Good people in this world? Yes

With all due respect, a fuel selector does not cause a crash. Not meaning to judge because I wasn't there, but I assure you the NTSB will point in a different direction.
 
N53KL said:
With all due respect, a fuel selector does not cause a crash. Not meaning to judge because I wasn't there, but I assure you the NTSB will point in a different direction.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you'd say that. In addition to being in the wrong position from pilot error, they've been known to fail making it impossible to switch tanks, etc... I believe the this wouldn't be the first 310 to have that problem.
 
My NTSB comment was not about the fuel selector. If it malfunctioned it might have contributed to the "crash" but it did not cause it.
 
N53KL said:
My NTSB comment was not about the fuel selector. If it malfunctioned it might have contributed to the "crash" but it did not cause it.
Click to expand...
Eh?
 
N53KL said:
My NTSB comment was not about the fuel selector. If it malfunctioned it might have contributed to the "crash" but it did not cause it.
Click to expand...

Let’s assume for the sake of discussion about cause analysis that the fuel selector malfunctioned. Then the selector was indeed part of the cause-effect chain. The cause of that failure would then be the “root cause”. Whether the pilot could have dead-sticked it in for a landing vs crash is immaterial to the root cause (i.e., pilot error, failure to maintain control, CFIT, etc.).
 
N53KL said:
My NTSB comment was not about the fuel selector. If it malfunctioned it might have contributed to the "crash" but it did not cause it.
Click to expand...
Surely this is a bit pedantic no? That's like saying speed doesn't kill, suddenly coming to a stop does... Obviously correct, but we all also understood the initial comment and it didn't particularly need that clarification.
 
Any particular reason twins use cables for fuel selection? I can't recall singles which do. Not even sure if all piston twins do either (I thought Seneca/Seminole have direct handles to the valves).
 
The engine is out on the wing between the two fuel tanks that that valve is controlling. On a single, that cockpit valve is sitting between the fuel tanks and where the engine is
 
Speaking of twins and fuel.. always thought a nice pragmatic solution was having each wing feed its respective engine with an option to cross flow if needed but not typically used
 
flyingron said:
The engine is out on the wing between the two fuel tanks that that valve is controlling. On a single, that cockpit valve is sitting between the fuel tanks and where the engine is
Click to expand...

Makes sense. Is that a 310 specific comment or is it the universal answer on these piston twins?

Tantalum said:
Speaking of twins and fuel.. always thought a nice pragmatic solution was having each wing feed its respective engine with an option to cross flow if needed but not typically used
Click to expand...

I did the ATP ride on a seminole, which just like the seneca, has that exact valve setup you describe. In the case of the seminole the tanks are literally behind the engine firewall of its respective engine. I don't know if the PA34 and -44 have cables, I know the Apache/Aztec do. Dunno about the Twinkie. By @flyingron remarks I would assume that would also be the case.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Any particular reason twins use cables for fuel selection? I can't recall singles which do. Not even sure if all piston twins do either (I thought Seneca/Seminole have direct handles to the valves).
Click to expand...

My Aztec has the fuel valves in the wing roots, cable operated similar to the 310. Keeps most of the fuel lines away from the cabin. Singles typically have the valve on the left sidewall or under the floor.

Tantalum said:
Speaking of twins and fuel.. always thought a nice pragmatic solution was having each wing feed its respective engine with an option to cross flow if needed but not typically used
Click to expand...

That's how mine is piped. Inboard and outboard tanks in each wing that feed their respective engines. Crossflow system if needed for extended single engine operations.
 
Wow. I guess I have to be blunt. A pilot loses an engine on a twin that has enough performance to climb to pattern altitude and maneuver for landing. Why, during the base to final turn did he lose control? It was not because of a mechanical problem. Certainly the fuel selector might have malfunctioned causing the engine to fail. An engine failure on a twin engine airplane did NOT cause the airplane to crash on the 405.

The OP was right, there were hero's that day. Those who risked their lives to save others. Let's not forget that.

Kevin
 
I thought this post was about heroic acts,not about the pilots ability or inability.
 
Sorry BU, this was not aimed at you.

I agree with FRFLY172, this was supposed to be about the heroics of responders who deserve a pat on the back, not a semantics discussion . Thanks for the clarity.

Kevin
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top