CTLSi economy at altitude

[FastEddieB]

OK, I did not have the exact figures for CT's.

 

But let's hope that's the last time that he or any CTLSi pilot has to count on that last 1.2 gals!

[Ed Cesnalis]

When the header tank drops below its 1.6 gal mark it illuminates the light in the cockpit. When you look at the header tank itself there is a fuel remaining sight tube that shows you exactly what is left in the tank.

 

Thanks Duane,

 

Another sight tube makes a big difference.

[Jim Meade]

You can see this header tank sight tube from the cockpit?

[Duane Jefts]

You can see this header tank sight tube from the cockpit?

 

No you can't see the header tank from the cockpit. It is located just inside the left baggage compartment door. The header tank is not 1.2 gal, it is 1.6 gal and when it drops below that you will get the big red light in the cockpit. Presumably when that light comes on you have 1.599999 gal of fuel remaining.

 

I should point out that the usable fuel in the header tank is only 1.1 gal.

[Ed Cesnalis]

...

I should point out that the usable fuel in the header tank is only 1.1 gal.

 

Going 50 miles on that into a densely populated city wouldn't work, there must have been gas in a wing and the slipped approach must have made it again available.

 

or

 

the fuel selector valve could have initially restricted fuel flow, then corrected it.

 

left - right - both

[Jim Meade]

how much fuel did it take to fill the plane?

[Roger Lee]

Guys,

 

Let's not start or fall back into less favorable or overtly personal post!

[Ed Cesnalis]

Sight tubes are not useless they are essential.

 

Here's how the Carson to N. Las Vegas flight would have went if I was in the right seat doing only a casual observation of the sight tubes.

 

Its not my flight, I would hear fuel sloshing as we ground handled so I'm fine to take off.

 

I know we are in for a roughly 3 hour flight so soon after departure I would have to glance at the tubes and expect to see them full. Full means 4 hours guaranteed cruising at 10,000' at good speed. So as we leave the Carson area for desolate Nevada I would see the sight tubes are only 1/2 full and know we have an issue right of the bat.

 

Do you want to go back for fuel or land Tonopah? would be my question.

 

I'm not happy flying at less than my personal reserves so as we approach Tonopah and the sight tubes are at 1/4 I would insist on landing for fuel, we will fall below legal reserves soon otherwise.

 

As we approach Mercury I would have noticed that at least 1 wing was dry if not both and now I would be beyond insisting.

 

Flying into Vegas on the header tank with no sight tube visible wouldn't have happened. Dumb luck was the savior here not the header tank.

 

The lessons are not that you cannot rely on the sight tubes and that the header tank saved the flight from fuel starvation enroute, instead the lessons are that 3.5gph @ 120kts @ altitude should not be planned for until its proven that is is achievable.

 

Flying your CT to Vegas is no different than driving, fuel stops are less frequent so planning is needed to avoid running out of gas. You wouldn't drive in keeping your speed up so you can coast a long way when the fuel runs out, you would stop and get gas. Don't glide in relying on altitude, stop for gas. That's the lesson.

[FastEddieB]

I find no fault in anything Ed just proposed, save for a minor point about falling "below legal reserves".

 

Note FAR (91.115) :

 

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed --

 

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or

 

(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.

 

Bolded mine.

 

This changes nothing in Ed's post. But had the CT in question run out of fuel, or declared a fuel emergency* it would not have been a violation of 91.115 if the pilot showed his planning was such that at the beginning of the flight he reasonably thought that he should have had enough fuel to make the proposed flight. In other words, once in the air there are no "legal reserves" in part 91, except perhaps as stated below.

 

If there were to have been a violation in this case, I can't think of anything other than the catchall "Careless or reckless" operation as defined in 91.13.

 

*this might be a good example of when a NASA report might be a good idea, both for immunity and to alert the powers that be of the chain that led to a potentially hazardous or fatal outcome.

[FlyingMonkey]

That's interesting Eddie. I know it's technically true, but is there really an issue if there are alternates that are 100% achievable on available fuel? I'm sure there are a lot of flights that start with some reasoning like "I should have enough fuel to reach destination, but if I get to alternate and don't have X gallons left to safely make it, I'll stop for fuel."

 

That might be a technical violation, but I think it complies with the spirit of the law and I can't see the FAA coming down on you for that reasoning.

[Doug G.]

Andy, that is a part of planning and should not lead to running out of fuel or declaring a fuel emergency as Eddie is referring to, should it?

It does not sound like the situation reported in the start of this post included such planning. FAA Safety talks about attitudes and "invulnerability" (as in " it can't happen to me") is one of them which, I believe, was a part of this incident and many others where people try to stretch their fuel after improper planning.

I would also add that there is absolutely no reason to do this with a CT. Six plus hours of fuel should be enough to get you comfortably to somewhere to take on more. It does not make sense to fly at the edge of tragedy.

[Jim Meade]

Andy, as a side comment, many of us use the term alternate in the following FAA way. Granted this is for IFR part 135 but most of us who fly IFR use these criteria:

 

§ 135.223

IFR: Alternate airport requirements.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph ( of this section, no person may operate an aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports or forecasts or any combination of them) to—

(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;

(2) Fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and

(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.

 

The FAA examiner called in would have this in the back of his mind, too. Now, would a VFR airport enroute to but short of the destination airport be considered an alternate? Maybe. As Eddie pointed out, the FAR doesn't require an alternate airport for VFR, you just have to be able to fly some more.

 

I'm only posting this as a way to bring up the point that the word "alternate" may have different meanings to different people.

[FlyingMonkey]

I guess the way to comply with the VFR regulation is to flight plan your en route alternate as your "first intended landing point" and then if you don't need it fly on past to the final destination.

 

I agree with everything you said, Doug.

[WmInce]

Sight tubes are not useless they are essential.

 

Here's how the Carson to N. Las Vegas flight would have went if I was in the right seat doing only a casual observation of the sight tubes.

 

Its not my flight, I would hear fuel sloshing as we ground handled so I'm fine to take off.

 

I know we are in for a roughly 3 hour flight so soon after departure I would have to glance at the tubes and expect to see them full. Full means 4 hours guaranteed cruising at 10,000' at good speed. So as we leave the Carson area for desolate Nevada I would see the sight tubes are only 1/2 full and know we have an issue right of the bat.

 

Do you want to go back for fuel or land Tonopah? would be my question.

 

I'm not happy flying at less than my personal reserves so as we approach Tonopah and the sight tubes are at 1/4 I would insist on landing for fuel, we will fall below legal reserves soon otherwise.

 

As we approach Mercury I would have noticed that at least 1 wing was dry if not both and now I would be beyond insisting.

 

Flying into Vegas on the header tank with no sight tube visible wouldn't have happened. Dumb luck was the savior here not the header tank.

 

The lessons are not that you cannot rely on the sight tubes and that the header tank saved the flight from fuel starvation enroute, instead the lessons are that 3.5gph @ 120kts @ altitude should not be planned for until its proven that is is achievable.

 

Flying your CT to Vegas is no different than driving, fuel stops are less frequent so planning is needed to avoid running out of gas. You wouldn't drive in keeping your speed up so you can coast a long way when the fuel runs out, you would stop and get gas. Don't glide in relying on altitude, stop for gas. That's the lesson.

 

Right on CT.

[Doug G.]

A timely story from AOPA -

http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Safety-and-Technique/Accident-Analysis/Accident-Statistics/ePilot-Reports/tragic-results-of-stretching-endurance.aspx?WT.mc_sect=sap&WT.mc_id=130920epilot