Fuel Archives - Page 2 of 4 - Golf Hotel Whiskey

Does the price of avgas impact how much you fly?

Kent Misegades has written a blog post repeated by General Aviation News about an interesting article in EAA’s November 2011 issue of Sport Aviation (“My $.02 on $6 Avgas”) which had pointed out that the price of avgas might be less important than you think.

In the article, author Mike Busch calculated the annual costs for his 1979 Cessna T310R twin under the assumption that he would fly less should the price of avgas rise from $4 to $6 per gallon:

His conclusion? The true impact of $6 avgas is less than what he initially thought and while it still hurts, it does not hurt enough for him to quit flying or to sell his airplane. Mike also included the following table of fuel cost estimates:

On the other hand, the Kent noted that not all pilots agree with Mike’s analysis and it cited a report from WINK News in Fort Myers, Florida where several pilots said higher fuel prices were killing the general aviation business.

Kent also noted how higher fuel prices have been hitting boat and marina owners along with drivers and he suggested that a smarter long-term idea would be to tap into autogas as well as exploit every drop of oil in North American.

Nevertheless, we want to ask you what you think about Mike’s analysis: Are you flying less thanks to higher fuel prices but actually saving more money or have avgas prices risen so much that you have or are thinking of giving up flying?

Do you know when your fuel selector valve is turned off?

General Aviation News will often reprint accident report excerpts from the US’s National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), including a February 2010 accident report about an incident involving a Beech Musketeer in Winter Haven (Florida) that led to two fatalities.

Specifically, a private pilot had more than 468 hours but no flight time between November 22, 2003 and October 4, 2008 and then 5.7 hours in the Musketeer between December 6, 2009 and December 16, 2009.

On the day of the fatal incident, the pilot took off but the aircraft engine lost power on the initial climb, stalled and then crashed. An examination of the wreckage revealed no mechanical malfunctions but the fuel selector was observed to be in the off range.

Further testing of the fuel selector revealed no other mechanical problems and the evidence from the crash suggested it was in the off position after takeoff.

However, the mechanic who performed the aircraft’s last 100-hour inspection six months before the fatal accident apparently missed the fact that the fuel selector valve guard and stop lacked the required markings that clearly depict its off range. According to Airworthiness Directive (AD) 85-05-02, there should have been a clear label or decal to indicate when the fuel selector was on or off.

Hence, the probable cause of the accident was the pilot having left the fuel selector valve off during takeoff along with his failure to maintain adequate airspeed after a loss of engine power. A contributory factor was the mechanic’s failure to spot the lack of markings on the fuel selector stop and fuel selector valve.

Loose fuel cap cuts a flight short

General Aviation News will often reprint excerpts from US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident reports, including one from December 2009 that involved a Cessna 182 in Bowie (Texas) that led to substantial damage to the aircraft and one minor injury – all because of a loose fuel cap (Check out another fuel cap incident we reported about back in 2010: “Don’t forget to tighten the fuel cap”).

Apparently, the pilot had topped off both fuel tanks with 40 gallons of fuel for each before departing on a cross-country flight. However, the pilot also told investigators that he had difficulty securing the fuel cap on the right wing tank.

After around two hours into the flight, the Cessna’s engine stopped producing power with the fuel selector on the left tank whose gauge read empty. The pilot then attempted to switch tanks but he was unable to restart the engine – forcing him to make a landing to a snow-covered field causing substantial damage to the aircraft’s wings, firewall and fuselage.

Both wing fuel tanks were empty with the right wing fuel cap being missing. Hence, the pilot’s failure to secure the fuel cap as well as monitor the available fuel supply was ruled as the cause of the crash.

Do you know your aircraft’s unusable fuel amount?

General Aviation News often reprints US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident reports, including one from October 2009 that involved a Cessna 180 in Mitchell, Oregon, where the aircraft was severely damaged plus two people were injured.

According to the accident report, the pilot had acquired the aircraft several years before the accident. On the day of the accident, the aircraft’s engine lost power due to fuel exhaustion – forcing the pilot to make an off-airport landing.

During the subsequent investigation, the pilot informed the FAA that the fuel capacity on the airplane was 58 gallons thanks to a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) installation and that the previous owner had told him that all 58 gallons were usable. However, the FAA reviewed the paperwork and found that the actual usable fuel was only 51.4 gallons. In addition, the FAA showed the pilot the fuel selector decal which had also been placarded with 51.4 gallons usable fuel.

The pilot did note that he had already made the same trip eight or nine times before the accident but he would also normally refuel en route. However and on the day of the accident, he did not refuel.

Moreover, the STC installation information noted that to determine the aircraft’s usable fuel, its type certificate data sheet needed to be referenced and then the unusable fuel amount listed on the sheet needed to be subtracted from the new total fuel capacity. The aircraft’s datasheet showed that five gallons of fuel were unusable – meaning the aircraft’s actual usable fuel capacity was 51.4 gallons. Moreover and as part of the STC:

The airplane flight manual and the fuel selector valve placard were supposed to be updated with the revised usable fuel quantity. This action was noted on the FAA Form 337 for the STC installation. The pilot reported that there was no AFM supplement for the STC included in his paperwork, and that he did not ever look at the quantities indicated on the fuel selector valve placard in the cockpit due to its location between the seats.

The cause of the accident was ruled the pilot’s lack of understanding about his aircraft’s fuel system – leading to fuel exhaustion. Hence and its worth asking: Do you understand your aircraft’s fuel system and more importantly, how much of that fuel will be unusable?

Preparing your plane for winter

Winter will be here sooner than you think and for pilots in Northern latitudes, it may already be here. Hence, a General Aviation News article by Ben Visser, a pilot and aviation fuels and lubricants expert who spent 33 years with Shell Oil, is well worth reading as he provided a few fuels and lubes related tips for getting your aircraft ready for the winter.

Since Ben is an aviation fuel expert, he began by writing that it’s a big mistake to assume that can just put your plane away and change the oil in the spring time. He then pointed out that small amounts of fuel and combustion by products will get pass the rings and into the oil, increasing the chances of corrosion and rust when moisture enters the engine due to rising and falling winter temperatures.

Hence and if you do not plan on doing much or any winter flying, Ben wrote that you should change the oil before you put your aircraft away. He also suggested that you add one quart of preservative oil during the oil change and then do a short flight (if possible) to make sure that all engine parts are supplied with the new oil.

On the other hand and if you live in more southerly latitudes or if you will be using your aircraft during the winter, sticking with your normal every four months oil change should be just fine.

Ben then pointed out that on the fuel side, there is not much you need to do – unless you are using a fuel that contains ethanol which can absorb water and become corrosive. In that case, he suggested completely draining the fuel.

Finally, Ben warned that you will need to be careful if you use a power wash on your aircraft. Specifically, he warned not to get the power wash near any bearings on your aircraft as water can get inside and then freeze and thaw all winter long – causing harm the bearing and/or the seal. Otherwise, there is no other problem with getting your aircraft nice and clean for the spring flying season.

Fuel imbalance leads to a Beech crashing

General Aviation News will occasionally reprint excerpts or summaries of US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident reports – including this one from July 2009 about a Beech C35 crash in Weslaco, Texas that led to one death and one serious injury.

According o the accident investigation, both the Beech C35’s left and right main tanks plus the left tip tank were filled with fuel right before the aircraft departed. However and when the pilot was fueling the right tip tank, the fuel nozzle ended up falling into the tank. Hence, no fuel was added to that tank and the aircraft took off with a fuel imbalance between its tanks.

Thanks to the fuel imbalance, the aircraft had a left rolling tendency and the pilot (who was with a student pilot) headed to the nearest airfield to land so that the aircraft could be configured with 10° of flaps – contrary to the STC.

While an attempted landing, the Beech C35 bounced and drifted leftward. Hence, a go-around with a turn to the left to enter the downwind pattern was performed but during the left turn procedure, the pilot lost control of the aircraft and crashed.

The student pilot, who survived the crash, told investigators that the pilot was at the controls but investigators were not able to determine whether the flight was instructional and just who was at the controls at the time of the accident. It was also noted that:

…fracture and bending signatures on the throw-over style control column and hub were consistent with the controls being positioned toward the left seat during the accident sequence.

The NTSB ruled that the probable cause of the accident was the pilot’s failure to maintain control of the aircraft while operating with a fuel imbalance. Of course, the root cause of the accident was flying to begin with when there was a fuel imbalance.