less-optimistic of fuel totalizer quantity and fuel gauges, and I always plan to land with at least an hour of fuel VFR, and IFR reserves-plus when IFR.
 
A visual of the fuel tanks,during preflight May have helped.
 
Pull quote “Before he can fly his plane again, the aircraft will undergo an evaluation by the Federal Aviation Administration”

And then they may require the pilot to undergo one as well.
 
Blaming this on decades-old fuel indicators is not a good excuse. My (and I presume every pilot's) primary CFI drilled into my head that the gauges were inaccurate, period. Also, the best fuel gauge is your wristwatch. I guess this pilot was asleep for that lesson. :frown2:
 
A visual on the tanks was the first thing I learned on the first day of training. I would feel very nervous flying any aircraft without first verifying the fuel level inside the tanks. I never even use the fuel indicator on my motorcycles, but instead reset the odometer after refilling to estimate my range. I rarely need to turn on the reserve supply using that method.
 
In the absence of commercially available pipettes, or tabs that go all the way down to the bottom of the tank (read: there aren't any, especially for bladder tanks), you have to default to tanker fuel in this hobby, since you cannot accurately visually determine the contents of many of the tanks in question when below factory markings, and the FAA shares that opinion of blame when it comes to indicators perennially lying to you. Some tanks you can't even visually determine at all (inboard tanks of PA-32R-300/301 system). Homemade dowels are a joke, and commercially available tank model specific pipettes are unavailable for the vast majority of non-trainer airplanes out there, especially the majority of bladder equipped airplanes. It's a moral hazard run amok.

I'm surprised there's no commercially available pipettes pre-calibrated for the Beech 33/36 fuel tank variants, considering how popular the model is.

Fuel indicators are important, they are essential to identifying fuel leak/siphoning.In my work plane, malfunction of a fuel sensor is reason to terminate the mission and even declare an emergency, since the USAF recognizes I have no way of verifying the true contents in all flight regimes based on a highly variable fuel flow. But in my recreational life I'm supposed to wing it and call it normal ops.

Like I said, this is just a euphemism for you have to tanker fuel. People should just come out and say that's what they're personally comfortable with, and stop scapegoating those who attempt to operate on part-fuel at takeoff. Commercial operators laugh you out the building wrt tankering, but they get away with it because they can afford to cost-shift the good stuff, so GMAFB. What we need to do is stop excusing the abysmal failures of part 23 on the economic front, and aspire for a better solution in the interest of safety of flight down here in little guy land. These games of "gotcha!" merely make our avocation less accessible to the average aspirant. I just can't get behind that gatekeeper tendency. As I said on the OSH thread, we bemoan the lack of interest, and when we get it we complain about the quality of the company.... :rolleyes:
 
hindsight2020 said:
Fuel indicators are important, they are essential to identifying fuel leak/siphoning.In my work plane, malfunction of a fuel sensor is reason to terminate the mission and even declare an emergency, since the USAF recognizes I have no way of verifying the true contents in all flight regimes based on a highly variable fuel flow. But in my recreational life I'm supposed to wing it and call it normal ops.
Click to expand...

I remember an instructor and a student on a training flight that noticed the fuel level on one of the fuel gages was showing a rapid decrease in fuel available. They quickly returned to the airport and after landing found the fuel cap dangling from it's tether. A new policy was established at the school that instructors will climb up and check the security of the fuel cap after the student accomplished the preflight. No more asking the student while buckling in, "Everything look good?"
 
Last edited:
My CFI drilled it into my head that gas gauges are only accurate when they read Empty. I *ALWAYS* visually check/measure fuel before flying, and then calculate duration from there. I always land with either more fuel than expected or exactly what I expected, but never less than expected.
 
Brad Smith said:
I remember an instructor and a student on a training flight that noticed the fuel level on one of the fuel gages was showing a rapid decrease in fuel available. They quickly returned to the airport and after landing found the fuel cap dangling from it's tether. A new policy was established at the school that instructors will climb up and check the security of the fuel cap after the student accomplished the preflight. No more asking the student while buckling in, "Everything look good?"
Click to expand...
I’ve told students I have flown with, “Never let the fuel truck driver be the last person to touch your fuel caps.”
 
Gee, headed to Iowa from South Carolina and run out of gas in Georgia? Unbelievable
 
I always use the most pessimistic of the fuel gauges, my flight planned numbers, and the fuel flow (totalizer).
 
hindsight2020 said:
...Homemade dowels are a joke...
Click to expand...

How so? If you drain the tank, marking the way down, and then fill the tank, checking on the way up, you have a pretty well calibrated stick.

Then on future fills you compare fill amount to expected fill amount and you end up with a pretty reliable backup to your fuel computer.
 
hindsight2020 said:
In the absence of commercially available pipettes, or tabs that go all the way down to the bottom of the tank (read: there aren't any, especially for bladder tanks), you have to default to tanker fuel in this hobby, since you cannot accurately visually determine the contents of many of the tanks in question when below factory markings, and the FAA shares that opinion of blame when it comes to indicators perennially lying to you. Some tanks you can't even visually determine at all (inboard tanks of PA-32R-300/301 system). Homemade dowels are a joke, and commercially available tank model specific pipettes are unavailable for the vast majority of non-trainer airplanes out there, especially the majority of bladder equipped airplanes. It's a moral hazard run amok.

I'm surprised there's no commercially available pipettes pre-calibrated for the Beech 33/36 fuel tank variants, considering how popular the model is.

Fuel indicators are important, they are essential to identifying fuel leak/siphoning.In my work plane, malfunction of a fuel sensor is reason to terminate the mission and even declare an emergency, since the USAF recognizes I have no way of verifying the true contents in all flight regimes based on a highly variable fuel flow. But in my recreational life I'm supposed to wing it and call it normal ops.

Like I said, this is just a euphemism for you have to tanker fuel. People should just come out and say that's what they're personally comfortable with, and stop scapegoating those who attempt to operate on part-fuel at takeoff. Commercial operators laugh you out the building wrt tankering, but they get away with it because they can afford to cost-shift the good stuff, so GMAFB. What we need to do is stop excusing the abysmal failures of part 23 on the economic front, and aspire for a better solution in the interest of safety of flight down here in little guy land. These games of "gotcha!" merely make our avocation less accessible to the average aspirant. I just can't get behind that gatekeeper tendency. As I said on the OSH thread, we bemoan the lack of interest, and when we get it we complain about the quality of the company.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Point taken.

But in this day and age, when there's folks hauling around a parachute with explosive charges as insurance against an unlikely engine failure in their expensive plastic airplane, I don't mind "tankering" some extra fuel for insurance against the certainty of engine failure if the tanks run dry. ;)
 
Ravioli said:
How so? If you drain the tank, marking the way down, and then fill the tank, checking on the way up, you have a pretty well calibrated stick.

Then on future fills you compare fill amount to expected fill amount and you end up with a pretty reliable backup to your fuel computer.
Click to expand...
Yeah, "sticking the tank" is a good thing, however it's done. One can also re-mark a pipette, if it is the proper length.
 
sarangan said:
We don't know if there was a fuel leak, or he simply neglected to check the level before departure. I suspect it is the latter, but his statement does not make that clear.
Click to expand...

True!

When someone says: "The Engine ran out of fuel, is what happened because the gauge read differently" It was Just you in the airplane and you are going from South Carolina to Iowa you are going to want to take off with full fuel especially in a F33A (74 Gals usable). You only made it to Georgia which is a state away and your out of fuel? an F33A can easily make it across a few states without a problem with full fuel It's a 200 mph airplane.
 
My tanks have a tab inside, installed during aircraft build. Bottom of tab indicates 15gal, slot in the tab indicates 20 gal. I never fly even on short local flight with fuel below the 15 gallon mark. That's 30 gallons of fuel on board, that is my personal minimum fuel load.

edit: 30 gallons at 8.5 gal/hr for the O-320 is about 3.5 hours. I also plan for 10 gal/hr fuel burn as a rule. If the engine is going to stop in flight it's not going to be because I ran out of fuel
 
Last edited:
Ravioli said:
How so? If you drain the tank, marking the way down, and then fill the tank, checking on the way up, you have a pretty well calibrated stick.

Then on future fills you compare fill amount to expected fill amount and you end up with a pretty reliable backup to your fuel computer.
Click to expand...
It depends highly on the particular airplane and tank. Some are actually pretty accurate, while others the dowel/pipette system are only useful when the tank is almost full. When the filler neck on the Baron, for example, is way outboard, you could have over half full tanks and not be able to stick anything.

Also, with bladder tanks, the bladder can develop wrinkles/pockets over time that reduce the usable capacity and you may stick it and think you have XX gallons when you really have less.

Sticking works reasonably well in airplanes with solid tanks that are mounted inboard.
 
And the other advantage of roll your own? It accounts for much of what @Fearless Tower stated. Sure, if you get bladder wrinkle you'll have a potential issue, but if you always know you flew X hrs at Y gph and filled with approximately the right number of gallons, you're good to go with your stick. Right?
 
GRG55 said:
Point taken.

But in this day and age, when there's folks hauling around a parachute with explosive charges as insurance against an unlikely engine failure in their expensive plastic airplane, I don't mind "tankering" some extra fuel for insurance against the certainty of engine failure if the tanks run dry. ;)
Click to expand...
Yep, the only time one can have to much fuel is when you're plane is on fire
 
This accident reminds us how we should know our airplanes by the numbers. I keep a logbook inside the plane I complete after every flight noting Hobbs, Tach and last top. Bounce those numbers of fuel receipts from topped tanks over a period of time to form trend. Before I depart, I know how much fuel I have burned since last top of tanks. In my Cherokee 140, I top every 3.5 hours on the Tach. Trust but verify
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Every airline flight you've ever been on has traded fuel for performance, in one way or another.
Click to expand...
Agreed... But I'm not in the airline business

Kenny Phillips said:
Or when your buddy brings a friend, because you do have four seats ...
Click to expand...
Yep, and I tell my buddy that even though I have 4 seats, I can only fly 2 of us since my tanks are topped
 
Ravioli said:
How so? If you drain the tank, marking the way down, and then fill the tank, checking on the way up, you have a pretty well calibrated stick.

Then on future fills you compare fill amount to expected fill amount and you end up with a pretty reliable backup to your fuel computer.
Click to expand...
Well if you do it that way, you've not calibrated it to usuable fuel in many cases. What you need to do is calibrate it down from full to the spec'd value for usable fuel.

Further, she stick isn't much better than fuel gauges with regard to the same issue. You've got a long flat tray of a tank in most cases and a little tilt from level induces a lot of error.
 
True. but the stick helps me with what I expect to see on the gauge. And then I can watch the flow rate and timer. Hasn't failed me yet.

upload_2018-11-24_8-32-53.png
 
I wonder if God will be interviewed by the FAA as well, since he was named as SIC on that flight. Generally it is the SIC's job to verify fuel levels as part of his preflight duties.
 
90% (plus) of GA accidents are due to a loose nut at the yoke.
Someone always brings up the airlines. Some of the reasons they rarely run out of fuel is a dispatcher doing fuel calculations, the PIC doing fuel calculations. Along with the FO breathing over his shoulder because he sincerely does not want to crash. Also the scales built into the plane giving a weight number before the self loading cattle thunder on board from which a fuel on-board number can be seen. If we had that level of system cross check on our bananas, we would not run out of fuel either (The Gimli Glider is the exception that proves the airline rule)
I have a few rules that have (so far) kept me out of the weeds. My fuel indicator is my wrist watch. The fuel gauge is just a cross check.
For local flying around I always have 10 gallons in the outboards - just in case - which gives me a half hour to land safely.
For XC the mains and outboards are full (6 hrs of fuel) .
When the mains go dry ( 4 hr) and I switch to the outboards (2 hr - give or take) I Have to be on the ground in 1 hour , no excuses.

Along the loose nut thread, group of local pilots had a really nice Arrow. Engine seized up in flight just recently and totaled the plane (pilot OK). Turns out no one ever checked the oil and she ran dry.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Also, with bladder tanks, the bladder can develop wrinkles/pockets over time that reduce the usable capacity and you may stick it and think you have XX gallons when you really have less.
Click to expand...

Yes, very true.

And the other advantage of roll your own? It accounts for much of what @Fearless Tower stated. Sure, if you get bladder wrinkle you'll have a potential issue, but if you always know you flew X hrs at Y gph and filled with approximately the right number of gallons, you're good to go with your stick. Right?
Click to expand...

Maybe.
I was flying a C-207 and the total amount of fuel was 2.2 hours (conservative fuel planning) on one tank when filled to the top. 1.7 hours later I almost set the plane down in the woods because the tank ran dry. I got the tanks switched and finally the engine came back to life and I finished the trip. That tank was bone dry because the fuel cell had folded over on itself, significantly reducing total fuel held.

Another pilot landed short of the runway in Juneau because the tank ran dry long before he planned it to. He did not have enough time to switch tanks as he was on medium final when it happened.

The next summer a pilot sank the plane is 70 feet of water because that tank ran dry. He did not have enough time to get the plane back running. He was within gliding distance of the shore line but there was no smooth place to land on the rocks. Pilot and passengers got wet but all survived.


The Director of Maintenance accused me of lying about the fuel total even though I could prove fuel as the lineman confirmed he had topped off the tank, and I checked that it was topped off. All these incidents happened because the Director of Maintenance refused to believe he was wrong and that a pilot could actually be right.
 
Lachlan said:
My CFI drilled it into my head that gas gauges are only accurate when they read Empty. I *ALWAYS* visually check/measure fuel before flying, and then calculate duration from there. I always land with either more fuel than expected or exactly what I expected, but never less than expected.
Click to expand...

How about airspeed or altitude indicators ... can’t rely on these either since these are just mechanical devices no different than your fuel gauge ... if keep at it you will end up with a single AOA string as your main instrument - but what if that fails as well ?
 
Warmi said:
How about airspeed or altitude indicators ... can’t rely on these either since these are just mechanical devices no different than your fuel gauge ... if keep at it you will end up with a single AOA string as your main instrument - but what if that fails as well ?
Click to expand...

Not sure exactly what you’re getting at. An engine is a mechanical device. I treat it like it’s going to abandon me when it’s least convenient and try to kill me, so I maintain it as well as I can. Same with gas tanks. I figure they’ll run dry on me when I’m flying, not when I’m asleep in bed, so I try to prevent them from betraying me by physically filling them up and visually verifying that they’re full.

As far as instruments failing, I have windows in my airplane. ;) Try looking outside now and then. :) It’s amazing! I can approximate airspeed in the pattern well enough that I rarely look at the ASI. Pattern altitude, same thing. Strangely, my CFI taught me that, too! En route altitude or assigned by ATC requires a lot more precision, therefore I need reliable CERTIFIED instruments. Not sure that a fuel gauge is required to show exact quantities of fullness for airworthiness on my airplane; only has to be accurate when it reads Empty. ;)
 
Skip Miller said:
Blaming this on decades-old fuel indicators is not a good excuse. My (and I presume every pilot's) primary CFI drilled into my head that the gauges were inaccurate, period. Also, the best fuel gauge is your wristwatch. I guess this pilot was asleep for that lesson. :frown2:
Click to expand...
Your CFI got it wrong (many do). The FARs don't say anything about the accuracy of the fuel gauges. It just says the E mark is supposed to align with zero usable (as opposed to bone dry).

Your wristwatch isn't any better by itself than the fuel guages. Your wristwatch won't tell you if you failed to lean properly, or you've got a slighly higher than planned power setting (maybe your tach or MP is off as well) or that there's a leak. As I said earlier, you want to use the most pessimistic of the fuel gages and your flight planning (your watch if you will) or whatever other indicators you have (fuel flow counters).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top