Misfueled Aerostar

It's like the gas stations here with underground tanks. They have a monitor well or two and it's placarded "DO NOT PUT FUEL IN HERE."
 
hindsight2020 said:
It is certainly possible the line guy is lying about the narrative of asking the deceased multiple times about his desire for jet A. Problem is the dead guy isn't here to refute the testimony. Do we take the line guy at face value? Does it matter? Should line people recognize a piston prop engine installation and cowling from that of a turbine powered propeller?

I don't know what the legal standing is on that question, I'm genuinely wondering what the bar is for these types of accidents from a criminal negligence burden of proof standpoint.
Click to expand...
That is a good question. If the guy is lying a bit then he’s got to live with the guilt of knowing they at least partly contributed to a guy dying.
I don’t expect a line guy to recognize a turbine vs a piston by looking at engine. But they should be able to read a placard and realize if that nozzle doesn’t fit there has to be something f-ing wrong. Wonder how long the guy has been doing that job??
 
On the other side, I once was at Centennial Airport (APA) and told the CSR that I would like 20 per side of 100LL Avgas. Since I was flying over the Rockies, I wanted to add a little more to the reserve for my comfort.

On my return to the fbo, I looked at the receipt and noticed I had received 100 gallons of 100LL Avgas. Since I was returning solo, weight was not a problem. But that 600 buck fuel bill, not including all other fees, was a problem.

After a chat with the manager they gave me a really good discount on the fuel. He was happy and I was happy so off I went.

I like the FBOs that have a fuel order that the pilot fills out and marks the boxes, either JetA or 100LL and writes in the amount needed in each tank.
 
It seems like light twins are the ones that misfueled more often. On many I can see why, as there may be turbine and piston variants of similar looking models. Often the piston models are turbo charger, and have labels advertising that fact.

However one aircraft has always stood out to me as potentially confusing to the lay person, the Turbo Lance. That cowling looks way too much like a turbine
 

Attachments

  • standard_retina_kUoRoopWSaOYCceIGsOA_N2100A.jpeg
    standard_retina_kUoRoopWSaOYCceIGsOA_N2100A.jpeg
    188.2 KB · Views: 65
Jim K said:
...I'm also amazed by the fatality of twins during takeoff. Seems like the risk of losing an engine and spinning it in is greater than the security of having a backup.
Click to expand...

You're only amazed because you completely disregard the number of twin piston takeoffs every day that DON'T result in an incident.

I'm sure a piston single fuelled with Jet A wouldn't fare any better. And it's happened more than once with the PA-46.
 
GRG55 said:
You're only amazed because you completely disregard the number of twin piston takeoffs every day that DON'T result in an incident.
Click to expand...
Amazing
 
This is the document I made/hung on the wall at my last job showing the different aircraft that are commonly misfueled or mistaken for one another. Free use for any FBO's that come across the page:

35Z9j4u.jpg
 
Apart from the helicopter, these are all incredibly obvious just by looking at the cowl intakes and exhausts. A line guy who can't tell the difference between a turbine and piston really shouldn't be working unsupervised.
 
Katamarino said:
Apart from the helicopter, these are all incredibly obvious just by looking at the cowl intakes and exhausts. A line guy who can't tell the difference between a turbine and piston really shouldn't be working unsupervised.
Click to expand...
Or just ask the pilot. Takes 2 seconds to ask if they need LL or Jet A.
 
jordane93 said:
Or just ask the pilot. Takes 2 seconds to ask if they need LL or Jet A.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the pilot is alleged to have confirmed the jet A selection, multiple times according to the line guy. again this is coming from the line guy, something the deceased is not in a position to refute.
 
hindsight2020 said:
To be fair, the pilot is alleged to have confirmed the jet A selection, multiple times according to the line guy. again this is coming from the line guy, something the deceased is not in a position to refute.
Click to expand...
Yep. When I fly, I always tell the line guy to give me 100LL even if it’s obvious. You never know what can happen.
 
Katamarino said:
Apart from the helicopter, these are all incredibly obvious just by looking at the cowl intakes and exhausts. A line guy who can't tell the difference between a turbine and piston really shouldn't be working unsupervised.
Click to expand...
Yes!
 
Tantalum said:
This is the best picture I could find below.. but it's very obvious with a red ring around it, key lock, and text all over it telling you it is not for fuel and the type of TKS it will accept

And yet TWICE I had guys ask me "do you have the keys for the inboard fuel tanks"
.. twice I was a dick and said "the locked door that says 'not for fuel'?"
View attachment 78594
Click to expand...
Saying that did not make you a dick. At all. I mean that both ways it can be taken. :D
 
Jim K said:
This story amazes me. How do you ignore the placard AND the fact that the fuel nozzle DOESN'T FIT?! No matter how much we idiot proof things, somebody makes a better idiot.

I paid $5.68 for avgas last time I flew, but at least our line guys have more than two brain cells to rub together.

I'm also amazed by the fatality of twins during takeoff. Seems like the risk of losing an engine and spinning it in is greater than the security of having a backup.
Click to expand...
Yeah, given the nearly flat terrain and thousands of acres of farm fields around OKK (including the one he crashed on), you'd figure that at least limping away was a good possibility.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Yeah, given the nearly flat terrain and thousands of acres of farm fields around OKK (including the one he crashed on), you'd figure that at least limping away was a good possibility.
Click to expand...

Right, that was my point. Stall/spins happen in singles on climbout, too to be sure... just had one a couple weeks ago. It just seems like when a twin loses an engine at low altitude it tends to end badly. Looking at the pictures on Kathryn's report, he crashed into a nice big open soybean field. Fuel may have caused the accident, but LOC caused the fatality.
 
Jim K said:
Right, that was my point. Stall/spins happen in singles on climbout, too to be sure... just had one a couple weeks ago. It just seems like when a twin loses an engine at low altitude it tends to end badly. Looking at the pictures on Kathryn's report, he crashed into a nice big open soybean field. Fuel may have caused the accident, but LOC caused the fatality.
Click to expand...
I think it takes some time to not only realize, but accept, that you are going down. I know in a couple of unreal situations in my life, I never did accept what was happening until much later; luckily, they didn't involve flying a plane.
 
The insidious part of this accident is he was almost certainly not expecting to lose both engines. Most likely one lost power from detonation before (perhaps just slightly before) the other.

Even with a high fuel load an Aerostar with only one person on board is light enough and would have adequate climb on one engine. He was likely going through that routine when the second engine failed. And that might have been the real surprise.

I fly a comparatively low power, naturally aspirated twin from a high altitude home airport. In most configurations an engine loss on takeoff requires decisively closing both throttles and putting it down wings level, just like a single. And if everything works out, a call to the insurance company follows, to congratulate them on their new purchase. That is not what most twin engine pilot training teaches you to do.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
That is not what most twin engine pilot training teaches you to do
Click to expand...

Which is very unfortunate. When I was in flight school we were told to do whatever we can to NOT damage the airplane if forced into an off airport landing.

I always counter pointed that when the airplane fails me, I am doing whatever is necessary to NOT damage the occupants, even if it means totally destroying the airplane. I was even called in for a meeting with the chief flight instructor, the director of operations and the president of the flight school and told I might have to find another flight school if I didn't change my mind.

Kenny Phillips said:
I think it takes some time to not only realize, but accept, that you are going down.
Click to expand...

Very true. My first partial power loss in a single it took me a few seconds to realize that I had a problem that may become serious problem and that the planned flight just changed plans.
 
I got real nervous one year when I was parked at OWD next to a turbine bonanza. His plane reeked of Jet A and I got real nervous about my plane being fueled. I once had a line guy at GYY offer to put JET A in the Navion.

The Navion is easy to misfuel. I usually watch the fueling or do it myself. If not, I make sure the fueler knows how to do it. The main tank is really both wing tanks with a small accumulator in between. (The stock fuel selector is off/on unlike most low wings). One filler does both sides, so you have to either fill it really slow to give it time to work over to the other side or you have to stop after it appears full (and is really about 10 gallons short) and then after it drains down, top it off again. The baggage tank isn't prone to misfueling, but it gives an unsuspecting lineman a 100LL bath if he doesn't pay attention. The best cue to the tank being full is that there is a sudden gurgling as the fuel starts up the filler neck. If you're doing it slowly, you'll note a few drops coming out the vent line. If you expect your auto shutoff nozzle to save you, you're going to get a faceful of 100LL. I almost always offer to fill that tank myself.

USAIG back before they unceremoniously dumped all Navions from their coverage offered free restrictors for all insured who had tanks that you could fit a JET A nozzle into currently.
 
Tantalum said:
I've met many great line guys, and many not so bright ones. Twice I've been asked for the keys to the inboard fuel tanks on the Cirrus which clearly say "no fuel" all over it in red letters, are locked, and say TKS on it
Click to expand...

I don't allow anyone to refuel my airplane unless I am physically present. FBO's often ask me if they should refuel while I am gone, but I always insist on standing there while they refuel. It would have prevented something like this, if you see a JetA truck pull up to your 100LL airplane.
 
Katamarino said:
Apart from the helicopter, these are all incredibly obvious just by looking at the cowl intakes and exhausts. A line guy who can't tell the difference between a turbine and piston really shouldn't be working unsupervised.
Click to expand...
The 172 is an exception.

Diesel Skyhawk:
FLY1013-RedHawk-prop.jpg


Avgas Skyhawk:
img_20180217_123933.jpg
 
It really should go without saying, but manipulating the fueling mechanics to accommodate a clearly incompatible nozzle to the filler port in use, ought to be an immediate non-starter. Those outlier examples of Piper JetProp conversions running around with turbines bolted on and fuel ports not yet modified for Jet-A nozzle fit, are a straight-up foul imo. Unbelievable they are allowed to operate outside one-time ferry permits.

As to engine recce, my experience with non-metro FBOs out here in W Texas is that most of the critters on the line are boomerang workers between the oil rigs, game lease ranch hands, and general townie unskilled work. These folks aren't aviation enthusiasts in the least, and I wouldn't trust them to recognize a Cessna 150 from an F-16. It's lowest common denominator stuff, which is why you have to go kindergarten on these logistics. Square peg round hole. If peg and hole don't match, sorry bud, we can't fuel it. Sorry for the inconvenience.

That would take care of the stories about your jetprop fuel port "not being converted yet", or you hop around jets all day so you forgot your personal airplane doesn't take it (the case here), or the twin piston and twin turbine cowlings look close enough for a min wage oil rig furloughee to distinguish. But humans are gonna human, and fuel right through the fences. Oh well.
 
Tantalum said:
... I mean, if your job is to fuel airplanes, you should be pretty good at that ...
Click to expand...
There are two types of line people: those who love aviation and want to be there, and those who cannot get a different job (in some climates being the line guy ain't too glamorous, hence the acceptance of the LCD employee). The second type, of which I've seen at my airport, are scary.
 
Rampies used to be student pilots working to help pay for their training, and typically had an interest in airplanes of every type. I don't see that so much any more.
 
midwestpa24 said:
It seems like light twins are the ones that misfueled more often. On many I can see why, as there may be turbine and piston variants of similar looking models. Often the piston models are turbo charger, and have labels advertising that fact.

However one aircraft has always stood out to me as potentially confusing to the lay person, the Turbo Lance. That cowling looks way too much like a turbine
Click to expand...

There is an AD on that decal if you can believe it. Hope that's no your plane...
 
Jim K said:
Right, that was my point. Stall/spins happen in singles on climbout, too to be sure... just had one a couple weeks ago. It just seems like when a twin loses an engine at low altitude it tends to end badly. Looking at the pictures on Kathryn's report, he crashed into a nice big open soybean field. Fuel may have caused the accident, but LOC caused the fatality.
Click to expand...

It’s a question you can’t answer until it has happened to you. Having had two low altitude engine failures in a single I can verify from experience the second one happens slower perceptually. Didn’t feel nearly as rushed or reactionary. More like “crap ... not again.. whatever...” and just fly the airplane on the second one. Never had one happen at low altitude in a twin. Only had precautionary shutdowns at altitude. Not very eventful at all.
 
GRG55 said:
Rampies used to be student pilots working to help pay for their training, and typically had an interest in airplanes of every type. I don't see that so much any more.
Click to expand...

How many hours would a line person have to work to afford an hour of dual?
 
overdrive148 said:
My first line job was $11/hr, second one was $15/hr...
Click to expand...
so you need to work about 10 to 15 hours to realistically afford an hour of dual.. and that's assuming you're either working 40 hours to sustain other cost of living, or somehow you have free room and housing
 
asicer said:
The 172 is an exception.

Diesel Skyhawk:
FLY1013-RedHawk-prop.jpg


Avgas Skyhawk:
img_20180217_123933.jpg
Click to expand...
I'm assuming the fuel filler ports will specifically say on there what it requires though, no? So while they look similar, even a half attentive person should be able to what the fuel fill port says

honestly this whole thing to me is like somebody dying from drinking a bottle of Windex strictly because it is the same color as Gatorade
 
FormerHangie said:
How many hours would a line person have to work to afford an hour of dual?
Click to expand...

The ratio of wages to training costs was probably better then than it is now.

@Pilawt will probably correct me, but my recollection is in the mid-70s those types of jobs paid about $1.50 an hour and it cost maybe $2500 to $3000 to get a private pilot licence at a Cessna Pilot Center (which wasn't always the cheapest place to train). Airplane wet rental prices jumped after the fall of 1973 Arab oil embargo, when the price of fuel climbed dramatically.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
so you need to work about 10 to 15 hours to realistically afford an hour of dual.. and that's assuming you're either working 40 hours to sustain other cost of living, or somehow you have free room and housing
Click to expand...

It's definitely a lot worse now. Back in early HS (mid 90s) when I was doing my initial training I'd work about 9 hours at the flight school (desk work, washing planes, etc) on Saturday in exchange for an hour of dual on Sunday. Of course we avoided all the complicated issues like payroll, taxes, and so on. ;)

I also think it was a lot more fun to hang out at the local airport in those days too. I thought nothing of spending all day Sunday as an airport bum after flying the one hour that morning.
 
kayoh190 said:
It's definitely a lot worse now. Back in early HS (mid 90s) when I was doing my initial training I'd work about 9 hours at the flight school (desk work, washing planes, etc) on Saturday in exchange for an hour of dual on Sunday. Of course we avoided all the complicated issues like payroll, taxes, and so on. ;)

I also think it was a lot more fun to hang out at the local airport in those days too. I thought nothing of spending all day Sunday as an airport bum after flying the one hour that morning.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of developments that have made what you did back then more difficult these days. One is that increasingly it seems that FBOs don't operate flight schools. That may mostly be a big city thing, but when it does happen, that removes the "off the books" possibility. The other thing that I've noticed is that the prices have gone up significantly the last couple of years, I'm guessing because of career training demand. In the Atlanta area, the rental rate for a 172 is now $160 plus, and instruction is going for $60 - $80 per hour.
 
FormerHangie said:
rental rate for a 172 is now $160 plus
Click to expand...
That's utter insanity

People might want to get out of all the glitz and glam fancy schools and find a smaller airport somewhere. I understand that a rural airport is not always feasible for someone, but this past weekend I was up at O22 (Columbia, CA) and they had a neat little flying school there with very reasonable rates: http://letsgofly.com/planes-rates
 
Tantalum said:
That's utter insanity

People might want to get out of all the glitz and glam fancy schools and find a smaller airport somewhere. I understand that a rural airport is not always feasible for someone, but this past weekend I was up at O22 (Columbia, CA) and they had a neat little flying school there with very reasonable rates: http://letsgofly.com/planes-rates
Click to expand...

You can find 172s for rent for $135 per hour with instructors for $50 an hour if you go an hour or so outside of the city. Whether or not you can get to them to train on a weekday depends very much on where you live and work. I could get to KPDK in 15 minutes from my office, so it would be easy for me to schedule training on one weekday and one weekend day. At evening rush, I'd have to allow 1.5 hours to get to the closest of the less expensive airports, and two hours for the other two. It'd be dark by the time I got there. I'm sure there are lots of others who are in the same boat as I would be.
 
I guess I’m a ‘lower tier’ flyer, the vast majority of the time I’m at the self-serve pump. Not that my plane is all confusing anyway, though vigilance is always called for.

If I had a plane near the edge, I guess locking caps & being present every time may be called for.
 
Tantalum said:
so you need to work about 10 to 15 hours to realistically afford an hour of dual.. and that's assuming you're either working 40 hours to sustain other cost of living, or somehow you have free room and housing
Click to expand...

After the Denver fiasco, I applied (among other things) to be a line tech at Signature @ KAPA Centennial. They wanted to pay 10/hr with my aeronautics degree and prior experience. I would have had to drive from the north side of Denver to the south side. No way it would remotely work financially even for rent alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top