Emergency Landing Caught On Tape

[mgh 89]

 

Rolf, the point against the pilots are not my opinion

they are the investigators conclusion translated

(conclusion section - P.16)

• Forgot to close the fuel cap (Section 3.2)
• Didn’t estimate correctly fuel required (Section 3.3)
• Didn’t conduct emergency procedure as needed (Section 3.4)

 

 

In addition to those;

1. The pilot accepted an aircraft with known faulty fuel gauges that showed  full Fuel regardless of the actual fuel quantity
2. The pilot used a non-standard rod to check the actual fuel level in the wings twhich rod was almost illegible measure - see the photo in the report

[Great Ozzie 101]

Chris Palmer (Angle of Attack) has a similar incident. Note the quote in the article:

Say what?  I was expecting an engine out.

 

Heck of a thread at BeechTalk about his video. Some very good Questions & Explanations from guys in the know.

 

 

He landed way way too fast and had to be stopped by the trees.

You keep saying, "he landed way too fast" but I don't think that the case at all...

 

Go look the video... he makes that last turn at 100' agl and the airspeed is at the bottom of the white arc (I was somewhat surprised not to see the airplane stall).  Even when he levels out and the airspeed picks up a bit, it appears he is at around 50kias... I wouldn't want to be much slower than that at idle for a short field landing.

 

Btw... it is a short field... go look at google maps.  Appears to be less than 1000'.  Plus, it appears he touched down about halfway the length of the field.  They were almost stopped.  Basically, it was the left side tree(s) that brought the aircraft to a halt.

 

1. The pilot accepted an aircraft with known faulty fuel gauges that showed full Fuel regardless of the actual fuel quantity

That means didley squat.

 

 

2. The pilot used a non-standard rod to check the actual fuel level in the wings twhich rod was almost illegible measure - see the photo in the report

This I have a bit of heartburn about.  Either top the tanks... or if you are going to use some sort of dipstick, then buy one of those clear tube thingys made for the specific Make & Model of the airplane you are flying.  And then not such a bad idea to check its accuracy when able.

[vololiberista 205]

Say what?  I was expecting an engine out.

 

Heck of a thread at BeechTalk about his video. Some very good Questions & Explanations from guys in the know.

 

 

You keep saying, "he landed way too fast" but I don't think that the case at all...

 

 

 

He was nowhere near the stall when contact with the ground was made. Had he been, the a/c would have come to a stop very quickly.

[Lowflyer 97]

Minor point Rolf...

 

I'm sorry then... My real life experience sadly consist of 95% PA28 and 5% C172.

 

 

 

Rolf, the point against the pilots are not my opinion

they are the investigators conclusion translated

(conclusion section - P.16)

 

I know.

[Great Ozzie 101]

He was nowhere near the stall when contact with the ground was made. Had he been, the a/c would have come to a stop very quickly.

 

Well that is certainly a matter of opinion.

 

I still see it as a successful emergency landing.

 

 

 

 

routine training flight

 

Chris... do you know if it was the student or instructor or? who it was that posted the video?  Tia.

[nathanpinard 0]

1. The pilot accepted an aircraft with known faulty fuel gauges that showed full Fuel regardless of the actual fuel quantity

 

 

Isn't this something that is considered MEL in airlines? What is it for GA?

[mgh 89]

That means didley squat.

 

the official report state that the faults on the fuel gauges were well known but everyone connived  with them so as "not prevent the operation of company aircraft For a long time. Even worse, though nothing was known fault is not recorded in the book at Plane, as opposed to dictated by regulations." (Google translation)

 

That's didley squat?

 

2.5 Registration fault

 

Testing ground plane immediately after the incident found that the fuel gauge on the dash

Indicate the amount of fuel "full", when in fact from the plane were completely dry.

Questioning those involved and other factors the company that operates it became clear that the fault indicator

Gas plane is well known, long time.

 

However, it was explained that in order not to soil the Plane and according to the "direct" management company, did not open the book fault plane. The issue of fuel too inaccuracy various Cessna planes, unknown to many and discussed investigations

Safety in the past. In this event, each fuel showed mode "full". The investigation team ascertained that

Two sliders were abnormal long before the incident, which was known company managers.

 

Even worse, despite the lack of integrity of the fuel indicators, did not prevent the operation of company aircraft

For a long time. Even worse, though nothing was known fault is not recorded in the book at Plane, as opposed to dictated by regulations. Subject not registering the book fault plane, in order to avoid Disable, revealed quite a few events being studied

 

[Chris Bell 165]

do you know if it was the student or instructor or? who it was that posted the video?  Tia.

 

this was posted on the department of transportation YouTube channel; I’m assuming by an official                                

[Great Ozzie 101]

That's didley squat?

 

Aah... Just a slip of animus regarding my estimation (well... not just my estimation) of the reliability of small GA fuel gauges.

 

If it is "known broken"... then it becomes a legality issue (at least in the U.S.).  Also, it is possible you lose a safety layer.

 

I would not fly with a fuel gauge I knew to be "broken".

 

 

 

Isn't this something that is considered MEL in airlines? What is it for GA?

 

As far as an MEL for these type of aircraft...  In the U.S. there's a process to go thru if you have a Master MEL.

 

If not... (again for the U.S.) FAR §91.205 requires operative fuel gauges.

[Great Ozzie 101]

Isn't this something that is considered MEL in airlines? What is it for GA?

Nathan,

 

I can give you a better (i.e. more complicated i.e. not "for the faint of heart") answer regarding Airworthiness as it pertains to U.S. regs.  Likely what would be used for a C152.

 

From an article Airworthiness is a Slippery Subject - If anything is inoperative your aircraft instantly becomes "unairworthy." Everything must work according to the FAA to be airworthy!

 

Years ago, one of my aircraft maintenance professors once made the point, "If the aircraft was certificated with cigarette lighter, it better working or the aircraft is unairworthy".

 

Then a few years after that, the FAA made a change to the FARs to provide some regulatory relief for inoperative equipment.  If you look at the above link I provided, that will give you a glimpse into Aircraft Airworthiness.  There is also a link in that article to AC 91-67 (an Advisory Circular regarding  Minimum Equipment for Part 91 Operations... typically what would govern a flight lesson).  In AC 91-67, there is a chart called the Pilot Decision Sequence When Operating Without An MEL.  One quite literally has to use that chart (if no MEL) to decide how to handle a piece of INOP equipment.

[nathanpinard 0]

Interesting. Thanks for the info.The gimli glider is probably the most prominent example as to why a fuel gauge needs to work, even if the FMC/FMS is working (or appears to be)

 

(That is still the most brilliant flying I've ever heard of)

[bendead 1,085]

The fuel is the thing i check in fourth, after office logs, time before next maintenance and Aircraft paperworks "WB, radio certificate, manual, ect...". Then I use an archaic but really useful dip-stick that will show me the usable fuel level because its calibrated to the 172R tank :

 

 

And I finish by checking the seal on my fuel cap and close them tightly.

 

I don't really think that fuel gauges are essentials "well, they are mandatory as per NZ law" for a handling flight since they are 10% accurate if, you have full tanks "they might show you empty", climbing, descending or in a steep/max rate turn and 70% accurate the rest of the time. So let's be clear, they are rubbish, but for a cross country, they saved my life.

 

On a 100%, touch and go, 300nm cross country, I noticed that my right tank was still showing full while my left tank was at 21 gallons, normally there is always a delay, because the left one get drain first but it was too much. My first reaction was to land on the first airfield and check the level. The right tank was full even with the selector on both. So after a quick refuel. I did a test 3000' AGL to check and found out that on any position, the fuel selector only picked the left tank.

 

I feel really bad for the instructor since he was the PIC, he was responsible for the fuel. In my flight school, if I run dry "by my mistakes" on a solo as a student, even if I can land the plane, my school will still kick-me off and I will deserve it.

[Christopher Low 5,353]

If fuel gauges on these aircraft are rubbish, shouldn't they be redesigned?

[Pe11e 812]

If fuel gauges on these aircraft are rubbish, shouldn't they be redesigned?

 

The whole tech from these aircrafts dates from mid 60s, so if you ask me at least 50% of the parts can be redesigned.

[mgh 89]

If fuel gauges on these aircraft are rubbish, shouldn't they be redesigned?

 

There is no suggestion the fuel gauge are rubbish - they weren't maintained to save money on that particular aircraft