Ultralights Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Some here make it sound like VHS regoes never run out of fuel... I dont think I have ever flown a Cessna or piper with a truly accurate fuel gauge. Even with my ppl and cpl training, emphasis was cockpit gauges are a rough guide, the dipstick is the trues reading. Even 747's have dip sticks in each tank! It's not an RAAus problem, or a culture problem. It's an aviation problem, for every jabiru turned into a glider by tanks full of air syndrome, there is a commercial airliner that's done the same, and everything in between. It was only recently I witnessed a Cherokee run out of fuel in the circuit at bankstown. It never made the news. Now there could be the real problem. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 . Even 747's have dip sticks in each tank! I never knew that: I'd love to see a picture of one. I think the RA-Aus spokesperson's comment was good and it is even better that this was published: Ms Bailey said pilots were trained to look for an open space during times of trouble. ‘‘So the pilot has done exactly what he’s been trained to do and it’s been successfully carried out. There’s no damage, no injuries’’ she said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 They look like this, actually called float sticks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 FT for your attention the report on the Cessna which crashed on approach at Moorabbin in 2010 is out. That is no RAA. Just doing circuits, huess what the cause was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggles Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 FT for your attention the report on the Cessna which crashed on approach at Moorabbin in 2010 is out.That is no RAA. Just doing circuits, huess what the cause was? Fuel starvation - Cessna 152 aircraft, VH-KKW, Mordialloc, Victoria, 7 August 2010 Summary At about 1545 Eastern Standard Time on 7 August 2010, while returning to Moorabbin Airport, Victoria after conducting aerial photography work, the pilot of a Cessna Aircraft Company 152 aircraft, registered VH-KKW, experienced a total loss of power that resulted in an emergency landing approximately 200 m short of the airport. The aircraft was significantly damaged. The pilot and single passenger sustained minor injuries. The investigation found that the pilot, when preparing for the flight, had misread the aircraft's initial fuel state and had subsequently uplifted a lesser quantity of fuel than required for the flight. Although the fuel remaining was greater than the manufacturer's stated unusable quantity, the investigation determined that the accident was the result of fuel starvation. The aircraft was prone to asymmetric fuel delivery allowing one tank to deplete quicker than the other. That action may have led to the aircraft unporting fuel from the low quantity tank during manoeuvring, which allowed air to be drawn into the engine. The investigation identified inconsistencies in the application of the operator's procedures for recording aircraft fuel states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggles Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 So we have the situation where the RAA pilots are saying "well if the GA boys set a low standard, why should we aim for anything higher?" How do you come to that conclusion FT ? Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Well you should go back to the safety of GA then 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camel Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The RAA just needs to clean out a bit of the dead wood. Put the emphasis on quality instead of quantity. I have read your nonsense and this is the first thing that you said was smart, go then and do something that you will be safe at. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Normoyle Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I think we are all missing the point here, the aircraft didn't run out of fuel, the pilot did, he made the calculation, filled the desired amount of fuel, made some form of check on quantity and quality, compared all this against his intentions either in his head or on paper, then committed aviation. Regardless of the type, PA28, C180, Drifter, J170, B747 or A320, the aircraft dosen't run out of fuel, the pilot does. Maybe this is a human factors issue, what was going on during the planning / refueling stages ? Training and proficiency as well as recency could be factors. Still this is a human operating a machine, don't blame the tool if you don't know how to use it properly ! I have a CPL, i fly my drifter / Fisher Mk1 as often as i can, and i have been in ATC now for 8 years and before that 4 years with Qantas, i have seen a pilot taxi for departure and then taxi back when he realized he hadn't put fuel in, i have sent an A320 around from 2nm final because the gear wasn't down, i have seen several aircraft request direct tracking for a fuel shortage / emergency. All pilots, GA, ATPL, RAA, SAAA, Hot air balloon are all Human ( Gyro pilots are plain mad, couragous but mad ), and thus being human, we are prone to making errors, some people above have made great systems to minimise the risk, but there is always a risk, we fly aircraft, therefore there is a risk. Minimise this with good systems, practised routines, AIRMANSHIP and you will be prepared for when something does go wrong. Landing a J170 on a race track successfully was a great piece of airmanship, getting into a position where that became the only option, well that may not have been his finest hour. It may have been a blown fuel hose, a failed fuel pump, a blocked filter or any other possible cause that we all must consider when operating our aircraft. To say RAA pilots are bad because the organisation is needing some change is true for all such organisations, especially aviation types. But to get rid of the dead wood, those who have been with the organisation and in the world of aviation for extensive periods of time have a vast array of experience that should be harnessed and retained for as long as possible. CASA is full of dead wood, it is like the preverbial dead forrest, and some can't see the forrest for the trees, i deal with them regularly. Thankfully, the times they are a changing and with the Security and legislative changes that have been put apon aviation, there is a great deal of new staff at CASA, they are trained and gaining experience in the field everyday, but they too are human and as such open to error. Airmanship is the best defence we have to keeping those risks at a minimum, be as good a pilot as you can, instill that in your pilot friends, discourage / report poor / wrong behaviour when you see it. Don't think you know it all, be open to hearing a new perspective and offering yours where you feel it warranted, when flying always remember to prepare for the unexpected and never think you are just "That Lucky". I know the Savanah Bingo pilot, his partner and their son, i am glad they are all ok ( injuries repair, death is final ), i never thought he would make a decission as poor as this one as a pilot, i think he will have a lot of hard questions to answer when the dust has settled. As for the Jab pilot, i congratulate you on a great forced landing and hope you have either rectified the problem or have plans to alter you preflight / inflight fuel management systems to ensure you don't put yourself in this position again. As for our image as aviators, we can only demonstrate our desired image through our actual performance, so get out there and go fly your aircraft in such a manner as is desired and also required by the requirements ( CASA and RAA ), there are always cowboys and poor performers in every field, GA, Airline, RAA etc. 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Well said Patrick. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suitman Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I think we are all missing the point here, the aircraft didn't run out of fuel, the pilot did, he made the calculation, ...As for our image as aviators, we can only demonstrate our desired image through our actual performance, so get out there and go fly your aircraft in such a manner as is desired and also required by the requirements ( CASA and RAA ), there are always cowboys and poor performers in every field, GA, Airline, RAA etc. Hear! Hear! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 ......In other news today an RAA pilot save 6 babys from an out of control stork.....another RAA pilot broke 3 world records, all while remaining fully within the orders and opps manual constraint...... <FT> just proves once again what a bunch of flogs RAA are....... (paraphrase to add more words) <Turbo, Andy and others> Sigh...here we go again...same sh*t different day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Andy, is the problem with the RAA safety inevitable? FT I think Im the same as everyone else here in that I cant read your mind to fill in the missing blanks. If you want me to seriously try and answer a question you'll need to give me more than 9 words......How many times do I have to say that to you?????? FFS this isnt an SMS message!! Splash out, use a few extra words to describe what it is that your trying to convey. I at least have the advantage (missfortune??) to have read your wordy posts for some time, anyone new coming along and reading that post would simply be left with a WTF??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Yes. Give a bit more FT. It's probably the manner/style, you do this, but it is hard for us to process and respond to in the curent form. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 It's the same sh$t that destroys aircraft and kills people Andy. You could probably go back to 1918 and find someone who'd beaten up a boat and finished in the drink, someone who'd written himself off flying past last light, someone who'd flown into a cloud and spiralled into the ground, someone who squeezed four people into his two seat biplane, someone who smashed up his aircraft after a fuel exhaustion, or was praised for landing in the length of a horse and dray right in front of a prickle bush, or who had an engine failure and spun in from a turn back. That's six type of incidents which we are regularly repeating in the 21st Century And FT since you seem to want to paint a false picture to try to stop your fellow RAA pilots flying, or maximise damage, it equally applies to GA. I'd have to ask, do Instructors do briefings these days and instil procedures which prevent these things happening? Fuel exhaustions seem to be more prevalent over the past three or four years. Why is this? How many of you do the full fuel burn calculation for a flight - taxy/holding fuel, climb fuel, cruise fuel, descent/taxy fuel, reserve? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Well the less scrutiny idea is not true FT. There are GA aircraft spread throughout Australia to the same extent, many operating out of farm paddocks. The flying away from scrutiny (both RA an GA) does hold up though in failure to follow safe operation and maintenance procedures. Unfortunately the sins of those aircraft often spark a blitz by CASA on City and Regional Airports. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 If any conclusions are to be arrived at in these matters a very "careful " assessment of the situation is required as to what are the "real" factors. In some areas RAAus is far more stringent that GA. The AFR is a log book entry only in GA . In RAAus there has to be notification to head office as well. Look at the "myriad" endorsements on the RAAus cert. Far in excess of GA for an equivalent situation. I've got my own views on the reasons why we SEEM to be having more accidents/incidents, but you would want far more research before any major change of process shoud be initiated. I will say that I am and have been concerned, for some time, but I feel it's more of a personnal attitude thing with individuals, than anything eminating from "Head Office", as a lax policy. I believe the standard of airmanship and quality has dropped across the whole broad spectrum of Aviation in Australia. We were once" right up there" with standards. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 .......To give an example when I was flying out of XXX there was an old pilot who didn't do circuits he just circled the field and landed, to avoid accidents he did his circuits at about 700' so he would go underneath you. He would be grounded if he was flying out of a busier airfield. First time I experienced this it was pretty scary because he came out of no where and it wasn't until he was almost below me that I saw him. FT I believ that LP aircraft that fly at under 55kts are supposed to do circuits lower and closer to the field. Helicopters, especially those used for training also tend to do strange things (from a fixed wing perspective) at the field. I believe the right maxum to use is "expect people to do the wrong thing" and then be pleasantly suprised when they dont. Are you sure that what he did was wrong? I recently posted the link to the visual flight guide, have a look at that on page 240. It says there should be 3 altitudes(EDIT and circuit sizes) in use for circuits, 1500 for aircraft likely faster and flasher than what we fly, 1000 for the RAA general style aircarft and 500ft for RAA LP aircraft which cruise at speeds below 55kts. That all said if he wasnt flying the 4 standard legs and just doing truely circular rotaions around a centerpoint that corresponded with the runway then yeah that sucks and I pressume if that was the case you said something to him? after all, things like the VFG exist and adds weight to your argunment that he is doing the wrong thing doesnt it? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 FT to a certain extent I agree that self regulation, in splendid isolation of all other things, is less effective than alternatives. If someone asks me to pay extra for an alternative then it better deliver really good outcomes, assuming I can afford it in the first place. Saying that, if self regulation is all we can afford and it backfires in our face because the lowest common denominator somehow drives behaviours that apply to us all then I guess in the abscence of political lobbying that we get what we get. RAA with the costing structures we have may not be able to afford significantly more than self regulation but they do have a big stick that can be applied by CASA, (significantly bigger than in other sectors) however the cost structure they have does allow then, and I expect them, to be lobbying to ensure that those that arent participating in things we shouldnt, where they are the significant majority, are not penailised by the cotton wool brigade. In a differnt thread you talked about dataloggers as a possible solution but I can see that will only keep those who are doing the right things doing the right things, those that arent will selectively dissable or break the logger or get around it some other way. If your thinking of alternates, you need to think of one that will be effective with the cowboys, whether RAA or some other sector. Bottom line is it its battery powered (either by Aircraft battery or built in's ) on an aircraft that can be legally worked on and isnt sealed against the owner/pilot, then it can be beaten easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 What the hell are we talking about guys ... Everything we do in life requires self regulation ... Driving at the regulated speed requires self regulation ... the alternative fit speed limiters that sense the speed limit and modulate speed accordingly, who will pay for that ... the only surveillance being Police and speed radar Behaving morally requires self regulation ... the surveillance being getting caught out Carrying the required documents in an aircraft requires self regulation ... the only surveillance being a ramp check RAA or VH. Flying at correct heights and in correct areas requires self regulation ... Flying the correct circuit pattern and speeds requires self regulation ... Making the correct radio calls or making them at all requires self regulation ... Loading the aircraft in balance and not above MTOW requires self regulation ... Managing the fuel requires self regulation ... and on and on ... What is the alternative ... a police state!!! The answer to cowboys is report them ... but we don't want to do that do we ... its easier to complain than do anything ... So if we are not prepared to hold each other accountable we may deserve the reputation we unfortunately might get. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Police State or nothing? That's pretty arrogant given that the VAST majority of RAA members are successfully self regulating - you really want to insult the ones who ARE doing the right thing? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 .....David has it summed up pretty well, Police state or nothing. That is NOT what I was saying FT, perhaps I was too subtle. I was clearly saying that self regualtion in the manner I described it is how we live and if that is not good enough and we have morally declined that far that a Police State is the only answer, we are in deep trouble. We know Police States don't work either. Education is always more effective than prohibition. What I was saying is we should talk to each other and hold each other accountable and if someone wont take advice and they are doing the wrong thing we should report them to those who will hold them accountable. It is a sad day if we are not prepared to do that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 What are we talking about? The last few RAA incidents haven't been the result of rule breaking but they showed evidence of rule breaking. I can only go on what is happening when an accident occurs, just because their aren't accidents happening doesn't mean that people aren't breaking the rules.On the balance of probability, this incident wouldn't be the first time the pilot has flown without doing a thorough preflight. This was just the first time the preflight would have made a difference, the odds where in this guy's favour because he found somewhere to land. Its unfortunate that this happened with a passenger as that person will carry this event for a long time. The fact he just jumped in his plane and flew off says a lot about his attitude to safety. It could have been a fuel blockage that caused the engine failure, you can't really tell with a quick run up? FT, I think that was , if not the, then very close to your longest post. I almost found myself understanding what it is that your saying. The pilot in this case, if he did indeed run out of fuel, did screw up, but im pretty comfortable it wont happen again for him anytime soon. The real question is for the rest of us, can we learn from his mistake or must we learn it again and again for ourselves. In your last para (just love it, para's...... well past a single sentence), are you talking about the initial flight take off, or the one from the Racecourse? I suspect its the later and if so what should have occured....and more importantly how do you know it didn't, or is that a leap without the facts on you part as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 FT, What I was attempting to put across is two separate issues: Where we see rule breaking and illegal and dangerous practices we should be prepared to approach the people involved in a conciliatory manner to provide some gentle direction in what they should NOT be doing. If they ignore that advice and continue with dangerous or reckless practices, I believe we have a duty of care to escalate the matters to either their organisation or RA Aus or CASA. Where there are simple human error mistakes like this fuel management with this poor bugga in the Golf Course, I believe these are educational issues and guidance should be provided by RA Aus sponsored direction to prevent a re occurrence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Police State or nothing?That's pretty arrogant given that the VAST majority of RAA members are successfully self regulating - you really want to insult the ones who ARE doing the right thing? <I cant believe Im doing this....> Turbo Im again reading between the lines here but I dont think FT meant "Nothing" as in no flying, I think he meant nothing, as his view as what self regulation is, so to rewrite his statement he probably means Police State or Self Regulation, and going by past comments I pressume even then its tongue in cheek (not to be confussed in this case with head up ar$e). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now