It does seem that the student was learning from the instructor everything not to do!!!

There is a specific flight where this happened on an Air Canada air liner. The fuel gauge didn't exist due to maintenance, and the fuel truck converted his volume from the truck to pounds, not kilos which was a new thing. That particular flight was the first flight to use kilos.

 

The pilot of that airliner absolutely did 100% save the passengers due to brilliant flying.

 

I feel the Cessna pilot in the video did pretty well in those circumstances. Pumping the throttle was the equivalent of us trying to get every drop of gas out of our car when it's sputtering. That's assuming he knew the plane was out of fuel because of them knowing about the gauges.

 

I guess the walk around checklist was skipped? And they just ignored the gauge problem, just like the airline did.

it appears the aircraft had a known issue with the fuel gauges being defective and showing 100% constant

Tip for future pilots:  NEVER... EVER... trust the stock fuel gauges in these kind of small planes.  It is a 'known issue' that they are unreliable i.e. fuel gauges of this sort are notoriously unreliable.  If they indicated less than I thought during a flight, I might make a precautionary landing (there could be a leak).  Otherwise... I base it off of what I know was in there & what my fuel burn is - that way I know by looking at the clock precisely when I have to be back on the ground.

 

Later they also found the fuel tank cap was left off on the ground

I cannot possibly imagine any kind of excuse for this.

 

They were forced to wait for long time on the ground before takeoff; which added to being short on fuel

Absolutely no excuse for this.

 

Another tip.  ALWAYS be back on the ground with a minimum of one hour of fuel.

 

 

Isn't it rather careless to take off without knowing the exact amount of fuel in your tanks?

Imo, yes... absolutely no excuse not to know how much fuel in the tanks at the beginning of the flight.

 

with that when they take off; they were convinced they had enough fuel for the flight duration

I am just wondering how they knew... did the instructor dip a calibrated fuel gauge in the tanks?  He checked the caps?

 

Btw... again thanks Chris for the info you are providing.

 The instructor made the cardinal error of taking-off without sufficent fuel on board, based on the accident report .

 

Google Translate gives,(rather fractured):

 

Summary

The event is characterized by a combination of failures / errors as follows:

Electric fuel too, with Fault Indicator, Indicator showing that clock's hands are biased to the end Right, ie, fuel tanks "full".

Measurable amount of fuel, which is not a standard and hard to read.

Ignoring review, reasonableness and compliance records of the amount of fuel, relative to the amount of fuel 

Measured has yet to test out the flight, with respect to data for previous years, since The last full gas.

Fuel Quantity Test only one wing.

Leaving an open tank - which could result in leakage and evaporation of fuel during the flight Before and after filling.

All these caused the pilot to make the flight instructor with not enough fuel quantity, and assuming the wrong
Unfounded and that the plane sufficient amount of fuel for the flight.

 

thanks Garry, your very welcome Rob

 

i tried to use google to translate the document

i got a gibberish letters i didn’t want to post it like that

 

i will see if i can get my hands on a translated version

 

this incident could have been fatal for very stupid reasons

i can’t believe the instructor didn’t catch the fuel cap off

i can get beyond that thought; how could you neglect such a simple check

 

it is 99% that this guy is a reserved IAF pilot of some kind

I’m appalled by this carless behavior; this is not the trainning he got

Trained in a 152. My instructor drilled to never trust the fuel gauges so I had to roll the walkup ladder to the wing, unscrew the cap, actually stick the tank, secure the cap, get down, sump the tank, go to opposite side and repeat every step mentioned.

 

On cross country when he arrived at the FBO, he would ask if I had done the proper fuel check. No matter my answer, he would require me to do every step again in his site.

As an ex Navy Pilot he was not about to have me or any other of his students fall victim to fuel exhaustion.

I won't bore you with his requirements for the rest of the preflight because the thread isn't long enough.

 

This incident had a good safe end result but he was rather lax in teaching basics that day. B)

Yeah on the 172s I used the gauges were off by a quarter, viaually check each flight.

 

But I'm not going to judge the pilot, because he visually checked the fuel anyway. I imagine it was the student who didn't put the cap back on, and it was probably him that did the visual inspection anyway.

 

The instructor probably trusted he'd do the preflight properly.

 

Good flying IMO. Why try to play around with the engine when you're so low to the ground? How long do you expect him to keep it in the air? Oh yes let's troubleshoot at 1000ft AGL while we look for a place to land away from Afula,and away from other people or hazards. He wouldn't have lasted long

the accident reports reveals a chapter of accidents even through the translation

 

"Electric fuel too, with Fault Indicator, Indicator showing that clock's hands are biased to the end
Right, ie, fuel tanks "full"....The Fault Indicator Gas plane is well known , Long time.However, Clarified that In order not to groundPlane and according to the "direct" management company, did not open the book fault plane."

 

"measuring the amount of fuel using a makeshift wooden plunger is hard to read, is not accurate)"

 

"lack of checking flight times earlier last refueling"
 

"Flight instructor Last examined the amount of fuel left wing tank Forgot to close the lid"

its confirmed Garry

i got some of the report translated;

it appears the instructor trusted the students verbal confirmation for some of the preflight checks

 

its little confusing; he reports the students had issues concluding the right wing fuel amount,

than the instructor replaced the student after he reported issues with the left wing as well

 

it was later confirmed with local surveillance cam that the instructor did in fact only test the left wing fuel amount;

after the student handed him the gauge showing the right fuel amount he wasn’t sure about; instructor taken over and handled the left wing

according to the report; it was the left side fuel cap that was left off,

the one the instructor handled from the start

My reading of the report is:

 

• the  fuel gauges were know to be faulty for some time but the operator did nothing about it and the instructor acquiesed in it
• the aircraft were fitted with makeshift means to dip fuel quantites but the operator did nothing about it and the instructor acquiesed in it
• the instuctor, the student pilot and an apprentice? were trying to check the fuel
• the instructer forgot to replace the fuel cap.

 

Also what do you make of this section translated by Google:

 

Flight instructor directed the aircraft approach landing area, with skill, composure and quiet
Internally, and the landing was completed without physical injuries
. However, from My mutters box until
Directive
The area, the guide focused mainly on trying to confirmation box, using the throttle,
Contact management with spatial control, despite the loss of height and power, rather than
Focus on the planning and execution of the crash landing, with a focus on true sequence and choice
Tabitha's surface for landing.
Comment
: It is likely that
Which focused guide to the crash site was landing
Ends almost no damage to the plane.

 

 

Criticism of the pilot?

apprentice=Student

Yes Garry; I think this is the investigator being critical of the pilot procedure

 

3.4

The flight instructor conducted the aircraft approach with skill, the pilot remained calm and composed; the landing ended with no bodily injuries

With that, from the point of the engine sputtering to landing on the field; the instructor focused on reviving the engine using the throttle,

While communicating with control and loss of altitude , instead of focusing on planning and executing the emergency landing

With emphasis on correct execution order; and spotting optimal landing site for the landing

Comment: it is likely that if the pilot had followed the procedure

the damage to the aircraft could have been minimal

3.4

The flight instructor...

 

Exactly... that pretty well sums it up.

 

It is clear from the video he ignored trimming to best glide.  Not sure when he decided on his field. He chose to communicate and pump that throttle instead... and I do not understand why.

clearly the investigator felt the same

there's something in the report about coming short with the first field selection

then making the turn to the final landing field

I'm still getting bits translated from that report

 

 

there's something in the report about coming short with the first field selection
then making the turn to the final landing field

 

 

Thanks...

 

Investigator probably wants to throw his pencil at him for making that last turn...

your probably right

he conclude that section with if he followed the procedure; the aircraft would been damaged less

i think he is trying to leave room for pilots action and some credit for walking away from this

but he's not getting away scot-free