Navaho Ambulance down short of PWK

yakshemash said:
This plane had a known problem with the fuel flow indicator. When the pilot set the FF to 18 gph, the engine was actually burning 21 gph. That's 3 gph per engine more than the pilot knew he was burning. That's 6 additional gallons per hour. In a 3.75 hour period, he burned 22.5 extra gallons he didn't know he was burning. This problem was written up more than 5 times and nothing was ever done about it. As a matter of fact, the squawk sheets for these write ups were removed and never fixed. The Chief Pilot and Chief Mechanic knew of this problem and did nothing about it. This accident was avoidable and is tragic. The Chief Pilot and Mechanic should be held accountable. Mr. Didier did not have "get there itis". He had a problem with his plane he was unaware of. Pilots are generally taught that it's safer to fly an airplane based on time, using a known fuel burn rate. If the plane was burning more gas than the pilot knew, there's nothing he can do other than land sooner. Fuel gauges in light planes are notoriously unreliable and off by many gallons plus or minus the actual amount.
Click to expand...
Care to ellaborate on where your are getting your info?

Alot of unsubstantiated reports flying around that don't seem to jive with what you posted.
 
yakshemash said:
This plane had a known problem with the fuel flow indicator. ... The Chief Pilot and Chief Mechanic knew of this problem and did nothing about it. This accident was avoidable and is tragic. The Chief Pilot and Mechanic should be held accountable...
Click to expand...

If you have first-hand knowledge of that you should be getting word to the NTSB. AOPA might help get an aviation lawyer to represent you.
 
My original question was poorly worded, and was directed at whether the interim fuel stop was dictated by fuel prices rather than optimum trip planning. Numerous fuel exhaustion accidents have resulted from ill-advised decisions to try to save a dime/gal.

Keith Lane said:
I paid $5.15 for 100LL at PXE, their noontime fuel stop just last Saturday.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
My original question was poorly worded, and was directed at whether the interim fuel stop was dictated by fuel prices rather than optimum trip planning. Numerous fuel exhaustion accidents have resulted from ill-advised decisions to try to save a dime/gal.
Click to expand...

Wayne, you hit the nail on the head my friend! It's a fact! Check fuel prices in PBI vs. Jessup and a very short leg between the 2. The next leg is very long! Negligence and pressure on pilots to save a dime. You youngin's need to learn from this. Never let the employer pressure you into an unsafe situation.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Care to ellaborate on where your are getting your info?

Alot of unsubstantiated reports flying around that don't seem to jive with what you posted.
Click to expand...

Nope! But it's a stone cold fact. Hope the NTSB checks the fuel flow system.
 
mikea said:
If you have first-hand knowledge of that you should be getting word to the NTSB. AOPA might help get an aviation lawyer to represent you.
Click to expand...

You are right, I should, but I ain't. NTSB will do their job. Hopefully they will discover this on their own. It's a fact though.
 
yakshemash said:
You are right, I should, but I ain't. NTSB will do their job. Hopefully they will discover this on their own. It's a fact though.
Click to expand...

Afraid that your own involvement in the operation or maintenance of this aircraft may come back to bite you ?
 
yakshemash said:
You are right, I should, but I ain't.
Click to expand...
Then you're a coward.

Investigations are not like you see CSI on TV. I have been involved in many failure investigations, not all transportation related, and HUMAN SOURCES OF INFORMATION are vitally important. Without that resource the investigators might not even know what to look for.

How many MORE people will have to die before YOU will finally hear the voice of conscience? The body count is already ticking upward but you can't be bothered to grow a set.

When/if you go to church on Christmas you're gonna have a LOT of extra forgiveness to be asking for. May God have mercy on your soul.
 
why don't you give them a tip instead of "hope they check the fuel flow meter"

someone in our flying club recently ran a warrior out of fuel in IMC and crashed. fortunately he survived with some injuries but he'll make a full recovery.

It occured to me that the flying club has a checkout quiz for this aircraft that has 8.5gal/hr as the correct answer for "what is fuel burn at cruise" the question does not specify at what power settings. The POH lists 8.5 gph as the best economy fuel burn. Best power is 10.5

I flight plan at 10.5 for this airplane and usually end up somewhere about 9.5gph in actual use. I was surprised at the answer to that question being 8.5gph (I got it wrong, I said it burned more fuel than that) as the club always errs on the side of safety. For example they tell you to plan on 6.5gph for a C152 (which is pretty generous)

One of the instructors who knew the pilot said that he was new to the airplane and had done his IFR training and most of his flying in the club's 172's. If the plane actually burned 8.5gph he would have made it with a thin but legal reserve. (he crashed on approach)
 
dell30rb said:
why don't you give them a tip instead of "hope they check the fuel flow meter"
Click to expand...
Because he is probably making it up.....I mean seriously, some dude joins POA just to post some very slanderous info about the company that hasn't been mentioned elsewhere on some of the professional pilot forums?

I'm not buying it. I'm also not going to rehash some of the other stuff I have seen posted elsewhere which is just as baseless without anything to back it up.

The Board will figure this one out in due time. Particularly since the co-pilot is alive and last I heard expected to survive.
 
Relax my online compadres, I'm not throwing stones at any of you. Please, be respectful. Let the process work itself first. This just occurred a couple of days ago. In due time, people will get the information they need. Good investigators read forums like these, or have assistants who comb the web for this kind of information. If you are this concerned, you have an obligation to pass it along to the NTSB. "Remember, when you are close to the fire, you should never put your hand in it, just watch from afar."

PS- What other online forums have any of you seen info concerning this accident?
 
Inverted said:
Still don't know how a pilot can run out of fuel. The Navajo can hold a nice a mount of fuel even with pax on board.
Click to expand...

Your very right Mark..... until its POS fuel caps come off:yikes:
 
yakshemash said:
This plane had a known problem with the fuel flow indicator. When the pilot set the FF to 18 gph, the engine was actually burning 21 gph. That's 3 gph per engine more than the pilot knew he was burning. That's 6 additional gallons per hour. In a 3.75 hour period, he burned 22.5 extra gallons he didn't know he was burning. This problem was written up more than 5 times and nothing was ever done about it. As a matter of fact, the squawk sheets for these write ups were removed and never fixed. The Chief Pilot and Chief Mechanic knew of this problem and did nothing about it. This accident was avoidable and is tragic. The Chief Pilot and Mechanic should be held accountable. Mr. Didier did not have "get there itis". He had a problem with his plane he was unaware of. Pilots are generally taught that it's safer to fly an airplane based on time, using a known fuel burn rate. If the plane was burning more gas than the pilot knew, there's nothing he can do other than land sooner. Fuel gauges in light planes are notoriously unreliable and off by many gallons plus or minus the actual amount.
Click to expand...

Umm... Anyone who has ever flown p PA31 knows about the fuel flow gauges being crap. Our SOP specifically states we cannot lean to fuel flow. We do it by EGT. Most of the -310's and 350's I fly, when you lean by EGY will have very incorrect fuel flow readings, some read ZERO. You say the fuel gauges are notorious, so are the fuel pressure, and oil temp gauges...

BTW how do you know, that he was actually burning 21GPH instead of 18? Were the left and right gauges both off exactly right? If not, then he should have had 22.5 extra gallons on the side without the fuel pressure gauge problem right? That means he shouldn't have ran both tanks dry at the same time right?.
 
Last edited:
yakshemash said:
This plane had a known problem with the fuel flow indicator. When the pilot set the FF to 18 gph, the engine was actually burning 21 gph. That's 3 gph per engine more than the pilot knew he was burning. That's 6 additional gallons per hour. In a 3.75 hour period, he burned 22.5 extra gallons he didn't know he was burning. Pilots are generally taught that it's safer to fly an airplane based on time, using a known fuel burn rate.
Click to expand...

18 GPH =3.6 PPM = 5.4 hours full to burn out
 
taters said:
Your very right Mark..... until its POS fuel caps come off:yikes:
Click to expand...

The pilot that had that happen to him is a fantastic pilot, and fell victim to poorly maintained aircraft which have been plagued by this problem. He didn't run the plane out of fuel IMO. Whoever that guy was!
 
Inverted said:
Umm... Anyone who has ever flown p PA31 knows about the fuel flow gauges being crap. Our SOP specifically states we cannot lean to fuel flow. We do it by EGT. Most of the -310's and 350's I fly, when you lean by EGY will have very incorrect fuel flow readings, some read ZERO. You say the fuel gauges are notorious, so are the fuel pressure, and oil temp gauges...
Click to expand...

I once had 8GPH with 1475 degrees EGT in the Chief......the other engine was 18 GPH at 1475 degrees.....

at first I though that method was stupid...but soon I saw why its a way better method.. the fuel flow gauge measures fuel pressure..then does a half @$$ job of showing that as a GPH
 
Inverted said:
Umm... Anyone who has ever flown p PA31 knows about the fuel flow gauges being crap. Our SOP specifically states we cannot lean to fuel flow. We do it by EGT. Most of the -310's and 350's I fly, when you lean by EGY will have very incorrect fuel flow readings, some read ZERO. You say the fuel gauges are notorious, so are the fuel pressure, and oil temp gauges...
Click to expand...

PA31 and pretty much every other aircraft I've ever flown that has them.

Fuel flow gauges are inherently prone to error, if nothing else by virtue of the fact they are a pressure gauge. When the nozzles get clogged, the pressure for the same fuel flow will increase. Therefore, the gauge will read high on flow. We lean by EGT, and get a consistent result.

If I owned a Navajo, the first thing I'd do would be install a JPI and Shadin.
 
taters said:
I once had 8GPH with 1475 degrees EGT in the Chief......the other engine was 18 GPH at 1475 degrees.....

at first I though that method was stupid...but soon I saw why its a way better method.. the fuel flow gauge measures fuel pressure..then does a half @$$ job of showing that as a GPH
Click to expand...

Exactly. One of our -350's read about 2GPH at 1450EGT, you could fly to Hawaii on that lol.
 
Inverted said:
Umm... Anyone who has ever flown p PA31 knows about the fuel flow gauges being crap. Our SOP specifically states we cannot lean to fuel flow. We do it by EGT. Most of the -310's and 350's I fly, when you lean by EGY will have very incorrect fuel flow readings, some read ZERO. You say the fuel gauges are notorious, so are the fuel pressure, and oil temp gauges...

BTW how do you know, that he was actually burning 21GPH instead of 18? Were the left and right gauges both off exactly right? If not, then he should have had 22.5 extra gallons on the side without the fuel pressure gauge problem right? That means he shouldn't have ran both tanks dry at the same time right?.
Click to expand...

Having direct knowledge of the operation of N59773, yes, both FF gauges show 18 gph when burning 21 gph. Company policy is to lean for FF, not EGT. This plane was a 1975 model with over 18,000 hours on it and the owner wasn't putting a dime into it, never mind a nice JPI, which it did not have. Leaning LOP is not permitted at this company, and unless you have GAMI injectors, leaning LOP is not recommended on any fuel injected a/c. I didn't see anything on this forum about the a/c having a fuel pressure gauge problem? Where did that come from? Also, this a/c had 182 gals usable. The fuel stop at Jesup yielded 165 gallons of fuel on-loaded.
 
yakshemash said:
I didn't see anything on this forum about the a/c having a fuel pressure gauge problem? Where did that come from?
Click to expand...

The PA-31 Fuel GPH gauge is really a fuel pressure reading...I think that was the issue referred to
 
saracelica said:
That was a fustrating "expert" Now no one will want to learn how to fly them scary small airplanes.
Click to expand...

The anchor sucked, but I didn't see anything wrong with what the expert said - And Rob knows his stuff. Impressive resume - He's been an air traffic controller, airline pilot, and currently is an active CFI. He does a lot of writing for magazines, teaches at Northwestern, and has stick time in things all the way up to the Airbus A380!

Yes, the explanations were a bit simplistic, but that's exactly what you need for idiot news anchors and the uninformed general public. I think he did a pretty good job.
 
yakshemash said:
Having direct knowledge of the operation of N59773, yes, both FF gauges show 18 gph when burning 21 gph. Company policy is to lean for FF, not EGT. This plane was a 1975 model with over 18,000 hours on it and the owner wasn't putting a dime into it, never mind a nice JPI, which it did not have.
Click to expand...

The name of the investigator in charge is Ed Malinowski, the phone number is 630-377-8177. It's kind of whimpy if you in fact know those things first hand and you are not willing to make that call. The excuse that the NTSB is grazing this site for wisdom and will come accross the information posted anonymously on the internet is laughable.

The company you are accusing of those practices has an operating certificate and continues to provide charter and air ambulance flights. If those things are true, your silence towards the investigators puts others at risk.
 
If he really cared he would say something. Especially if he is FLYING THESE AIRPLANES FOR THE COMPANY AND CAN BE THE NEXT VICTIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
yakshemash said:
Having direct knowledge of the operation of N59773, yes, both FF gauges show 18 gph when burning 21 gph. Company policy is to lean for FF, not EGT. This plane was a 1975 model with over 18,000 hours on it and the owner wasn't putting a dime into it, never mind a nice JPI, which it did not have. Leaning LOP is not permitted at this company, and unless you have GAMI injectors, leaning LOP is not recommended on any fuel injected a/c. I didn't see anything on this forum about the a/c having a fuel pressure gauge problem? Where did that come from? Also, this a/c had 182 gals usable. The fuel stop at Jesup yielded 165 gallons of fuel on-loaded.
Click to expand...

OK, the PILOT knew the exact fuel burn of the aircraft. He added 165 gallons at Jesup, which means he knew EXACTLY how much fuel it used on the preceding flight. The crew had been flying the plane 12 hours that day before it crashed, if he hadn't figured out the fuel flow by then, he might not have been the best guy in his math class.:mad2: I don't doubt the gauges were inaccurate, by the crew should have known that they would be below minimum fuel reserves, even if the gauges were accurate! 22 gallons ain't much gas when you're burning 40 per hour!:mad2:
 
yakshemash said:
Having direct knowledge of the operation of N59773, yes, both FF gauges show 18 gph when burning 21 gph. Company policy is to lean for FF, not EGT. This plane was a 1975 model with over 18,000 hours on it and the owner wasn't putting a dime into it, never mind a nice JPI, which it did not have. Leaning LOP is not permitted at this company, and unless you have GAMI injectors, leaning LOP is not recommended on any fuel injected a/c. I didn't see anything on this forum about the a/c having a fuel pressure gauge problem? Where did that come from? Also, this a/c had 182 gals usable. The fuel stop at Jesup yielded 165 gallons of fuel on-loaded.
Click to expand...

So the fuel flow indication anomaly on this airplane was common knowledge except for the pilot involved in the crash?
 
Have you ever experienced a fuel leak in a twin?

N747JB said:
OK, the PILOT knew the exact fuel burn of the aircraft. He added 165 gallons at Jesup, which means he knew EXACTLY how much fuel it used on the preceding flight. The crew had been flying the plane 12 hours that day before it crashed, if he hadn't figured out the fuel flow by then, he might not have been the best guy in his math class.:mad2: I don't doubt the gauges were inaccurate, by the crew should have known that they would be below minimum fuel reserves, even if the gauges were accurate! 22 gallons ain't much gas when you're burning 40 per hour!:mad2:
Click to expand...
 
Are you kidding me? There was no fuel leak, the guy mismanaged his fuel and ran the damn tanks dry.
 
http://aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=54527100-6a21-4a9a-879e-bd500d73d978

FOUND NO TRACE OF FUEL IN THE DEPRIS FIELD.

Prove it was a fuel leak. Do you know how fuel systems in a twin work with regard to fuel leaks? The very nature of a twin and its fuel delivery provides redundancy. Federal regulations take it a step further and do NOT allow cross feeding to feed a tank that might have a leak. So again, prove how this could be a fuel leak that causes a double engine failure?
 
If some of the fuel leaked out of the tanks during the trip, would it be still be in the tanks after the crash?
Inverted said:
http://aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=54527100-6a21-4a9a-879e-bd500d73d978

FOUND NO TRACE OF FUEL IN THE DEPRIS FIELD.

Prove it was a fuel leak. Do you know how fuel systems in a twin work with regard to fuel leaks? The very nature of a twin and its fuel delivery provides redundancy. Federal regulations take it a step further and do NOT allow cross feeding to feed a tank that might have a leak. So again, prove how this could be a fuel leak that causes a double engine failure?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
If some of the fuel leaked out of the tanks during the trip, would it be still be in the tanks after the crash?
Click to expand...

Sir, you are asking too difficult questions :nono: .
 
So this guy just had a really crappy day, flew a plane for 12 hours that had developed calibrated leaks in both tanks that allowed the EXACT same amount of fuel to depart the aircraft causing simultaneous engine failures?

WOW
 
That surmises duplicate fuel leaks in both tanks... not impossible, but unlikely.

I know of no twin that has a fuel system with a common point between both tanks that would allow a leak in the fuel system for one engine to drain fuel that powers the other engine. So a fuel leak should result in a single engine failure.
 
Assumes facts not in evidence. Would equal leaks, or even leaks on both sides have been necessary for a fuel starvation accident to occur?

Do fuel leaks always occur immediately after takeoff? Or during the first flight of the day? Or at some predetermined time during any 12 hours of flying?

Inverted said:
So this guy just had a really crappy day, flew a plane for 12 hours that had developed calibrated leaks in both tanks that allowed the EXACT same amount of fuel to depart the aircraft causing simultaneous engine failures?

WOW
Click to expand...
 
You are clearly making ignorant statements to cause a stir, there is no possible way you are suggesting this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top