Psychology of fuel management

sarangan

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,896
Display Name

Display name:
Andrew, CFI-I
I've been thinking about what makes pilots run out of fuel. Its all too easy to brush it off as poor planning, but I think there is more to it than that. This factor seems unrelated to any of the commonly identified hazardous attitudes. I've come across disciplined and intelligent pilots who ran out of fuel. These are not whom you would think as risk takers. I have my own theory on this: (1) we fly with so much excess fuel most of the time, especially during training, that we get accustomed to that idea a bit too much; (2) fuel gauges are inconspicuous and often located too far from the pilots main area of focus; (3) perception of time is highly distorted when you are flying.

I also fly a drone, and it has a battery level indicator at the center of your attention. When it drops to 30% it starts alarming. If you let it drop below 10%, it will take over control and land by itself. As a result, I believe drones rarely ever run out of battery. I am not suggesting something like that for airplanes, but it seems we should be able to do better than a flaky needle that bounces around in the dark corner of the cockpit panel.

Any thoughts?
 
The couple of times I've been agonizingly close, it was like falling into a kind of "coffin corner" trap.

What I mean is, the closer I got to my planned destination, the more it seemed like I could "probably" make it and the more I'd hate to stop just a few miles short for a few gallons.

I put "probably" in quotes because as soon as that word enters into one's mind, its time for a gut check as to what the consequences of the "improbable" - running out of fuel - would be.

Plus, for many of us the mere fact that we've never run out of gas before sets the stage for figuring its unlikely to happen this time.

These are not excuses. But it happens enough to otherwise competent pilots that you're right - there have to be psychological factors involved.
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking about what makes pilots run out of fuel. Its all too easy to brush it off as poor planning, but I think there is more to it than that. This factor seems unrelated to any of the commonly identified hazardous attitudes. I've come across disciplined and intelligent pilots who ran out of fuel. These are not whom you would think as risk takers. I have my own theory on this: (1) we fly with so much excess fuel most of the time, especially during training, that we get accustomed to that idea a bit too much; (2) fuel gauges are inconspicuous and often located too far from the pilots main area of focus; (3) perception of time is highly distorted when you are flying.

I also fly a drone, and it has a battery level indicator at the center of your attention. When it drops to 30% it starts alarming. If you let it drop below 10%, it will take over control and land by itself. As a result, I believe drones rarely ever run out of battery. I am not suggesting something like that for airplanes, but it seems we should be able to do better than a flaky needle that bounces around in the dark corner of the cockpit panel.

Any thoughts?

Use a fuel totalizer, appropriate mixture settings, combined with a history of knowing you burn x amount at given power/mixture settings, and a timer. Set a timer on your watch/phone/tablet if you don't have one in the panel.
 
Just not being disciplined to stick the tanks and figure your endurance and time your flights with hard limits they meet or surpass the feds 30/45min reserves

Also not a fan of topping the tanks, for a 7AC or cub sure, but for stuff with normal to large tanks I don’t, my plane has over 70G usable, that’s longer than I am going to want to be in the air and it’s also a good chunk of weight I’m hauling around.
Thus, I default to 2.5hrs of fuel, unless the flight at hand requires more fuel.


Crappy fuel gauges don’t help, but are not a significant factor IMO, to me it’s like blaming not having good seatbelts for WHY you ran into a wall, those things are only there to verify what you should already know and if you’re fully relying on the fuel gauge we already sure a few links in the chain of errors.

For GA, buy/make a good fuel stick, CALIBRATE it, use it, use your watch, make hard limits and be disciplined.

The one time I almost ran out of fuel was using a unfamiliar clear fuel stick/straw. My go to now is a 1” wood dowel from the hardware store, cut to about 18” and marked in 2G increments.
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to think if I've ever felt that I was uncomfortably low on fuel in my nearly 3,000 hours, and I can't think of any times. Always given myself margin and made sure not to push limits.

There are negatives associated with having extra fuel, so obviously one must make a balance. But if you have a balance with reserves appropriate for the mission (which are usually more than legal reserves) and contingencies, fuel shouldn't be an issue.
 
my "closest" which wasn't even that close was the 900+ miler I did from MI to FL non stop. Dry tanked my tips which gave me my fuel burn/hr to the 10th. Flew on a timer on the other two tanks, and had a "must make this point" by the time I dry tanked the 3rd tank. Calculated I should land with an hour's worth of fuel based on where I went dry on #3, and that's what I had left. Although earlier this year I burned myself down to about 20 minutes of fuel (out of 7ish hours), but that was over a couple flights above the airport so I could recalibrate the fuel gauges without having to drain off 90 gallons of fuel.
 
Any thoughts?

There was an interesting conversation about fuel, maybe here or maybe somewhere else, in which precision of fuel management was being discussed. I believe the conversation started with whether or not one should run their tanks dry before switching. Without derailing the conversation, I run my aux tanks dry, at altitude, in level flight, and when I feel it's important to do so, to get every last gallon out of the tanks. It's safe to do so, and both the aircraft mfgr and the engine mfgr agree. In 28 years of flying, I've never had a problem with it. But of course, that's for airplanes I've either owned or knew well, and it's within my personal risk parameters. It probably doesn't fit every last example of flying machines ever made, so YMMV. Anyway, Deakin wrote on this subject for AvWeb back in the day. (He ran his tanks dry, too.)

One person, who no doubt believed he had a conservative view, felt that running a tank dry was just too risky. He said "If one or two gallons makes a difference in your flying, you're cutting it too close." On the face of it, that makes sense, right? But I disagreed. In fact my view is the polar opposite. I think that level of precision -- or at least attempting to attain it -- is the only way you can operate safely when it comes to fuel management.

I provided an example of how this could be true. Background: I fly a light twin, and I have an electronic engine monitor (a JPI EDM-760) which, among other things, calculates fuel flow and total gallons used via transducers. I have vetted this unit over time and I know it to be accurate within 1 gallon when I'm getting down to my reserve. (I know this because I compare the fuel totalizer to my fuel receipts. The totalizer is pessimistic by about a gallon when I get down below 1/4 tanks on the mains.) I also know that when I use a timer, the gauges, and estimate when I need to switch the tanks, I leave anywhere from 1.5 to 2 gallons per side in the auxes. Because it's such a tiny amount of fuel, I really can't afford the risk of going "back there" to get that fuel except in a true emergency. In my light twin 2 gallons is what I factor for my taxi out fuel. It's not much, especially down low and at higher power settings.

So by estimating the switch, I'm costing myself up to 4 gallons, or so I must assume, out of the 84 usable in my light twin. That may not sound like much, but that's nearly 5% of my go juice.

So the example is this. Even in good day VFR conditions, I do not land with less than 16 gallons total in the airplane. 16 gallons is good to cruise for about an hour at about 75% power at altitude, or a little more down low at lower power settings (55% or so). So I flight plan down to that number. This goes for IFR as well: I need 16 gallons after landing at my alternate airport. Anytime an alternate is needed, the range of my little twin goes down pretty quickly. Instead of looking for a 500-600nm leg I might be looking more realistically at 400-450nm. That reserve plus the alternate eats up a fair amount of endurance.

When I say 16 gallons, that is THE number. Not 15.8, not 15ish. 16. If my planning shows it drops below 16, I must come up with a different option. I fly fairly long legs for a non-tip tank Twin Comanche, so that comes up every now and again. I think it's clear to see where I'm going with this: I can safely plan for that level of conservative precision when I do manage fuel down to the 1-2 gallon range, because I can reliably hit my already-conservative fuel reserve within a gallon. If I have to assume a 4 gallon error, that's now a huge hit on my reserves. I go from 16 gallons OB upon landing reliably (in fact it's actually 17, since the totalizer is a little bit pessimistic, but I never count that gallon) to as low as 12-13 gallons. That's not an acceptable reserve for my flying and my risk profile.

So that level of accuracy affords me the luxury of reliable, conservative fuel planning, and also maximizes the range and endurance of my aircraft.

Precision will pretty much always win when it comes to the big ticket items like fuel. Guesstimating your fuel burn, assuming you have lots of gas and far more than you need, etc. results in a hit on SA and sometimes leads to an eventual accident... maybe not today or tomorrow, but someday, because the true fuel status of the aircraft is not fully understand and internalized by the pilot. "We have enough." Well, do ya? How much will you have exactly, when you land? All it takes is an unforseen diversion, followed by another unusual occurrence (perhaps a disabled aircraft blocking the runway at the second choice airport) to make the fuel situation very interesting indeed, all of a sudden.

So keep your precise fuel needs in mind when managing fuel. That's my view.
 
My close call resulted from complacency born of ‘experience’ or lack of relevant experience.

At the time I had less than 200 hours of time logged in planes but over 2,000 in sailplanes with most of that being cross country time. Then I bought a Maule. Almost immediately I made a flight with close to empty tanks as I worked out the logistics of operating from an airport with no fuel. I was used to airports with no fuel but not used to needing fuel. Stupid!

Then during my first multi stop CC flight I landed at an airport that advertised fuel but had limited hours outside of race days (Talledega?). Instead of parking it and walking out (auto fuel would have been an option) I had a serious case of getthereitis and took off for the nearest fuel... with my wife on board!

Suddenly the seriousness of this fuel thing sank in and drove my testicles up into my throat. But I dared not let on lest I scare the hell out of my passenger. The line guy filled me up once we landed and gave me a serious look of disgust when he realized that I took on more fuel than the placarded capacity.

I’ve never come close since in 20+ years and never will. Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
I am only a student, but I agree with the ideas about "too much fuel" and always flying with more gas than necessary.

FYI I am operating a 150F out of a 2700 foot grass strip at 660 feet MSL. So far all of my training has been in summer weather. As many of you know, summer, two people, a 150, and full tanks are a NO-GO. So far I have never topped off the tanks. That will change for my long solo cross countries, but for any dual flight, I have to keep the tanks at 18 gal usable max. That is still a wide margin for a 1:30 flight at 5 ga/hr. Even with that amount and a 175 pilot and 165 pound instructor, the little 150 will clear the trees, but not by as much as we would like on hot days.

Luckily I am soloed and it seems that I can fly myself with full tanks on any day up to 100F without running out of runway. So weather is another issue that comes into play in determining how much gas one may take on a flight, at least for us poor 150 owners!
 
seems we should be able to do better than a flaky needle that bounces around in the dark corner of the cockpit panel.

Any thoughts?
We can do better, and in airplanes equipped with more modern panels we do. I've got a float sender with a reading in fractions of a gallon, and it's quite accurate for the bottom 3/4 or so of the tank capacity. There's a fuel flow transducer with a totalizer that will tell me (for the whole amount) my remaining fuel, burn rate, NM/gallon, calculated fuel remaining at the next waypoint or destination, all of that good stuff. Again, accurate to within half a gallon or so over a full tank.

This doesn't mean I feel comfortable cutting it close. It does mean I have a little more confidence that, if my gauge tells me I have 5 gallons left, I actually have 5 gallons, not 3, not 6 or 7. I don't have to look at a 60s-era automotive style gauge, wonder how many gallons "somewhere between half and E" means, and then wonder if it's right... or if the engine is burning what I think it is that day or not.

This kind of stuff can be installed in a 60s-era airplane, but in a certified airplane it's so bloody expensive that not many do it.
 
I think it's worth pointing out that this quest for precision and being fully aware of your true fuel state works, both philosophically and literally, without totalizers. You use calibrated amounts to start (even based on a fuel stick) and time. Time will turn the precise amount into an estimate but if the conservative side of the range is used it is still a basic metric which can be relied upon. Operating this way, in effect, means an aircraft without a totalizer would have less endurance/range than an exact replica of it sans the totalizer. But you'd still operate it the same way, with the same expectation and the same quest for precision given the tools available.
 
The most uncomfortable I've been with regards to fuel I was an estimated 25 minutes out and had calculated a little less than 1 hour left (my personal limit is landing with 1 hour reserve). There was an airport directly under me but then I glanced at the sight gauges and they showed 1.5 hours left. Surely sight gauges are a lot more accurate than electric float gauges, right?

I never sticked the tank after I landed but since then I've always wondered how true that statement really is.
 
Yep, I am stuck with two Stewart Warner automotive senders, which still cost an arm and leg to replace. At least in the 150, the tanks are connected, so no forgetting to switch over tanks. But that also means that when it is empty, it is certainly empty.

Can any early Cessna 150F pilots chime in with good fuel burn rates that I can use as a starting point? It seems like each flight I am under 6 GPH, sometimes under 5 GPH. My POH is ancient and does not give good info on fuel burn for climbs and descents. For example, I only have a number of 1.8 gal to climb from S.L. to 5000 and 3.5 gal to go from S.L. to 10,000 at Vy and I have a climb rate of 580 at SL and 370 at 5000 ft and 160 at 10,000 ft. How do I use this to make a good approximation of fuel burn for a climb to 4500 or 6500 feet? I averaged the climb rates between SL and 5000 ft to get an average climb rate and used that to calculate minutes to climb to 5000ft, then backed that into the fuel used and got 10.2s gal/hr. That seems high for an O-200.

For what it is worth, I use autogas and that allows me to keep a 35 gallon tank at my field, which otherwise has no 100LL or gas service. This at least gives me no reason to take off without the appropriate amount of fuel for each flight. Most other guys on the field fly to another close airport to fill up.
 
I consider precision, then weigh that against a large safety margin/cushion, in case my gascolator drain, wing sump drains, fuel cap gaskets leak, or my old-timey EGT and/or fuel flow gauges start lying to me in-flight. I try to fill my tanks to keep the bladders full when hangaring, so I most times have more fuel than human endurance (75 gal, 15gph for planning).
 
Running out of fuel is, to borrow a phrase, the triumph of hope over experience.

I've never come close to a fuel urgency or emergency. Forget OEM fuel gauges. They are but a rough confirmation of what you can normally know more precisely. If you have fuel management monitors, use them. If you don't have fuel management gizmos, use the clock and proper, consistent operation of the mixture. The clock is remarkably accurate. If you know the fuel burn at typical throttle settings, and know your fudge factor for extra fuel to taxi and climb, you can estimate fuel usage to +/- 1 gallon in a typical light single. If you monitor your clock and fuel consumption every flight, you can get really good at this, and it is stone simple. Then set your limits.

Here how it works in a flib like my AA-5. I plan on 8.0 gph at 2550 rpm cruise. Add 1 gallon for taxi (especially at large airports where you can taxi forever) and 1 gallon for climb to altitude. I usually top up for trips, which is good for 4+30 endurance, conservative. IFR, my planning limit is 3 hours enroute at normal cruise, and my "bingo" time (when you must land NOW no questions asked period don't even think about it) is 3.5 hours. VFR my planning limit and bingo time is 3.5 hours. If the whiz wheel doesn't show me making my destination in the appropriate time, I make a precautionary fuel stop, while I still can. I usually have potential precautionary stops in mind during planning.

I've made quite a few stops for fuel when I PROBABLY could have made it safely and with legal reserves, but by stopping I CERTAINLY was going to make it safely with good fuel margins. 3 to 3 1/2 hours is usually enough time in the seat anyway. I have made only one flight where I stretched fuel, and that was a trip where normal cruise speeds and fuel consumption would put me at about 3+15. So I flew that flight at 2400 rpm instead of the usual 2550 rpm, and although this took longer, it consumed quite a bit less fuel, eliminated a fuel stop, and allowed me to arrive with 1.5 hours reserve IFR faster than if I had flown at normal cruise. But it's usually simpler to just follow the 3 hour rule, make an extra fuel stop and quick turnaround while stretching legs, and not worry about cutting fuel close. YMMV, but be safe!
 
I think perhaps the OP was seeking out the psychology of fuel (mis)-management, not so much looking for practical tips on how not to run out of fuel.

Which is no doubt valuable, but perhaps deserving of its own thread?
 
Phychology? You just need to be lazy.

To lazy to calculate aircraft performance
To lazy to confirm fuel onboard.
To lazy to calculate fuel required and reserve.
To lazy to lean properly
To lazy to monitor time/fuel enroute
To lazy to plan an alternate
 
I think perhaps the OP was seeking out the psychology of fuel (mis)-management, not so much looking for practical tips on how not to run out of fuel.

Which is no doubt valuable, but perhaps deserving of its own thread?

Pithy, and true. The trick is understanding that psychological barriers are at the root of almost every single accident... perhaps every one.
 
The sky above you,the runway behind you,and the fuel you didn’t totaled are all useless.
 
The sky above you,the runway behind you,and the fuel you didn’t totaled are all useless.


Depends on the plane, sometimes hauling around a bunch of weight in 100LL can be disadvantageous
 
Phychology? You just need to be lazy.

To lazy to calculate aircraft performance
To lazy to confirm fuel onboard.
To lazy to calculate fuel required and reserve.
To lazy to lean properly
To lazy to monitor time/fuel enroute
To lazy to plan an alternate

I’ve never sensed a direct correlation between laziness and fuel exhaustion, though it may be a factor.

Then again, anyone “to” lazy to proofread a post...
 
I’ve never sensed a direct correlation between laziness and fuel exhaustion, though it may be a factor.

Then again, anyone “to” lazy to proofread a post...


giphy.gif
 
Depends on the plane, sometimes hauling around a bunch of weight in 100LL can be disadvantageous
I’ve never sensed a direct correlation between laziness and fuel exhaustion, though it may be a factor.

Then again, anyone “to” lazy to proofread a post...

Or to lazy to wear his reading glasses.
 
I think perhaps the OP was seeking out the psychology of fuel (mis)-management, not so much looking for practical tips on how not to run out of fuel.

Which is no doubt valuable, but perhaps deserving of its own thread?

Exactly. The five hazardous attitudes are a psychoanalysis of common accident causes, which is very useful for identifying those attitudes in ourselves and coming up with antidotes. I think the fuel mismanagement scenarios require a different perspective from the other five.
 
Phychology? You just need to be lazy.

To lazy to calculate aircraft performance
To lazy to confirm fuel onboard.
To lazy to calculate fuel required and reserve.
To lazy to lean properly
To lazy to monitor time/fuel enroute
To lazy to plan an alternate

... that moment when you realize that you misspelled the same word six times in six sentences
 
Thirty one years as an airline pilot and I can honestly say some of the most stressful flights I’ve had involved fuel, or lack thereof. ATC delays - fuel. Convective weather = fuel. Aircraft system problem (pack failure, or?) = fuel. Took off once on what was supposed to be a 42min flight, and landed 3hrs and 10mins later. Seen a few over-fuel issues,too.
Question: Do you trust your fuel gages? Why?
 
Phychology? You just need to be lazy.

To lazy to calculate aircraft performance
To lazy to confirm fuel onboard.
To lazy to calculate fuel required and reserve.
To lazy to lean properly
To lazy to monitor time/fuel enroute
To lazy to plan an alternate

Don't mean to harp on your spelling management, but assuming that every pilot who ran out of fuel was too lazy all around is partly what I am trying to address. I don't believe that is true. In fact, assigning it to laziness (hence it won't happen to us, since we are obviously not lazy) is in itself is a hazardous attitude of invulnerability.
 
I've got two links in an accident chain that's got me thinking. I've identified a strip on my route to Oshkosh that has really cheap gas. But my tanks are more empty than not. How empty? Can't really say. I've used my fuel stick on them, but my fuel stick sucks and only gives me a rough idea. Given the amount of time I've flown since I last filled up I should be fine. But I prefer I know I'm fine to I should be.

Gets even better. If I fill up at this place in Indiana the hop is shorter to Oshkosh than if I do it here (there is a cheap-ish airpot nearby). I'll have more gas in the tanks when I arrive, making Basler's rape of my six somewhat less painful when I get there (I will fill up before I set off for home). I definitely don't want to make two stops, I want to get there as quickly as I can manage. Get a better camping spot that way.

I'll probably do the smart thing, fill up locally and take it up the six at Oshkosh. But it does nag at me that I've probably got enough gas to do the flight to cheap gas and go another hour.
 
Last edited:
I'd guess that every single experience goes like this. Flight planning looks good, but you're going to land right at the legal reserve level. Midway into the flight you realize you're running slightly behind, but it's no problem, all is still well. 3/4 of the way you're still running behind schedule, but that's okay because you'll make it using your reserves. 98/100 of the way you realize you have a serious problem.
 
Thirty one years as an airline pilot and I can honestly say some of the most stressful flights I’ve had involved fuel, or lack thereof. ATC delays - fuel. Convective weather = fuel. Aircraft system problem (pack failure, or?) = fuel. Took off once on what was supposed to be a 42min flight, and landed 3hrs and 10mins later. Seen a few over-fuel issues,too.
Question: Do you trust your fuel gages? Why?

Good post. I agree. I've had a lot of stress with fuel and I've generally been ultra-careful when it comes to that resource. Fly business jets ranging from light to large cabin at the edges of their endurance and range, dial in a dose of northeastern U.S. weather and international operations, and it's impossible not to feel the pressure points at times.

To answer your question, In a vacuum, of course fuel gauges -- particularly the typical "vaguely accurate under the best of circumstances" indicators found in most GA airplanes-- can't be trusted. They can, however, be used as a correlative point of reference.

What I trust is a finite, calibrated, known amount of fuel when I launch; time; and regular sleuthing to make sure I'm where I need to be fuel management-wise. That sleuthing includes looking at my totalizer, my fuel gauges, my watch, and even my flight controls. Twice in 18 years of ownership, I've taken off in my little twin with a fuel filler door which wasn't perfectly secured. The door open and the vent was exposed to low pressure air which acted like a vacuum. Luckily it's quite easy to see this occur in all but the worst of weather. But a light tank on one side manifests itself as a rolling tendency. So roll trim problems may be correlated with a fuel leak.

I think one only has to look at how crews handle oceanic crossings to see the importance of fuel management. Every lat/long fix, a written entry goes into the journey log with fuel used and fuel flow per side and these are checked against the estimated figures. And this is despite very advanced, redundant sensing systems (which, frankly, have never failed to be almost perfectly accurate in my experience.) You just can't be too careful when it comes to fuel. Paranoia pays.
 
Don't mean to harp on your spelling management, but assuming that every pilot who ran out of fuel was too lazy all around is partly what I am trying to address. I don't believe that is true. In fact, assigning it to laziness (hence it won't happen to us, since we are obviously not lazy) is in itself is a hazardous attitude of invulnerability.

You're really on to something here! Assuming laziness is, in itself, evidence of a hazardous attitude because it offloads the nuance and complexity of this seemingly simple task into the realm of sheer laziness. No doubt pilots have exhibited laziness at times, and there's equally little doubt it has cost some of those pilots their lives. But there have been many accidents in which extremely competent, conservative, careful pilots have erred in ways they could never have imagined. We've learned in the Factors game that simply blaming pilots for being weak, or lazy, or dumb (all of which have been used, sadly, as descriptors for pilots who have died due to error) is completely the wrong path. Associating pilot skills with human error across the board is simply "wrong" based on what we've learned from scientifically analyzing the human/system interface. In many cases the cause is far more sophisticated than that.
 
I think it has to do with the fact that so much of aviation has unofficial "wiggle room", that the idea of it becomes entrenched in the pilot mindset. Perhaps, more so in the GA world. When we get down to the very bottom "bottom-line", there has to be an absolute that we have to commit to NOT challenge.

I've done it. Once, I stretched it out to the point that I literally had to push the aircraft to the pumps. I had the fuel planned out to the last minute, and I had an easy divert in case my destination (a Navy base) became unreachable. The problem was, I was given a VFR hold clear of the class C surface area, due to operations on the field that were supposed to last just a few minutes. I should have diverted right then. But, I didn't. - I'll never do that again!

I always plan for at least 45 minutes of reserve. That is inviolate. There've been a couple of times I've had to make an unscheduled fuel stop. But, I've never been that close to running out of gas (in an airplane) again.
 
Don't read an accident report involving fuel exhaustion while saying, "that could never happen to me".
 
Last edited:
I think perhaps the OP was seeking out the psychology of fuel (mis)-management, not so much looking for practical tips on how not to run out of fuel.

Which is no doubt valuable, but perhaps deserving of its own thread?

An operating psychology for fuel exhaustion is indifference to or unawareness of basic safety of flight procedures, including but not limited to the physics of fuel consumption. "That looks about right" is an insufficient planning attitude. Short of a massive, unknown fuel leak, how does one get to the point that fuel exhaustion is an issue without knowledge of your plight?

Our local airport had an unfathomable fuel exhaustion accident that illustrates the point of lack of awareness or indifference: A C152 was rented for a flight to BGM and back on a nice VFR day, no more than a 1/2 hour each way. The leg to BGM apparently went just fine. On the way back, the aircraft overflew its destination, VGC, and continued on a northerly heading for at least an hour or more, then at some point, circled over the Adirondack wilderness until fuel was nearly exhausted, only then contacting ATC for assistance. Unfortunately, the aircraft ran out of fuel before it could fly to safety and crashed in the remote woods. The passengers suffered, remarkably, only non-life-threatening injuries, and the plane is still in the deep northern woods. (The plane was the one I trained in.)
 
I'll probably do the smart thing, fill up locally and take it up the six at Oshkosh. But it does nag at me that I've probably got enough gas to do the flight to cheap gas and go another hour.

Don’t know if it works for you but if you can flight plan into KUNU Dodge County, then on into OSH, they usually gave a good fuel price at busy pull through multiple pumps, had snacks on hand, and are close enough to OSH you can top off and not burn much going on in after that.

They’re also the staging airport for Cessnas2OSH so only time to avoid there is when that is launching. Any other time they obviously know they’re a cheaper fuel stop than Basler and they work it hard.
 
Neal Stephenson postulated that some behaviors are endemic to a limited population group, MWWDOTHAC (Men Who Were Dropped On Their Heads As Children). He didn't include women, simply because he was writing about the 16th to 18th centuries. This should carry over well into aviation, which last I heard was 6% female, probably higher than the rate of historic female global decision makers.
 
Question: Do you trust your fuel gages? Why?

I never have, especially after I learned the FAR's only say they have to be accurate on "E". My aircraft has an approx. 4 hour endurance at 75% cruise power and I plan for +3:00 - +3:15 legs on a X/C...
 
I never have, especially after I learned the FAR's only say they have to be accurate on "E".

Which is not what the FARs say, but it’s a nice OWT that won’t die.

I don’t trust mine either but not because of an OWT about the FARs. Just because they suck.

But then again, FAAs “fix” for it in the certification regs would make the things cost a couple thousand bucks for a problem solved by a free paint stirring stick from Home Depot and a watch.
 
Back
Top