Running out of Fuel
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Wagit and CFICARE, and pretty much everyone has got it covered as to the reason people (of all licence types) run out of fuel. It is very very basic.....The people who are instructing our student pilots must be well below the standard required. Yes, the advent of all the technology in the world has created distractions to the pilot of today, but that is not the reason or excuse for why people are running out of fuel, they are basically not being taught properly.
This situation may be coming from instructors (through their flying schools) planning NAVEXs which fit well into the endurance of the aircraft being flown. Which does not teach the student the a whole bunch about fuel management.
When you have people with only the bare numbers of hours, who have been taught themselves by instructors with the bare number of hours, teaching new students you are eventually going to end up with the standard of pilot being produced slowly getting worse and worse. (A bit of a generalisation, but you can see my point).
This situation may be coming from instructors (through their flying schools) planning NAVEXs which fit well into the endurance of the aircraft being flown. Which does not teach the student the a whole bunch about fuel management.
When you have people with only the bare numbers of hours, who have been taught themselves by instructors with the bare number of hours, teaching new students you are eventually going to end up with the standard of pilot being produced slowly getting worse and worse. (A bit of a generalisation, but you can see my point).
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tumble_weed
I would suggest that statement is somewhat naive or ill informed.
Most G3FI’s turn out of the schools with a pretty good repertoire of ‘canned briefs’ and a reasonable delivery of the flight sequences. What they lack in experience is made up in enthusiasm. Selected G1FI’s are then responsible for the direct and indirect supervision of the junior instructors. This can be done by sitting in on briefs, discussing issues with instructors and evaluating students at regular intervals. The CFI obviously sets the teaching standards.
The syllabus lays out quite clearly both the sequences to be taught and the achievement level required. Such standards are assessed during training by each instructor and by an experienced instructor at the pre-licence test. An ATO then tests the student in accordance with the proforma prescribed by CASA and in conjunction with the VFR Day Syllabus. In the latter stages of his/her training the student is usually instructed by a senior instructor who refines the student towards licence standard.
Navigation training requires skill in flight planning, fuel management, engine handling and in-flight emergencies.
I admit that GPS is just one issue. An examination of the ATSB report suggests that the majority of accidents were attributed to pilots flying sophisticated types with little experience on that type.
But 35% of such accidents were attributed to Private Flying and just eight per cent to Training. 18% were attributed to Charter! On that basis it would seem to me that pilots develop fuel management problems after leaving the training environment!
… When you have people with only the bare numbers of hours, who have been taught themselves by instructors with the bare number of hours, teaching new students you are eventually going to end up with the standard of pilot being produced slowly getting worse and worse. (A bit of a generalisation, but you can see my point)….
Most G3FI’s turn out of the schools with a pretty good repertoire of ‘canned briefs’ and a reasonable delivery of the flight sequences. What they lack in experience is made up in enthusiasm. Selected G1FI’s are then responsible for the direct and indirect supervision of the junior instructors. This can be done by sitting in on briefs, discussing issues with instructors and evaluating students at regular intervals. The CFI obviously sets the teaching standards.
The syllabus lays out quite clearly both the sequences to be taught and the achievement level required. Such standards are assessed during training by each instructor and by an experienced instructor at the pre-licence test. An ATO then tests the student in accordance with the proforma prescribed by CASA and in conjunction with the VFR Day Syllabus. In the latter stages of his/her training the student is usually instructed by a senior instructor who refines the student towards licence standard.
Navigation training requires skill in flight planning, fuel management, engine handling and in-flight emergencies.
I admit that GPS is just one issue. An examination of the ATSB report suggests that the majority of accidents were attributed to pilots flying sophisticated types with little experience on that type.
But 35% of such accidents were attributed to Private Flying and just eight per cent to Training. 18% were attributed to Charter! On that basis it would seem to me that pilots develop fuel management problems after leaving the training environment!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leaning, GPS, Leaning
Correct leaning is probably the most badly taught subject in flight training, and can account for a huge increase in fuel consumption. Irrespective of what your standard leaning policy is, I have found that very few commercial pilots could accurately find the Max EGT in the aircraft they fly everyday (I would assume it is worse with PPL). Without this magic figure how can you lean to say 100 deg rich of peak? You can't, and so your fuel consumtion will suffer.
I know pilots who have used 20% more fuel than myself, over the same sectors, after leaning to the company policy. Not just on one occasion either. These same pilots write down a Max EGT 100 deg lower than mine for the same aircraft the day before. So they are running 100 deg richer than I am.
20% over 3 hours is 36 minutes more fuel required, put some headwind and weather in there and hey presto, no reserves. All of a sudden that alternate you had just enough fuel for is (unknown to the pilot) an impossible dream.
How many people are still being taught not to lean below 3000 or 5000' whilst flying the likes of a C 172. How many people are taught to calculate their actual fuel consumption at the end of a trip when they refuel?
Many aero clubs will have standard fuel consumptions for their aircraft i.e. 35 lph for a C172. It should read 35 lph at ### deg rich of peak at 2300 RPM, and maybe to add 5 l for every take off.
As for GPS I cannot understand how it could be a disadvantage. It will tell you (using the GOTO button) just how long it will take you to get from your present position to your destination. It will also take into account strong headwinds, which account for many running out of gas. Try doing that with a VOR or NDB!
I know pilots who have used 20% more fuel than myself, over the same sectors, after leaning to the company policy. Not just on one occasion either. These same pilots write down a Max EGT 100 deg lower than mine for the same aircraft the day before. So they are running 100 deg richer than I am.
20% over 3 hours is 36 minutes more fuel required, put some headwind and weather in there and hey presto, no reserves. All of a sudden that alternate you had just enough fuel for is (unknown to the pilot) an impossible dream.
How many people are still being taught not to lean below 3000 or 5000' whilst flying the likes of a C 172. How many people are taught to calculate their actual fuel consumption at the end of a trip when they refuel?
Many aero clubs will have standard fuel consumptions for their aircraft i.e. 35 lph for a C172. It should read 35 lph at ### deg rich of peak at 2300 RPM, and maybe to add 5 l for every take off.
As for GPS I cannot understand how it could be a disadvantage. It will tell you (using the GOTO button) just how long it will take you to get from your present position to your destination. It will also take into account strong headwinds, which account for many running out of gas. Try doing that with a VOR or NDB!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 61
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spinnerhead:
If you REALLY want to scare yourself, jump in a piston-prop aeroplane that has both the factory EGT/CHT gauges AND a multi-cylinder digital engine analyser.
I flew my Aztec 'by the book' and 'by the gauges', leaning by EGT and watching CHTs on the standard single cylinder gauges, then switched on the JPI and looked at what was REALLY happening. The standard EGT showed 100 f ROP - the JPI showed the 6 cylinders were between 20 LOP and 50 ROP, primo detonation zone! The standard CHT gauge showed 300f - the JPI showed 450f on 2 out of 6 cylinders!! The others were between 400 and 300. The standard fuel flows read 2-3 gallons less/more the the callibrated transducers in the JPI. The motto here is - old, cheap instruments are NOT reliable.
Technology can be a boon to fuel management - the TSO GPS is linked to the JPI fuel flow, so both instruments can give accurate readings of fuel on board, fuel used, fuel flow, fuel & time remaining and fuel required. These expensive bits are backed up by the most accurate system available - opening the caps and looking / dipping, EVERY STOP; supported by pencil & paper calculations, done in the cruise (great way to keep the mind active).
Anyone remember the story about the pilot who launched from ?SY in a lightie for Cairns using a hand-held GPS; he was running low on fuel and looking for assistance, when ATC asked 'where are you?' he said '428nm south of Cairns'
Cheers.
If you REALLY want to scare yourself, jump in a piston-prop aeroplane that has both the factory EGT/CHT gauges AND a multi-cylinder digital engine analyser.
I flew my Aztec 'by the book' and 'by the gauges', leaning by EGT and watching CHTs on the standard single cylinder gauges, then switched on the JPI and looked at what was REALLY happening. The standard EGT showed 100 f ROP - the JPI showed the 6 cylinders were between 20 LOP and 50 ROP, primo detonation zone! The standard CHT gauge showed 300f - the JPI showed 450f on 2 out of 6 cylinders!! The others were between 400 and 300. The standard fuel flows read 2-3 gallons less/more the the callibrated transducers in the JPI. The motto here is - old, cheap instruments are NOT reliable.
Technology can be a boon to fuel management - the TSO GPS is linked to the JPI fuel flow, so both instruments can give accurate readings of fuel on board, fuel used, fuel flow, fuel & time remaining and fuel required. These expensive bits are backed up by the most accurate system available - opening the caps and looking / dipping, EVERY STOP; supported by pencil & paper calculations, done in the cruise (great way to keep the mind active).
Anyone remember the story about the pilot who launched from ?SY in a lightie for Cairns using a hand-held GPS; he was running low on fuel and looking for assistance, when ATC asked 'where are you?' he said '428nm south of Cairns'
Cheers.
Last edited by Jamair; 18th Feb 2003 at 02:04.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old method of fuel calculation that was taught in schools in the sixties and seventies was to determine the Fuel Burn from the POH in US gallons and treat them as IMP gallons. Hence an in-built safety margin. The change to metric makes that difficult. But a variable reserve included in private operations should result in a similar outcome. Perhaps variable reserves is a saving factor in the CHTR statistics!
Students should be taught to lean the mixture straight after solo circuits (i.e. the next trip to the training area) and hammered from there on. Even a PA38 will lean out at 1000 feet with a noticeable movement of the mixture lever. Another old myth that should be axed is not allowing students to change tanks below a certain level. How the hell will they ever apply such procedures if they are not drilled at every opportunity pre-PPL?
Spinnerhead
My reference to the GOTO/DTO button relates to the ease in continuing to destination without checking enroute WPTS, ETA and fuel reserves. It seems that once that button is pressed some folk literally toss the charts and the flight log in the map pocket and let the aircraft fly them to whatever outcome. I guess it requires some self-discipline but also needs training to make potential users of the equipment aware of GPS limitations and sound operating techniques. At least with NDB’s and VOR’s users still need to calculate an ETA that will lead to some situation awareness on the fuel front.
Students should be taught to lean the mixture straight after solo circuits (i.e. the next trip to the training area) and hammered from there on. Even a PA38 will lean out at 1000 feet with a noticeable movement of the mixture lever. Another old myth that should be axed is not allowing students to change tanks below a certain level. How the hell will they ever apply such procedures if they are not drilled at every opportunity pre-PPL?
Spinnerhead
My reference to the GOTO/DTO button relates to the ease in continuing to destination without checking enroute WPTS, ETA and fuel reserves. It seems that once that button is pressed some folk literally toss the charts and the flight log in the map pocket and let the aircraft fly them to whatever outcome. I guess it requires some self-discipline but also needs training to make potential users of the equipment aware of GPS limitations and sound operating techniques. At least with NDB’s and VOR’s users still need to calculate an ETA that will lead to some situation awareness on the fuel front.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Hauler
I agree that these new instructors may be the most enthusiactic flyers around, and probably a lot of them are more talented aviators than most, but when you look at how the Big guys do things you have to ask yourself.....Why do we have inexperienced guys teaching aviation? (ANS: That's the way the industry is.) You don't see the airlines or the Airforce, take guys they have just trained and get them teaching other guys. (They tried that once and it didn't work out)
You can be the best pilot in the world when it comes to all the flying sequences, but nothing replaces good old experience in the type of operations, that you intend to teach. You can't teach someone SA, they have to build it up over time.
I believe that the Airforce requires its pilots to have at least 300hrs command before they are sent to instructors course, and when you think about your Herc or P-3 guys they would have had a lot of time spent as the F/O before they get anywhere near this. They gain the experience from being in the aircraft with an experienced Captain. We just don't get that in GA.
This may seem to have developed into an argument about the instructing system in GA, but I do believe that these issues have a direct relation to the quality of pilot that is coming out at the other end.
Tumble_Weed's Solution: Try and entice more experienced pilots to return to instructing.
Chance of this happening: NIL
I agree that these new instructors may be the most enthusiactic flyers around, and probably a lot of them are more talented aviators than most, but when you look at how the Big guys do things you have to ask yourself.....Why do we have inexperienced guys teaching aviation? (ANS: That's the way the industry is.) You don't see the airlines or the Airforce, take guys they have just trained and get them teaching other guys. (They tried that once and it didn't work out)
You can be the best pilot in the world when it comes to all the flying sequences, but nothing replaces good old experience in the type of operations, that you intend to teach. You can't teach someone SA, they have to build it up over time.
I believe that the Airforce requires its pilots to have at least 300hrs command before they are sent to instructors course, and when you think about your Herc or P-3 guys they would have had a lot of time spent as the F/O before they get anywhere near this. They gain the experience from being in the aircraft with an experienced Captain. We just don't get that in GA.
This may seem to have developed into an argument about the instructing system in GA, but I do believe that these issues have a direct relation to the quality of pilot that is coming out at the other end.
Tumble_Weed's Solution: Try and entice more experienced pilots to return to instructing.
Chance of this happening: NIL
