Trust No One!

[Sam Snead]

The 'big boys' never 'visually' check the fuel tanks, they have gauges they trust. When you go from flying an airplane like that to a small piston, your habit patterns are not in place.

That goes for a bunch of stuff, not just checking fuel level at preflight. I'm glad that this particular lesson was learned for free.

 

[avbug]

I jumped in a small piston twin a few days ago, for the first time in years. The first thing I did on the walk around was check the fuel and oil, even though two others had already done it.

I don't think preflight habits die at all. Nor do I think one believes the Seminole or Seneca one walks up to is a B737...not do I think experience in advanced aircraft alleviates the use of the checklist, nor teaches one not to use it.

You do still have a preflight checklist, no?

 

[nosehair]

I don't think preflight habits die at all. Nor do I think one believes the Seminole or Seneca one walks up to is a B737...

I think I would think the same, given the fact that we spent some time on the line in small piston airplanes before going from flight school to FO in short time. Most all the militay jet pilots started in pistons, but if there is no appreciable after school experience with small pistons, I think the experience just dies away. That's my observation of the bulk of heavy airplane drivers.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

When I used to freelance instruct in some Dr.'s Mooney, I'd feel pretty uneasy when the pilot told me were good on fuel and that we could top off at XYZ for better rates. I couldn't climb in without having a peek myself and thinking hard about endurance to said airport.

 

[FlySacto]

The 'big boys' never 'visually' check the fuel tanks, they have gauges they trust. When you go from flying an airplane like that to a small piston, your habit patterns are not in place.

That goes for a bunch of stuff, not just checking fuel level at preflight. I'm glad that this particular lesson was learned for free.

Thanks all of you guys for the positive, and also the scalding comments. I had a situation where 25+years of combined flying experience almost screwed the pooch. Sam, your post brings up two good points for me to comment on. As the level of experience goes up we (do, might, should, shouldn't) put more trust in our fellow pilot to complete a task as simple as verifying the fuel load. My begining instrument students get more of a "grilling" about the flight than someone doing recurent training and have been flying for years. This includes the preflight planning, fuel requirements, ect. I was comfortable that an experienced pilot finally moving up to a high performance twin was up to the task. He wasn't.

Today with the airline, I got an airplane that had several MEL's. One of them was a fuel quantity indicator that was defered and required that the fuel quantity in that wing be verified after each refueling with several float indicators built into the wing, and the quantity computed with a chart. As a Captain should I have trusted in and let the relativly new FO to do the test, or should have I done it myself? Do I most likely delay all the flights with tight turns to do the test and have the confidence that it was done correctly, or do I trust my fellow pilot and try to get out on time? What is the definitive right answer? More food for thought....

 

[acaTerry]

The 'big boys' never 'visually' check the fuel tanks, they have gauges they trust. When you go from flying an airplane like that to a small piston, your habit patterns are not in place.

That goes for a bunch of stuff, not just checking fuel level at preflight. I'm glad that this particular lesson was learned for free.

Having flown as a "big boy", I have to point out flawed logic in your post. The fuel guages in the large aircraft are required to be accurate. The guages in the small planes only have to be accurate when dead empty. Also, I have had fuel guages deferred in big planes, albeit rarely, and we do a visual checking of the magnasticks in these cases. Again, the pilot must be flying the plane he is in now rather than the one he was flying earlier.
Fly safe guys. Drink school and stay in milk.
Terry

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Having flown as a "big boy", I have to point out flawed logic in your post. The fuel guages in the large aircraft are required to be accurate. The guages in the small planes only have to be accurate when dead empty. Also, I have had fuel guages deferred in big planes, albeit rarely, and we do a visual checking of the magnasticks in these cases. Again, the pilot must be flying the plane he is in now rather than the one he was flying earlier.
Fly safe guys. Drink school and stay in milk.
Terry

The MEL of fuel gauges reminds me of the Air Canada (??) flight a while back where the FO miscalculated the metric conversion of fuel ordered and both engines subsequently flamed out. Luckily, the captain was an avid glider pilot and knew of an old military base which he successfully glided the aircraft to a safe dead stick landing.

 

[Say Again Over]

The MEL of fuel gauges reminds me of the Air Canada (??) flight a while back where the FO miscalculated the metric conversion of fuel ordered and both engines subsequently flamed out. Luckily, the captain was an avid glider pilot and knew of an old military base which he successfully glided the aircraft to a safe dead stick landing.

I thought the blame on that accident had to do with not complying with the MEL.

 

[acaTerry]

The MEL of fuel gauges reminds me of the Air Canada (??) flight a while back where the FO miscalculated the metric conversion of fuel ordered and both engines subsequently flamed out. Luckily, the captain was an avid glider pilot and knew of an old military base which he successfully glided the aircraft to a safe dead stick landing.

I think that in a transport category plane if the guages are out, you don't go. I lost a good freind of mine in a J31 over a fuel issue. NTSB report is clear, but he was one of the most conscientious pilots I ever flew with and I still find it hard to believe.

 

[FlySacto]

I thought the blame on that accident had to do with not complying with the MEL.

I think they did the calculations three times before they launched. On the second leg they lost it. They supposedly were hosed by a conversion factor new to the airplane going from metric to english units. 10,000 liters doesn't equal 10,000 gallons.

 

[FlySacto]

I think that in a transport category plane if the guages are out, you don't go. I lost a good freind of mine in a J31 over a fuel issue. NTSB report is clear, but he was one of the most conscientious pilots I ever flew with and I still find it hard to believe.

IIRC the MEL let us go with the bad gauge as long as the FF guage worked on that side and the totalizer worked.

 

[Say Again Over]

Gimley Glider, What I seem to remember is that the MEL calls for either the L/H or R/H gauges to be working, an engineer doing some testing before the flight had pulled C/B's and rendered all fuel indicators inop, crew flew it anyway, just a recollection, not sure.

 

[AC560]

I think that in a transport category plane if the guages are out, you don't go. I lost a good freind of mine in a J31 over a fuel issue. NTSB report is clear, but he was one of the most conscientious pilots I ever flew with and I still find it hard to believe.

There was no mechanical failure in the aircraft that I am aware of. They just thought they had boarded more fuel then they actually had,

 

[Say Again Over]

Acording to reports (had to look) both FQI's were inop, crew got dinged because there was a delay to declare an emergency and the aircraft was not airworthy due to inoperative a/p.

 

[acaTerry]

Acording to reports (had to look) both FQI's were inop, crew got dinged because there was a delay to declare an emergency and the aircraft was not airworthy due to inoperative a/p.

By the sounds of it one went, then both, then one came back and then both engines dead again. Tough to get a word in there. We'll never know b/c the CVR was inop.