Suspicious Local "Crash"

Guessing he never looked at the fuel gauges during the flight. One might have noticed that one wasn't moving or he never moved the selector off the right tank during his start up check list.
 
EppyGA said:
Guessing he never looked at the fuel gauges during the flight. One might have noticed that one wasn't moving or he never moved the selector off the right tank during his start up check list.
Click to expand...
possibly. I know that some people get sloppy with their fuel monitoring on Cessnas thanks to that 'BOTH' position. Perhaps it had been put on the 'RIGHT' position and the pilot never noticed. Of course one of the engine out procedures is to check the other tank. There is lots unknown here and my guess are all just that guesses and conjecture.
 
ScottM said:
possibly. I know that some people get sloppy with their fuel monitoring on Cessnas thanks to that 'BOTH' position. Perhaps it had been put on the 'RIGHT' position and the pilot never noticed. Of course one of the engine out procedures is to check the other tank. There is lots unknown here and my guess are all just that guesses and conjecture.
Click to expand...

Part of securing is to put it in right or left. I know a lot of folks that fly Cessna's don't do that but it is there. Hence the possibility that it was not on both.
 
Here's the key bit of data that tells me this #### ran out of fuel:

"We were trying to make it to the Connellsville airport, but we ran out of fuel. It began to sputter and then the propeller stopped," Springgate said.
Click to expand...

KVVS is about 15 minute flight to KMGW -- the accident airplane's base.

Why was he planning on a fuel stop at VVS?

Because he ran the right dry, was running on the left, and realized he was getting very low.

That flight path overflew several self-serve 100LL airports.

Dumb, dumb, dumb!!! :mad:

EDIT: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N8921V/history/20100321/1524ZZ/KMGW/KBUF
 
Last edited:
EppyGA said:
Part of securing is to put it in right or left. I know a lot of folks that fly Cessna's don't do that but it is there. Hence the possibility that it was not on both.
Click to expand...

The fuel selector ports can get misaligned if the selector is really worn, but you'd think that either "left" or "both" would get fuel from the left tank to the engine, if there were fuel to be had in the left tank.

I have flown a 172 that would feed from the right tank, but due to a wonky vent system, would pull fuel from the left tank into the right, so the right tank level really wouldn't go down, but the left one would. But that would stop once the level of the left tank got below the vent crosstube in the left tank.


Trapper John
 
ScottM said:
Of course one of the engine out procedures is to check the other tank.
Click to expand...
Bingo... not to jump to conclusions, but in the very likely event that this guy simply failed to switch tanks in time, proper use of the engine-failure checklist would have saved the day. One should at least try moving the selector; after all, it's an item related to continued engine operation. :D

In all my time in newer Cessnas, I've always visually inspected or sticked the tanks before takeoff, kept the selector on BOTH and simply kept track of my estimated burn (with conservative "padding" for ground ops, climb, etc). That's worked very well for me- never ran out of fuel and never had any problems related to crossfeed, unporting or fuel load imbalance.
 
Trapper John said:
I have flown a 172 that would feed from the right tank, but due to a wonky vent system, would pull fuel from the left tank into the right, so the right tank level really wouldn't go down, but the left one would.
Click to expand...
Pretty much all the Cessna aircraft I've flown do that. It really isn't generally an issue and works itself out in the end.
 
rottydaddy said:
Bingo... not to jump to conclusions, but in the very likely event that this guy simply failed to switch tanks in time, proper use of the engine-failure checklist would have saved the day. One should at least try moving the selector; after all, it's an item related to continued engine operation. :D

In all my time in newer Cessnas, I've always visually inspected or sticked the tanks before takeoff, kept the selector on BOTH and simply kept track of my estimated burn (with conservative "padding" for ground ops, climb, etc). That's worked very well for me- never ran out of fuel and never had any problems related to crossfeed, unporting or fuel load imbalance.
Click to expand...


The pilot admitted the right tank was "dry."

This is a C172 with 3 adults on board that flew MGW to BUF (1:44 on FlightAware -- assume 2 hour engine run time).
 
EppyGA said:
Part of securing is to put it in right or left. I know a lot of folks that fly Cessna's don't do that but it is there. Hence the possibility that it was not on both.
Click to expand...
A likely scenario, especially if there was no pre-takeoff checklist used. :D
I've flown some rented Cessnas that I often found to be secured in that fashion... not sure why that's done, but I didn't mind- it helps me remember that I must look at that thing and do something with it before taking off.
 
jesse said:
Pretty much all the Cessna aircraft I've flown do that. It really isn't generally an issue and works itself out in the end.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just not perceptive enough to notice it in the others...but the one that had the pronounced tendency did get better after the tank caps were replaced.


Trapper John
 
rottydaddy said:
not sure why that's done
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple, actually. If you fill both tanks and then park the plane on an incline so that one wing is higher than the other, and if the fuel selector is on both, the fuel will siphon from the high tank through the fuel selector valve to the low tank and on out the tank vent to the ground. :(

Selecting "left" or "right" blocks the siphon path.

-Skip
 
Skip Miller said:
It's pretty simple, actually. If you fill both tanks and then park the plane on an incline so that one wing is higher than the other, and if the fuel selector is on both, the fuel will siphon from the high tank through the fuel selector valve to the low tank and on out the tank vent to the ground. :(

Selecting "left" or "right" blocks the siphon path.

-Skip
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, that one. I guess tilted ramps and tie-downs are fairly common, but I've never parked on one.
But doesn't OFF make more sense, even in that situation? OFF would also be helpful if, say, the plane got run into while parked... less chance of fire (unless the wing tanks were ruptured, of course). Some of the rental Cessna checklists I've worked with call for fuel OFF when parking.
 
rottydaddy said:
Oh yeah, that one. I guess tilted ramps and tie-downs are fairly common, but I've never parked on one.
But doesn't OFF make more sense, even in that situation? OFF would also be helpful if, say, the plane got run into while parked... less chance of fire (unless the wing tanks were ruptured, of course). Some of the rental Cessna checklists I've worked with call for fuel OFF when parking.
Click to expand...

The CAP Airplanes all required Fuel Sleector to OFF.

CAP has a pretty large Cessna fleet -- I trust their SOP.
 
dmccormack said:
Here's the key bit of data that tells me this #### ran out of fuel:



KVVS is about 15 minute flight to KMGW -- the accident airplane's base.

Why was he planning on a fuel stop at VVS?

Because he ran the right dry, was running on the left, and realized he was getting very low.

That flight path overflew several self-serve 100LL airports.

Dumb, dumb, dumb!!! :mad:

EDIT: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N8921V/history/20100321/1524ZZ/KMGW/KBUF
Click to expand...


I read it as he was trying to make connelsville when he was having engine problems. Either way looks like upon departure from BUF he took a little detour to see Niagra Falls.
 
AdamZ said:
I read it as he was trying to make connelsville when he was having engine problems. Either way looks like upon departure from BUF he took a little detour to see Niagra Falls.
Click to expand...

This is a C172N, 180 HP

Assume filled to the brim, 48 gallons.
Useful load: ~880 Lbs (?)
Three adult males X200 = 600 lbs
Available 280 lbs for fuel = 46 gal

Planned fuel burn 12 gph (with 180 HP at 75% / 5500 ft)
(Yesterday was unseasonably warm so DA was high)

FA listed MGW-BUF at 1:44. But FA doesn't add in taxi, takeoff, manuevring, etc before Traffic Advisories are requested. Return flight also 1:44 (same problem)

So assume 4 hours flight time at 12 gph and the result is...?

Landing in a field in Bullskin Township.
 
dmccormack said:
This is a C172N, 180 HP

Assume filled to the brim, 48 gallons.
Useful load: ~880 Lbs (?)
Three adult males X200 = 600 lbs
Available 280 lbs for fuel = 46 gal

Planned fuel burn 12 gph (with 180 HP at 75% / 5500 ft)
(Yesterday was unseasonably warm so DA was high)

FA listed MGW-BUF at 1:44. But FA doesn't add in taxi, takeoff, manuevring, etc before Traffic Advisories are requested. Return flight also 1:44 (same problem)

So assume 4 hours flight time at 12 gph and the result is...?

Landing in a field in Bullskin Township.
Click to expand...

12 gph is probably quite a bit higher than it would actually burn. You're generally looking at about 10 GPH at 180 hp.
 
I leave my selector on both when flying. Some of my parking spots are on an incline so I turn the selector to both off and place the ignition key on the selector base. I can't start up without selecting both on.
 
dmccormack said:
I have about 50 hours in a 180hp C172N, and solo 10 GPH is about right.
Click to expand...
I really don't think you're going to see a 20% increase in fuel consumption by flying solo vs gross in a 172. The performance charts certainly don't indicate anything near 12 GPH at gross.

If you're burning 12 GPH average with 4 hours of flying in a 172N with 180 HP something is probably wrong with it. (Not to say that something wasn't wrong with it).
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
I really don't think you're going to see a 20% increase in fuel consumption by flying solo vs gross in a 172. The performance charts certainly don't indicate anything near 12 GPH at gross.

If you're burning 12 GPH average with 4 hours of flying in a 172N with 180 HP something is probably wrong with it. (Not to say that something wasn't wrong with it).
Click to expand...


Assuming tanks were completely full --48 gallons.

My suspicion is they were not as full as they might have been.
 
jesse said:
I really don't think you're going to see a 20% increase in fuel consumption by flying solo vs gross in a 172. The performance charts certainly don't indicate anything near 12 GPH at gross.

If you're burning 12 GPH average with 4 hours of flying in a 172N with 180 HP something is probably wrong with it. (Not to say that something wasn't wrong with it).
Click to expand...

I suspect you can get 12 gph simply by not leaning in cruise.
 
ScottM said:
i have flown the N-180hp, the S model and the RG which are also 180hp and never got over 10 gph. I am surprised you got it that high.
Click to expand...

I never saw less than 10 gph -- even when doing pattern work.

:dunno:

Of course, the CAP 172 has lots of antennas, and a whole lotta crap in the back.
 
172N with the 180 hp Penn Yan conversion - long range tanks - 50 gallons usable fuel. 8.3 gph at 65% (2400 rpm) according to the performance charts on the one we have in our club. I can put 755 pounds in the cabin with full tanks. Don't forget the max gross goes up 250 pounds with this STC. 65% gives about 114 KTAS and that's what I plan with that plane. 6 hours of fuel (3 hours longer than I'm going to sit in it without landing somewhere).

I park Cessnas with the fuel selector on LEFT (RIGHT would work, too) so that fuel doesn't transfer from one tank to the other while the plane is being re-fueled. I fly set on BOTH. And then watch one tank go down faster than the other. The 172H on Saturday was dropping on the left with little change on the right. If I had flown long enough it would have fixed itself, but 1.8 hours on the Hobbs wasn't going to do it.

Funny how poorly our engines run if you replace all the fuel in the tanks with air, isn't it?
 
Ghery said:
I park Cessnas with the fuel selector on LEFT (RIGHT would work, too) so that fuel doesn't transfer from one tank to the other while the plane is being re-fueled.
Click to expand...

Does that really work for you? The way I understand the fuel system plumbing the vent tube that connects the left and right tank would just act to equalize the two tanks.


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
Does that really work for you? The way I understand the fuel system plumbing the vent tube that connects the left and right tank would just act to equalize the two tanks.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

The cross vent can transfer fuel from the elevated tank to the lower one when the wings aren't level but not the other way around. The both position of the selector, OTOH allows fuel to flow from the fuller tank to the less full one unless the full tank is considerably lower than the other. To get both tanks really full requires the selector on something other than both and fueling the lower wing first.
 
I have never seen worse than 9 gph in my C-172M with 180 hp. We figure 8 gph for a conservative burn and usually get 7. We lean, but even without leaning we never got worse than 9.
 
Trapper John said:
Does that really work for you? The way I understand the fuel system plumbing the vent tube that connects the left and right tank would just act to equalize the two tanks.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Cuts out the path through the selector valve.

AuntPeggy said:
I have never seen worse than 9 gph in my C-172M with 180 hp. We figure 8 gph for a conservative burn and usually get 7. We lean, but even without leaning we never got worse than 9.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right to me. I've seen fairly close to the charted 8.3 gph in the C-172N 180hp at 65%, so I believe your numbers.

The C-172H (145 hp Continental) got 6.8 gph on Saturday (12.2 gallons, 1.8 on the Hobbs), and a bunch of that was WOT climbing to and maintaining 11,500 MSL for a circle around Mt. St. Helens. No pattern work, just a decent over most of the trip back to OLM and then landing.
 
Ghery said:
The C-172H (145 hp Continental) got 6.8 gph on Saturday (12.2 gallons, 1.8 on the Hobbs), and a bunch of that was WOT climbing to and maintaining 11,500 MSL for a circle around Mt. St. Helens. No pattern work, just a decent over most of the trip back to OLM and then landing.
Click to expand...

Now that is one efficient airplane, but I can't imagine the H model i flew ever getting up to 11,500.

Heck, it barely took off with two of us on board!
 
gismo said:
The cross vent can transfer fuel from the elevated tank to the lower one when the wings aren't level but not the other way around. The both position of the selector, OTOH allows fuel to flow from the fuller tank to the less full one unless the full tank is considerably lower than the other. To get both tanks really full requires the selector on something other than both and fueling the lower wing first.
Click to expand...

Yep, I didn't consider the wings not being level...


Trapper John
 
dmccormack said:
Now that is one efficient airplane, but I can't imagine the H model i flew ever getting up to 11,500.

Heck, it barely took off with two of us on board!
Click to expand...

As I said, WOT all the way. And I was the only one on board. Sure messed up the trim when I opened the pilot's window to take pictures. Just left it open after re-trimming. That wind was COLD at 11,500 MSL. :D

Now, I have had a C-172N with 180 hp at 12,500 MSL and it was happy as can be there. That extra 35 hp really helps.
 
gismo said:
I suspect you can get 12 gph simply by not leaning in cruise.
Click to expand...
Maybe. I've sure never seen those kind of fuel burns..and I've flown countless Cessna 172s that have had 180 hp.

I suspect if you're seeing 12 GPH while "leaning aggressively" in a 180 HP 172 something might be wrong with it.

I've flown 160 HP Cessna 172s to 14,000 feet in the summer on several occasions without any real issue. Of course I rarely fly at gross.
 
Could also have had long range tanks (54 gal max-50 usable)...and I also follow Bob's procedure. Tanks go to off on securing the plane, when I preflight, the keys sit on the fuel selector shelf: 1) To keep the fuel from flowing out of the vent tube and exercise the fuel selector valve and 2) To ensure that I LOOK down at that fuel selector every time and put it on both.

Why the heck did he NOT just fuel the plane before taking the flight back home?
 
jesse said:
Maybe. I've sure never seen those kind of fuel burns..and I've flown countless Cessna 172s that have had 180 hp.

I suspect if you're seeing 12 GPH while "leaning aggressively" in a 180 HP 172 something might be wrong with it.
Click to expand...

No way while leaning, even conservatively but if you leave the mixture at full rich while tooling along with a wide open throttle at 5000 DA I think you can manage even more than 12gph. And if this was a wet rental, that could be exactly how it was being operated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top