USA Today - Unfit for Flight - An In-Depth look at the Editorial Opinion

The USA Today statement suggests that juries awarded in all the aircraft manufacturer cases presented by the author of  Unfit for Flight.  That is simply not true, most of the cases were resolved with judgements.  Having been involved in several aviation product liability cases,  I know personally that these judgements are accepted to mitigate the economics of both time and money.  It is not as USA Today suggests proof positive of conviction in these product liability matters,  it is just another shade of grey as to where the fault might lie and as we know,  shades of grey imply reasonable doubt.

There is a significant issue here - Several law firms target the aviation market, as the issues and procedures of aviation are arcane and not well known among the general public.  This issue was well documented in the discussions surrounding the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1995.  

The aviation specific trial attorneys know this very well and work to be depicted as experts or teachers as they explain to the juries what they should know about aviation.   It is a definitive bias and a slip of the blindfold on justice.  Whenever a significant aviation tragedy occurs you will find these lawyers set up as media aviation experts across the spectrum of video entertainment.  Expert recognition of these lawyers by the public is key to their sucess rate.

If these trials were held with a "jury of peers" i.e. other pilots - rarely would some of these cases ever darken a courtroom. In keeping with the Opinion aspect of the reports and editorial follow on  -  that is mine.

Case in point - In the three part expose - the author Thomas Frank  talks with a pilot and his crash story.  In this story the pilot relates that a bolt on his engine sheared in flight causing him to lose power.  The FAA and NTSB were all over this pilot about fuel exhaustion and maybe rightfully so.  So let's look a little closer as to why their line of questioning shouldn't have been dismissed offhand.

In the story,  the owner found an expert to redirect the responsibility in this crash.  This aviation expert related that all the fuel was lost when the wing hit a tree - just prior to hitting the ground.  Nice story for non pilots / non aviation savvy people and a good example of talking "aviation" around the general public.  Like I related above,  this story might hold up in front of a jury - just as it was presented to the readership of USA Today. 

The fact that most aircraft have fuel tanks in both wings - makes you question the pilots assertions about his fuel quantity, it also opens a line of questions and thoughts.  This tree did not stop the aircraft, but only damaged a wing.   Did the tree damage both wings?   All the fuel was gone - the only logical conclusion is that the tree damaged both wings equally and in the similar location.    Aircraft fuel tanks in this pilots wing are segregated into separate cells,  some of which have check valves to keep fuel flowing to the engine.  So now having a little information about aircraft, this is what the author Thomas Frank is telling us ....  

• This pilot hit a tree,  that significantly damaged, but did not stop the aircraft.
• The damage was significant enough to empty the remaining fuel and was symmetrical to both wings.
• This damage opened up both multi cell fuel tanks in a similar manner  and in the milliseconds between hitting the tree and ground - all of the fuel disappeared from those fuel tanks and leaked down the trunk of that tree. 

Really...... the limited facts of this story don't hold up to investigative reporting ... Thomas Frank did aviation a disservice by not digging deeper than only the superficial elements of this example.   Mr Frank simply accepted these pilot statements as factual with the support of a court judgement, and an FAA Airworthiness Directive.   If Mr Frank sought out an unbiased aviation expert to discuss these issues, he might have developed a better understanding.

So blindly accepting the expert opinion of what happened to the fuel and knowing that the bolts in question were indicated to have issues in acrobatic and helicopter aircraft just added literal fuel to the fire of Mr. Frank's article. 

One could make an equal unsupported story that the engine starved for fuel and coughing and bucking with the uneven fuel distribution - could have created similar stresses to those encountered in acrobatic or helicopter operations  -  and thus sheared the bolt.  This bolt that the pilot proudly holds, now appears as an icon, saving this pilots dignity.

The above is a story - I believe equal to the author Mr Frank's expose'.   Neither may be true - but there are facts in his story that make a pronouncement of absolute guilt on the part of the engine manufacturer in this case difficult to buy.

Ok so while we are on the subject of fuel starvation - The FAA's rebuttal of the Mr Frank's opus needs a similar examination.  The FAA Administrator clearly indicates "running out of fuel"  is a pilot issue.  This blanket statement piece really needs a closer examination by the FAA.

This comment exposes an issue that has not been handled correctly by the FAA, in my opinion.   By her statement, it indicates that this issue is being ignored from the top down - The admonition that fuel according to the FAA  is a "Preflight" pilot issue.  This line of reasoning ignores that aircraft are required to have working fuel indication by the regulations.  The idea that "preflight" is the only time you know how much fuel you have,  indicates the general lack of satisfaction of fuel indication systems in aircraft.  

Fuel indication in aviation is loathsome at best - it is a dark secret that most aircraft fuel indication systems are marginal from the start.  When you compound a marginal system with poor or no maintenance,  you can make a general statement that an inoperative fuel gauge is common place in aviation.  

Fuel starvation then becomes an aviation issue - and maybe - just not a pilot issue.  

So given Mr. Frank's expose - yes there are issues of safety and yes they need to be improved.  But are we all asking the right questions.

 

159 Piper PA28's - Have Suffered Fuel Exhaustion in the last 20 yrs.

COVINGTON, TN -

(WMC) – The small plane that went missing around 11 a.m. on Wednesday was found crashed in a wooded area two hours later.

"I really don't understand how he could survive something like that. People are resilient. It just wasn't his time," said pilot Ben Baker, who helped in the search

According to the Tipton County sheriff, the pilot's name is Kent Wingate, 62. Firefighters on the scene say Wingate was unconscious, but his heart rate and blood pressure were stable. He was taken to Regional Medical Center in critical condition.

Wingate and his Piper Archer single engine plane were found near the Hatchie River in Lauderdale County.

The plane went missing as it prepared to land at Covington Municipal Airport. The airport's manager said that Wingate told him he was out of fuel and was going to land the plane; it never landed.
Images from Chopper 5 show the plane wedged in thick trees about two miles north of the airport. The crash site was located by tracking the emergency signal being transmitted from the plane.

"It was so thick back there in the area of the backwater ... Some of the slews, the foliage really thick," said Tipton County Sheriff Pancho Chumley.
A boater on the Hatchie River was flagged down by emergency personnel to take them across the river to the wreckage.


Wingate was flying into town for a funeral. He retired from the United States Air Force where he was an aeronautical engineer.

.According to our NBC affiliate, WDTN, Wingate lives in Xenia, Ohio, which is a suburb of Dayton. He works at Sinclair Community College.

"Kent Wingate is the chair of the Aviation Technology department," Sinclair spokesman Adam Murka said in a written statement. "

Copyright 2014 WMC Action News 5. All rights reserved.  

When Kent left Dayton Wright Brothers airport on Wednesday morning he had calculated his fuel to include the average 20 knot headwind to Covington, TN. 

He stated he would have 13 gallons left in his tanks when he landed which would provide approx. 1.5 hours of available fuel remaining. He topped of the airplane before departure. He flew 3.9 hours at an average fuel burn of 8.5 gallons an hour.

As anyone who’s flown the older Piper aircraft know, the fuel gauges are usually worthless below 1/2 tanks.

So what gives here - & why is this narrative is typical. 

159 Piper Pa28's & 18 Fatalities as a Result of Fuel Starvation

No AD's ........ No Action items - 

Is the FAA and NTSB doing their job or are they just on their way to the crash site to investigate,  According to the NTSB, why bother.

"I think that there are things that should never happen, really the easy things...," NTSB Chairperson Hersman said. "And I think that among the things in the bucket that are easy ... fuel starvation. How many times do our investigators need to investigate an accident like that."

Press Coverage of NTSB Chairperson Barbara Hersman 

If they do look and check,  chances are they would find a fuel sender like this one - and wonder why this belongs in an airworthy aircraft.

The "Zero Fuel" Myth - You know, Fuel Gauges only Need to be Accurate when Empty

You don't really need to know what happened after this true Accident Narrative - It is evident from the beginning.

Picture Draw Jerel Draw,  jereldye.com

Prior to the incident, I received an instructional ride and completed my C-172 checkout. I then flew with a passenger and solo, three flights, for a total of 5.3 hours in the bird.

In all three of those flights.

• I observed erroneous fuel quantity indications,
• Intermittent cycling of the fuel gauges to zero.
• LH Fuel Low Level Warning light coming on intermittently. 

An [instructor] told me this condition was well  known, typical for this aircraft and not uncommon for general aviation aircraft.

I discussed the erroneous fuel quantity indications with the Chief Pilot, and asked
him if I should write them up. 

He said no, that the indications were within the spec, which requires only that they
read accurately when empty.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The statement that fuel gauges only read accurately when empty is repeated so many times in the aviation dialog.

 You would almost have to believe it is true.

-------------------------------------------------------

Actually far from it.

• It is a comment you hear repeated by many pilots, the magazines & AOPA / FAA Safety Briefs.  

• It is not uncommon to have bad fuel gauges in aviation, it is frighteningly almost the rule.  

What is true: 

• Fuel gauges are "Required" aircraft instruments for powered aircraft.

• They are required to be functional by design and in operation on the aircraft   -  Specifically:

• Read fuel level from FULL to EMPTY.  
• EMPTY needs to be calibrated at "Zero Usable Fuel"
• The Zero Usable Fuel is the fuel level,  where in the worst condition - fuel cannot be drawn from the tank.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Designing, Maintaining or Flying an aircraft with bad or in-operative fuel gauges is illegal.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is it surprising that so many GA pilots run out of fuel.

I think the answer is obvious.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aircraft Fuel Gauge Accuracy

Fuel Sensor Accuracy 

The following quoted from reference 2.

This FAR Part 91.205 fuel-gauge requirement can be seen as a corollary of a more general and more fundamental point, namely the importance of taking a layered approach to safety.

For any important task, you want to have multiple independent ways of dealing with the task, so that each way can serve as a cross-check and a backup for the other(s).

For example, the right magneto is a backup for the left magneto.  Similarly, pilots are trained to never overemphasize or underemphasize any particular instrument, but rather to scan all the instruments, cross-check them, and use all available information to build an understanding of the overall situation.

When we apply this idea to fuel, it means you should have multiple independent sources of information about the fuel quantity. 

Good sources include:

• The preflight measurement in combination with an estimate of the fuel-burn rate and the elapsed time.

• A fuel totalizer or totalizer function on the MFD.

• The fuel level gauges and by corollary the fuel level sensors

No one source should be overemphasized at the expense of the others.

Remember that having two magnetos doesn’t just make the engine twice as reliable; it makes it thousands of times more reliable.

Using gauges as a backup to a visual preflight, flight planning and totalizer makes fuel exhaustion vastly more unlikely.

CiES Inc builds accurate and reliable fuel level sensors - 

References

1.

“Pilot-In-Command Decisionmaking” (Chapter 21 of See How It Flies) http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/decision.html

2.

"Aircraft Fuel Gauge Accuracy" http://www.av8n.com/fly/fuel-gauges.htm

Fuel Starvation - The Bucket List

NTSB  --   Safety Alert


The NTSB continues to take a close look at General Aviation Safety

One topic fails to be actively discussed....... Fuel Starvation/Exhaustion Incidents in General Aviation Average 2 to 3 per week and in the Top 5 of all causes.   While this is an issue for aviation safety,  it receives scant mention in the NTSB reports or in mitigation strategies.

This is not an uncommon or a glaring oversight,  most pilots, which some of the NTSB board are, will quickly point the blame at a fellow pilot for this particular accident scenario.

In this quick rush, I believe we are overlooking contributing elements in the chain of events that contribute to incidents and accidents of this type

General Aviation Safety: Climbing to the Next Level

In the NTSB Chairwoman's presentation at Oshkosh Airventure.

Aero News Network reported the following:

"Hersman said that while private flying accounts for only about half of all the flying done in the U.S., it accounts for a disproportionate number of fatal accidents, according to a study done by the NTSB. She said there are some themes that seem to crop up in many GA accident investigations that could be addressed by better pilot training and pre-flight planning. "I think that there are things that should never happen, really the easy things, and then I think there are things that are hard things, too," Hersman said. "And I think that among the things in the bucket that are easy ... fuel starvation. How many times do our investigators need to investigate an accident like that."

Press Coverage of NTSB Chairperson Barbara Hersman

I disagree with the NTSB chairpersons Barbara Hersman's response,  I believe this is one area that needs a detailed and closer look.

Fuel Starvation / Exhaustion as reported above is a common occurrence in aviation - 

The chairpersons comment in her News presentation in Oshkosh suggested that an NTSB in-depth evaluation into the causal factors of fuel starvation is not warranted by the board.

In the board GA Safety Board Meeting and the recent NTSB GA Safety Alert  - Fuel starvation was only lightly addressed there was really no mention of fuel related issues.  

I want to ask  .....  Why

Yes the unfortunate pilots that have experienced fuel starvation or exhaustion should have known how much fuel they started with, the should have checked prior to flight.  and they should have known average fuel consumption - his "maths" – Basic Pilot Skills.  Inculcated from his first training flight  

But the headline to the right says a lot about the information available to the pilot about their fuel level.

Accurate & Reliable Fuel Level in Aircraft - Is the Exception & Not the Rule. 

And in an emergency situation every pilot should know which tank has the most fuel – they need to know which tank to switch to.

Every pilot manual states that for the most engine critical procedures – Take off – Engine restart – Engine performance (spitting coughing) – switching to the fullest tank is not only required, it will save you from an incident.

If Ms. Hersman would have asked the aircraft owners in attendance at Oshkosh if they had accurate fuel level gauges – the response to that inquiry would be startling.   Accurate and reliable fuel gauges are the exception in small aircraft and not the rule.

In fact some pilots in attendance will state clearly they have accurate gauges in their aircraft as the gauge will read zero when they are out of fuel.    What they won't say is that the gauge reads zero all the time.

How can you make the determination of your available fuel or which tank had greater quantity of fuel if your gauges are erratic or of limited accuracy and why are we turning a blind eye to this in aviation.

This fundamental issue becomes very real when you read the NTSB Accident Investigation Reports that resulted from fuel starvation occurrences.   In most every cace where there was still fuel onboard the aircraft - the selector was on the dry tank -.

When almost every learning GA pilot is told not to trust the fuel level gauges – are we in aviation really surprised that fuel exhaustion occurs so often, or that a solution would fall into the "EASY" bucket. 

If technology in the form of Angle of Attack systems are indicated to help Stall Spin incidents

I am baffled why fuel level technology gets the literal  short stick.

The Excitement of Initiating Change or I Double Down on Dark Horses

Imagine coming up with a new and revolutionary idea.

The challenge and the excitement.  You feel your pulse quicken

The moment you first look at the prototype and realize that you might really be on to something.

You want to share it -

You have a unique vision of the way the world should be in the future.  

You develop it and refine it and when it's ready - you bring it to market 

The world is just waiting to embrace your vision............

.....well frankly no it's not 

The reality goes something like this 

"You're selling what,  you're with who, you say its on new model aircraft.  No I haven't heard about it.   What is it again, aviation fuel gauges that work  - Say again...... how accurate really  - so why didn't the factory talk about it.......something that good you'd think.

Hold on let me put you on the speakerphone......guys listen up - this salesman on the phone here tells me he's got working aircraft fuel gauges for sale ......... Hold on - Dominic here wants to know if they are capacitive ....... yeah......... they are what........ give that to me again.   AN ISO MAGNETO DOO HICKEY - no never heard of it. Lord Kelvin really.

Boy the sales pitch just runs off your tongue doesn't it - Wait Bill in the back wants to know if it comes with a set of free steak knives -   no no send me a brochure - We'll be sure to take a look.

Functioning, Accurate Aviation Fuel Gauges 

• You now have an accurate fuel level sensor. 

• It detects how much fuel is in the tanks at any moment.

• It displays the fuel tank contents on your aircraft MFD screen but is not connected with the fuel management system on the aircraft.

• You must still enter the fuel level you observed in the tanks as you have always done on the MFD.

• The aircraft will use fuel flow data to calculate what the fuel level should be.  It will present that estimate of the fuel tank contents on the MFD.

• The level sensors give a calibrated fuel level - Not just accurate at the top and bottom accurate throughout.  These sensors also output the fuel tank contents to the MFD and then display them side by side with the calculated fuel level.

• These fuel level systems ARE SEPARATE. 

• Both indicate to you the pilot,  the amount of fuel in the tanks.  SEPARATE - But they match

• Got it?    Good.