Good - Bad Call ?

BalkanPilot

BalkanPilot

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
9
Location
Jax, Florida
Display Name
Display name:
BalkanPilot
So yesterday I come to my school and I was scheduled to do about two hours of solo pattern work, and today I was scheduled to do a xc solo and that would end my solo endorsement for ppl. As I get ready I am told that my usual a/c is down for solo flying so there is another I can use, which is not a problem because I have flown both. I awaited the arrival of the new a/c and as the pilots were coming in they tell me that only the right tank seems to be using fuel, the left is possibly clogged. I am told to do one hour of pattern work and come back and if the difference between the two tanks is great cut the flight short, as I agree. I pre flight the airplane and taxi the engine just seems slightly off then I am used to it, and in the run up it does not get better, from my knowledge I believed when I ran up the airplane I experienced detonations. Also, the engine sound was not how I remembered it, now could this be exaggeration, maybe ? ! I decided to taxi back and not go anywhere as I wanted them to have the airplane checked by maintenance, as I explained this to one instructor I sensed some resistance as though I had made a wrong decision, but I felt as though I made a good PIC decision. So i just want to see some opinions on my decision.

Thank You
:yesnod:
 
Last edited:
Sounds like it could be similar to the "automatic roughness at night effect" -- being hyperaware because your routine was off/info you were given by previous pilots...

BUT either way, you certainly made the right decision for YOU. Something didn't feel right to you about the flight and you played it safe...sounds like good ADM to me.
 
You are PIC, you make the call, period.

I would have made the same call, but even earlier. A nonfunctional tank is not airworthy. I suppose it's easy to speculate about blockages when it isn't your butt on the line.

I would seriously consider a different school if they are urging you to ignore your own judgment.

I doubt you saw detonation at run-up power, but if one fuel line had a leak, for instance, the engine could have been excessively lean and barely combustible even full rich.

Detonation will make the oil temperature high. Lean roll-off will make it low.

If the airplane is merely drawing fuel from one tank -- and some 172s seem to do that -- it will sound, run, and feel normal.
 
Last edited:
Good call, full stop. Never proceed if you are not serenely comfortable with the aircraft's airworthiness.
 
Your school was asking you to go up in a plane with one of the tanks not working? :(
 
Sounded like a fine decision to me. If something doesn't "feel" right with the airplane on the ground, I cancel but I always check and recheck everything before I make the decision.
 
Timmer said:
Your school was asking you to go up in a plane with one of the tanks not working? :(
Click to expand...

Typically when the right tank is feeding more than the left it's because the pilot's right foot isn't working.
 
As a tech I have been asked many times by pilots if they should take the aircraft or not for what ever problem they experienced. My answer always was that they had to make the decision since they were the pilot in command of that aircraft. Now that I have started my PPL training I am on the other side so to speak I would have made the same call as you. One extra thing that I would have done is to write up the tank and then it would have been documented and hopefully repaired. Just my $0.02.
 
There are times when Murphy is whispering to you that right now is not the moment to go flying.
Luckily, you listened
Those who don't usually get the Darwin Award.
 
Might as well practice for a flying job and get the garbage in the air...
 
SCCutler said:
Good call, full stop. Never proceed if you are not serenely comfortable with the aircraft's airworthiness.
Click to expand...
Yes that. And if it's on your dime, emphasis on the "serenely" part.

Many years ago I rented a C150 out of Dallas Love to go fly sailplanes out in Caddo Mills TX. I was advised the flaps didn't work. No problem, I don't need no stinkin' flaps... and didn't.

But how many things were wrong with that decision? Young and incredibly dumb.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Might as well practice for a flying job and get the garbage in the air...
Click to expand...

Very interesting that you say this, I'll be honest as I sat in the run-up area I definitely said to myself, how bad could it be? The plane just landed and I'll be right above the airport, also I said to myself weather that was a sign of weakness if I came back, as far as would I be able to handle a commercial aircraft tomorrow? At the end of the day I believe I was doing preventive maintenance, a person as myself with 40 hours of flying and just ready to go for the check ride, I did not want to instigate an emergency.

This morning I was asked weather I still wanted to do my cross country, with the a/c in the state which it is in, I was a little shocked and politely refused until maintenance takes a look on Monday. As far as continuing with this school, it will not be anything after the private.


Appreciate all of the opinions you all have shared!
 
Good call.

I probably wouldn't have taken the plane from the tie downs, but since you did and subsequently thought the better of it in the run up area, I would consider that .1-.3 Hobbs time as a lesson well learned.
 
BalkanPilot said:
Very interesting that you say this, I'll be honest as I sat in the run-up area I definitely said to myself, how bad could it be? The plane just landed and I'll be right above the airport, also I said to myself weather that was a sign of weakness if I came back, as far as would I be able to handle a commercial aircraft tomorrow? At the end of the day I believe I was doing preventive maintenance, a person as myself with 40 hours of flying and just ready to go for the check ride, I did not want to instigate an emergency.

This morning I was asked weather I still wanted to do my cross country, with the a/c in the state which it is in, I was a little shocked and politely refused until maintenance takes a look on Monday. As far as continuing with this school, it will not be anything after the private.


Appreciate all of the opinions you all have shared!
Click to expand...

Whether...;) One of the greatest factors on whether to fly or not is the weather....
 
Good call.

I drove an hour to the airport today also knowing that if I couldn't fly today it would probably be three weeks until I could fly again. Was planning to only stay in the pattern with the instructor for BFR prep but we had intermittent snow showers and it was dropping visibility below my personal mins at times. So when the instructor got there I told him lets not bother no sense in pushing it. He agreed.

It's your call and who cares what the one instructor thought. If he wants to fly let him go right ahead.
 
I awaited the arrival of the new a/c and as the pilots were coming in they tell me that only the right tank seems to be using fuel
Click to expand...

On early Cardinals we have only a C150 on/off fuel selector. It's not unusual for the tanks to feed unevenly for a while. I suspect C-150's do the same thing.

If it's just one pilot who noticed this and was worried that a tank was 'clogged' I would have flown it.

On the other hand, if the plane was feeding off of only tank consistently over several flights then the airplane would non-airworthy, since the type certificate certainly doesn't permit operation in this configuration.

Forgetting the rules, anything about an airplane that stands up the hair on the back of your neck is a plenty good reason to wait and fly another day.
 
JimNtexas said:
On early Cardinals we have only a C150 on/off fuel selector. It's not unusual for the tanks to feed unevenly for a while. I suspect C-150's do the same thing.

If it's just one pilot who noticed this and was worried that a tank was 'clogged' I would have flown it.

On the other hand, if the plane was feeding off of only tank consistently over several flights then the airplane would non-airworthy, since the type certificate certainly doesn't permit operation in this configuration.

Forgetting the rules, anything about an airplane that stands up the hair on the back of your neck is a plenty good reason to wait and fly another day.
Click to expand...


From my understanding the aircraft was out on a full tank and came back with only one tank drawing fuel, the other was still full and was no refueled. They were flying for about two hours, during the two hours they had the fuel selector on both.
 
It's usually a good idea to follow your gut. Otherwise you would not be comfortable during the fligh, you will be mentally distracted thinking about the tank, you might end up doing something or missing something that could make it go downhill real quick.
 
MAKG1 said:
You are PIC, you make the call, period.

I would have made the same call, but even earlier. A nonfunctional tank is not airworthy. I suppose it's easy to speculate about blockages when it isn't your butt on the line.

I would seriously consider a different school if they are urging you to ignore your own judgment.

I doubt you saw detonation at run-up power, but if one fuel line had a leak, for instance, the engine could have been excessively lean and barely combustible even full rich.

Detonation will make the oil temperature high. Lean roll-off will make it low.

If the airplane is merely drawing fuel from one tank -- and some 172s seem to do that -- it will sound, run, and feel normal.
Click to expand...

While severe detonation will indeed heat the oil once it turns into preignition and a piston get's a hole in it. But AFaIK oil temp isn't going to provide any useful advance notice of a detonation problem. Also you aren't likely to be able to hear "detonation" of an aircraft engine, the other normal noise is much louder and will mask it. And until your mixture get's so lean that everything is cooling down a lean but rich of peak EGT mixture will make cylinders and oil hotter (again the effect on oil temp will be much slower than the CHTs).


As to the notion of flying a 172 with one wing tank failing to feed any fuel (vs a slight imbalance in the feed rate) I agree completely that this should be a grounding condition. For one thing, it seems to me that the chances are pretty good that the same problem might be lurking in the other tank.
 
What exactly is the make and model of the aircraft in the OP? Does it only have "off" and "both" or "left" or "right"? Cessna 150s will often drain one side almost fully before feeding from the other -- perfectly normal.
 
BalkanPilot said:
From my understanding the aircraft was out on a full tank and came back with only one tank drawing fuel, the other was still full and was no refueled. They were flying for about two hours, during the two hours they had the fuel selector on both.
Click to expand...

They may have flown those two hours in a slip.

If this happened once only, I'd consider trying a run-up with the selector on the full tank to see if it works normally, but that's really MX's job.

Never take off right after changing the fuel selector. If you try this, repeat the run-up on both.

None of this is consistent with a rough engine. But that might be a fouled plug (so try clearing them).
 
Good call,if your not comfortable,don't go.
 
JimNtexas said:
On early Cardinals we have only a C150 on/off fuel selector. It's not unusual for the tanks to feed unevenly for a while. I suspect C-150's do the same thing.
Click to expand...
It's a problem on later Cardinals with left/right/both selectors as well.

As I understand it from talking to folks at CFO, it is due to the way the tanks are plumbed/vented. What happens is that under the right conditions, while the selector may be on both, you start sucking off one tank while the other tank is being siphoned to the tank that the engine is getting fuel from. I have heard that that it is also common in 182s from certain years in the 70's.
 
MAKG1 said:
No, it's due to people not checking Cardinal fuel vents because they are very well camouflaged.
Click to expand...

I got both Cardinals I fly I got them to be within 2 gallons on 3 hour flights with selector on both. It did take work but we got it done. One is a 68 model and one is a 76 B model.
 
MAKG1 said:
No, it's due to people not checking Cardinal fuel vents because they are very well camouflaged.
Click to expand...

Is it? I can't say for certain, but that is what I was told by the CFO folks when I experienced it in a 177RG rental.
 
jordane93 said:
You are PIC. If you did not feel comfortable then you made the right choice
Click to expand...
IMO, unless you fly for the military (or some freight operators) there's never a valid reason to take a flight you're not comfortable making.
 
jordane93 said:
You are PIC. If you did not feel comfortable then you made the right choice
Click to expand...

That.

If something doesn't feel right, it might not be. Maybe nothing is wrong but I don't think the risk in your situation would be acceptable especially since you already had a known issue with the fuel system(which would, as someone else said, made me leave it tied down).
 
fiveoboy01 said:
That.

If something doesn't feel right, it might not be. Maybe nothing is wrong but I don't think the risk in your situation would be acceptable especially since you already had a known issue with the fuel system(which would, as someone else said, made me leave it tied down).
Click to expand...

Agreed with all of the above posters, good call.

Still a student and a couple weeks ago was prepping for my first cross country in a 172. During pre-flight one of the fuel gauges was showing empty, visually checked the tank and it was topped up. Despite my instructor assuring me we could make it on one tank and the gauge was probably just stuck, he agreed that we should take a different plane and he would squawk the bad gauge.

On the way to our destination, noticed our replacement plane was only drawing from one tank, changed the fuel selector to draw from the full tank until they were about even then went back to both, didn't have the problem the rest of the flight.
 
GOOD CALL to keep your A** on the ground. As a newly minted PP I know I am still learning, and when the aircraft is not %100 to my satisfaction I put it away and call the maintenance guy.

Just think, what if the other tank developed the same problem feeding- AT that point you get to practice an engine out dead stick landing FOR REAL! :hairraise::hairraise::hairraise:

GREAT ADM my friend. Stay Safe!!!
 
You are the sole responsible party when that plane becomes airborne, so why would you ever take off if you weren't comfortable with the machine? As a PP, your mission should never override your safety concerns. Intensified with your limited experience, any time your confidence is shaken, you are more likely to make elementary mistakes. Good call, safe pilot.
 
Fredbob711 said:
Agreed with all of the above posters, good call.

Still a student and a couple weeks ago was prepping for my first cross country in a 172. During pre-flight one of the fuel gauges was showing empty, visually checked the tank and it was topped up. Despite my instructor assuring me we could make it on one tank and the gauge was probably just stuck, he agreed that we should take a different plane and he would squawk the bad gauge.
Click to expand...

Might want to google "goose-a-cat" or "flaming tomatoes". Although most light GA aircraft don't have a MEL (min equip list), you're supposed to have those items above.
 
I am not sure why they woukld have told you there may be a problem, but go anyway to start with. Then to question you that the engine did not seem right seems wrong. I have had a few situations where I have made a different decision then the CFI may have. Last week I elected to do a go-around when I was comming in high and fast, I just did not line up the pattern right. I put the throttle foward, and decided to go-around. The CFI said I could have made the landing, but he would never fualt me for going around.

I have also had a few matinance type issues during my training. The first involved a tach failure during flight. It was early on during training and could probably have salvage something out of the lesson, but we turned back. No reason to take the risk. Then about two weeks ago, I notice a fair sized ding in the prop. It was large enough to get my thumbnail into. Instructor look at it, said it was likely ok, but got the mechanic and had him file it out anyway. They are teaching you and trusting you to pre-flight the plane, they are then giving your the power to determin if it is airworthy.
 
When I made a "no go" call for the check ride b/c the weather only to see it improve after, my DPE said to me : it's always better to wish you are in the air sitting on the ground than to wish you are on the ground while flying in the air.

Good call IMHO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Depends on your previous history with bagging flights. Not suggesting you have bagged any flights, just saying. Maybe history comes to play?

In 1987 I went through a rough patch, engine failure, partial engine failure, etc... I was due to fly a solo ride to my house that sits on an airport. I tell my instructor I don't like the way the ski looks, He says " you want to be a f'ing pilot or not", so I strap in and take the flight home solo, hit a major snow squall, spit my gum on the floor my mouth was so dry, set up final on a familiar barn roof I recognized and landed in near zero zero.

No, my Dad wasn't teaching me.

Point is, I tried to find lots of reasons not to fly at that juncture. Times where different then I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top