Cessna 310 –JMW.
An interesting report from the ATSB. I’ve no quarrel with it, as it stands; the ‘assumptions’ made and investigation seem both fair and reasonable.
One thing always jumps off the pages in the reports ATSB do – the references to the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook. It is world wide acknowledged as the ‘standard’ for flight operations; a well deserved reputation; no wonder our Australian ‘experts’ have never bothered to produce one – why bother. The thing that rankles is I can quote, chapter and verse, three personal experiences where CASA FOI have rubbished and dismissed ‘advice’ copied and pasted into a company check and training system ‘Operations Manual’. It should be made mandatory reading – I digress.
Two statements (IMO) stand out:-
ATSB: "However, with no fuel records or other evidence available, that quantity could not be determined.
Call Bollocks there. The fuel company and the owners bank account would tell them exactly where, when and how much fuel was purchased – even drum stock.
ATSB: "While the system was correctly set up, the ATSB could not verify this figure because there were no fuel records or fuel consumption rates.
This is a thing CASA could correct in a heart beat. Not a difficult task for the average ‘private’ owner; considering the cost of fuel and the interest private owners take in their machinery. A simple diary – or log if you will. I suspect many do it even if only to check the ‘bill’ against uplift. This needs to made mandatory. It won’t bother the ‘honest’ folk; but the ‘nip and tuck’ crowd may not be best pleased. But then; it’s not them having to examine the wreckage.
A simple system –
01 Jan Full tanks – flight time 1.0 hour – Scheduled burn off 30-litres.
02 Jan Full tanks – uplift 35 litres. Flight time 2.3 hours. Scheduled burn off 69 lts.
03 Jan Full tanks – uplift 70 lts.
With 45 minutes ‘in the bank’ and an accurate assessment of what the aircraft actually burns – in reality provides a sound basis for ‘planning’. Sure the consumption may vary – depending on ‘task’ – however a sensible estimate of expected ‘burn off’ could be determined. Hot day – big load – short flight – 35 LpH. Cool day long sector 30 LpH. Ball park sure, but at least someone is going to be aware when ‘friendship’ (and luck) is being stretched. It is of no value, whatsoever to tell the clever fuel computer that it has ‘full’ tanks when it does not; it is even of less value to ignore a ‘trend’ where 65% power should provide ‘X’ and the reading is ‘Y’ - . Never by-pass the bowser if any doubt whatsoever exists. I wonder, would another 50 lts. Loaded at TWB have seen this aircraft safe home, crew in the pub, having a beer?
Is there a safety recommendation to be made – you bet there is..
Toot – toot…
An interesting report from the ATSB. I’ve no quarrel with it, as it stands; the ‘assumptions’ made and investigation seem both fair and reasonable.
One thing always jumps off the pages in the reports ATSB do – the references to the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook. It is world wide acknowledged as the ‘standard’ for flight operations; a well deserved reputation; no wonder our Australian ‘experts’ have never bothered to produce one – why bother. The thing that rankles is I can quote, chapter and verse, three personal experiences where CASA FOI have rubbished and dismissed ‘advice’ copied and pasted into a company check and training system ‘Operations Manual’. It should be made mandatory reading – I digress.
Two statements (IMO) stand out:-
ATSB: "However, with no fuel records or other evidence available, that quantity could not be determined.
Call Bollocks there. The fuel company and the owners bank account would tell them exactly where, when and how much fuel was purchased – even drum stock.
ATSB: "While the system was correctly set up, the ATSB could not verify this figure because there were no fuel records or fuel consumption rates.
This is a thing CASA could correct in a heart beat. Not a difficult task for the average ‘private’ owner; considering the cost of fuel and the interest private owners take in their machinery. A simple diary – or log if you will. I suspect many do it even if only to check the ‘bill’ against uplift. This needs to made mandatory. It won’t bother the ‘honest’ folk; but the ‘nip and tuck’ crowd may not be best pleased. But then; it’s not them having to examine the wreckage.
A simple system –
01 Jan Full tanks – flight time 1.0 hour – Scheduled burn off 30-litres.
02 Jan Full tanks – uplift 35 litres. Flight time 2.3 hours. Scheduled burn off 69 lts.
03 Jan Full tanks – uplift 70 lts.
With 45 minutes ‘in the bank’ and an accurate assessment of what the aircraft actually burns – in reality provides a sound basis for ‘planning’. Sure the consumption may vary – depending on ‘task’ – however a sensible estimate of expected ‘burn off’ could be determined. Hot day – big load – short flight – 35 LpH. Cool day long sector 30 LpH. Ball park sure, but at least someone is going to be aware when ‘friendship’ (and luck) is being stretched. It is of no value, whatsoever to tell the clever fuel computer that it has ‘full’ tanks when it does not; it is even of less value to ignore a ‘trend’ where 65% power should provide ‘X’ and the reading is ‘Y’ - . Never by-pass the bowser if any doubt whatsoever exists. I wonder, would another 50 lts. Loaded at TWB have seen this aircraft safe home, crew in the pub, having a beer?
Is there a safety recommendation to be made – you bet there is..
Toot – toot…