Botched NTSB report

[BigBadLou]

I don't think the NTSB likely going to be wrong, they have years of experience.

Do not forget to consider the NKOTB writing all the new reports nowadays. I wouldn't let these kids near my car, let alone my airplane.

 

[3393RP]

A Cessna 152 can fly a lot longer than 3.1 hours. The NTSB did not read the POH correctly. See attached image. The 3.1 hours includes an allowance for start/taxi/climb AND a 45-minute reserve.

Apparently "a lot longer" is the 3.5 hours the aircraft flew, because:

Responders to the accident site reported that there was no fuel in the fuel tanks.

It's hard to argue that fact.

 

[mtuomi]

I fly 3+20 if I refuel my plane, and 3+0 if someone else does. An average line guy fills a 150/152 1-2g short. Best (worst) I've seen was almost 5g short.

 

[dmspilot]

It's hard to argue that fact.

It's not hard. You know there is more than one explanation for empty tanks right? How about the "other students reported abnormally high fuel consumption" bit that didn't make it to the final report? Hypothetically, an in-flight leak, or even a leak after the accident, would cause the tanks to become empty.

 

[nauga]

I wouldn't let these kids near my car, let alone my airplane.

I wouldn't let my kid near your airplane either but when it comes to the NTSB you don't really have a say in it.

Nauga,
and Grelber

 

[OkieAviator]

This feels like a non-binary gender argument.

 

[danhagan]

26 gal, 24.5 usable at 6 gph = 4 hrs 5 min

That's the way the POH read in the 152 I trained in ... read on

I haven't flown a 150/2 since 1990. Is 5.2gal/hr for 90 knots true at 5.5K a reasonable estimate? Even his own estimate seemed to be cutting it close with book performance. Impossible to know if he was on the numbers but when you aim for optimal things can only get worse.

5.2 isn't really realistic.

We had three 152's where I trained. Two were Sparrowhawk conversions that "claimed" their fuel burn was 6 per hour like the stock versions (they weren't they were closer to 7 per hour). Was worried on my PPL that the DPE was going to ask to review the STC on the Sparrowhawks (one we were testing in) and would see that there was a single mention as to fuel burn after conversion. Either way, you aren't taking 24.5 gallons useable if there's a pax on board ... that gets reduced to around 14.5 with pax.