PA32 down out of PDK

SixPapaCharlie;1776614[B said:
]I thought after the bob hoover deal they came out with the hoover ring and hoover nozzle. [/B]

I have never paid attn. to a jet A pump or inlet but is this hoover nozzle deal not a thing anymore. I thought it was designed to they would be incompatible.

anyone have details on that?
Click to expand...

Actually, I thought that nozzle was mandated after a misfuel fatal that killed the New Jersey Governor... ( I think that was who got killed):confused::dunno:
 
Graueradler said:
The fuel specific nozzle (we call it the "duck bill") for jet will not fit into any piston engined fuel port that I am aware of. All jet trucks should be equipped with only duck bills. There are smaller round nozzles that will fit on the jet truck and they are necessary because there are planes that used to have piston engines that have been converted to turbines and the fuel tanks were not modified. There are also some older trubine powered helicopters that have small ports that the duck bill will not fit in. We keep the round nozzle elsewhere than on or in the jet truck and make it inconvenient to get it and change the nozzles out with the intent of making the lineman really think about. Also, every Shell lineman is required by the Shell supplier to have gone through training concerning misfueling, how to avoid it, and its consequences.
Click to expand...

Hmm...I have definitely seen some larger fuel ports on a few newer model low-wing aircraft capable of accommodating a duckbill... not many though. Our fuel truck has a duckbill, large round nozzle, and a single-point on it, all with their own holster and meter.

We offer Phillips 66 instead of Shell, but there are training materials in the FBO regarding aircraft type, weight, dimensions, fueling ports, special information, etc. It is a bit dated though, and I wasn't run through everything as much, most likely due to my previous aviation experience. :dunno:

N801BH said:
Actually, I thought that nozzle was mandated after a misfuel fatal that killed the New Jersey Governor... ( I think that was who got killed):confused::dunno:
Click to expand...

A perhaps-undesired recognition is the "Hoover Nozzle" used on jet-fuel pumps. The Hoover Nozzle is designed with a flattened bell shape. The Hoover Nozzle cannot be inserted in the filler neck of a plane with the "Hoover Ring" installed, thus preventing the tank from accidentally being filled with jet fuel.

This system was given this name following an accident in which Hoover was seriously injured, when both engines on his Shrike Commander failed during takeoff. Investigators found that the plane had just been fueled by line personnel who mistook the piston-engine Shrike for a similar turboprop model, filling the tanks with jet fuel instead of avgas (aviation gasoline). There was enough avgas in the fuel system to taxi to the runway and take off, but then the jet fuel was drawn into the engines, causing them to stop.

Once Hoover recovered, he widely promoted the use of the new type of nozzle with the support and funding of the National Air Transportation Association, General Aviation Manufacturers Association and various other aviation groups (the nozzle is now required by Federal regulation on jet fuel pumps).
Click to expand...
Wikipedia article
 
overdrive148 said:
Placard, that's the word. And I don't know, I am 90% sure I've seen aircraft without them. I'll go take a look.
Click to expand...

Please do. THen look in the log for the person who signed the last 100 hour or annual and have a little chat with them if you find one without the placard right at the filler hole.


Jim

.
 
overdrive148 said:
Our fuel truck has a duckbill, large round nozzle, and a single-point on it, all with their own holster and meter.
Click to expand...

A round nozzle that can be inserted into a normal piston engined plane fuel tank should never be left routinely installed on a Jet truck. It should only be temporarily installed when actually needed.

The Shell training is a DVD that every lineman had to watch and we had to document the training.
 
Graueradler said:
A round nozzle that can be inserted into a normal piston engined plane fuel tank should never be left routinely installed on a Jet truck. It should only be temporarily installed when actually needed.

The Shell training is a DVD that every lineman had to watch and we had to document the training.
Click to expand...

I agree, to avoid confusion it would be best to have no round nozzle on the Jet-A truck. It is special in our case however, mostly because:

1) We have a total of 4 employees for the whole airport, all of them know that the round nozzle is really only ever used for certain aircraft (medical/police helicopters) who tend to be frequent visitors each month

2) The AvGas truck is Manual, the Jet A truck is Automatic. The Jet A truck is slightly bigger and has 3 hoses and 2 meters for fuel, the AvGas truck has 1 of each.

3) They are laid out differently enough to instantly know which truck you are using:

rmc28FZ.jpg




i0pTFnJ.jpg
 
johnxreid said:
Again, I flew right over the burning wreck departing same runway 5 mins later. Hits too close to home and been thinking about this a lot the past day.
Click to expand...
Like I said before in this thread, I flew a PA-32 in PDK the evening before the accident. It does hit close to home but it's a risk we all knowingly take.

I don't vote for a fueling mistake. Epps, if he went there, is very familiar with the type and the linemen are all good at what they do. That being said, my co-worker had a lineman at some podunk airport refuel the Pilatus with 100LL two days ago. Luckily, the -67B is approved to burn 100LL for up to 100 hours with varying engine limitations. He still had them pump it out.

mikea said:
CBS Evening News had a very fair report. They showed a trucker. The plane came "right at" him and left a dent and paint on the hood of the semi tractor. He got out and ran but the plane was a fireball and nobody could approach it.
Click to expand...
I heard that particular trucker had a warrant out for his arrest. Haha.
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
Like I said before in this thread, I flew a PA-32 in PDK the evening before the accident. It does hit close to home but it's a risk we all knowingly take.

I don't vote for a fueling mistake. Epps, if he went there, is very familiar with the type and the linemen are all good at what they do. That being said, my co-worker had a lineman at some podunk airport refuel the Pilatus with 100LL two days ago. Luckily, the -67B is approved to burn 100LL for up to 100 hours with varying engine limitations. He still had them pump it out.


I heard that particular trucker had a warrant out for his arrest. Haha.
Click to expand...

He was interviewed during the time I was watching the live coverage.. Seemed like a decent guy.... He was in the Red Semi with the empty flat bed trailer parked about 300 feet downstream of the wreckage in the emergency lane..

He said he caught the plane out of the corner of his eye and locked up the brakes.. Had he not, it would have crashed into his right passenger door and killed him instantly.

They then took the camera and showed the damage on his rig.... There was a slight paint transfer on the top left of his hood where the left wingtip of the plane scratched it,, His left drivers side mirror was knocked loose and dangling... I roughly did the math and it appears the plane was 45-60 degrees nose down as it passed across the front of his truck...


Warrant or not... He was polite, well spoken and honest in his interview with the TV reporter... He was about 10 milliseconds away from death.. And he KNEW it..

Lucky guy for sure..
 
[/QUOTE]He was about 10 milliseconds away from death.. And he KNEW it..

Lucky guy for sure..[/QUOTE]


Was not his time. Still I feel bad for the Pilot as I said earlier. It looks like he did everything he could but it wasnt enough. :dunno:
 
The pilot's mother mentioned on the news that he had recently had engine work done on the plane and had test flown it the day before the trip. :dunno: I realize that could be anything from an oil change to 6 new cylinders to replacing the number 2 nav indicator, but she definitely said it. I'm sure that's a good place to start looking.;)
 
Do all Lances run the siamese magneto? That is one dumb idea if there ever was one.
 
I hate hearing about accidents that claim multiple family members. When I was in my 20s, the crash of a 421 claimed six lives. Two were the mother and father of a very close friend, and the other four passengers were the mothers of other close friends.

There were multiple funerals on the same day...it was a shocking experience that has colored my outlook on flying since the day it happened.

May those that perished rest in peace, and I hope the families will be able to overcome their grief.
 
Most of my flights are solo, however.
As much as I love flying and accept the risk involved, I must admit that every time I read of tragedies like this, I question the wisdom of taking my family and friends on that occasional flight, especially as a single engine only pilot.

Very sad indeed. :sad:
 
Last edited:
I don't think it is physically possible to load a Lance/Saratoga so it is not flyable because of W&B. Unless you are carrying lead. Or uranium.
10% overweight? Not a problem at all. Flies beautifully.
 
mtuomi said:
I don't think it is physically possible to load a Lance/Saratoga so it is not flyable because of W&B. Unless you are carrying lead. Or uranium.
10% overweight? Not a problem at all. Flies beautifully.
Click to expand...
You can fairly easily load it out of fwd CG limits at or near GW, but I don't believe it would result in an accident sequence such as what has been described.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You can fairly easily load it out of fwd CG limits at or near GW, but I don't believe it would result in an accident sequence such as what has been described.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why I specified "so it is not flyable because".
You need to fill the front cargo compartment with uranium, and use only front seats and the forward club seats, and even then I think it would be flyable...

I once had an instructor who said (yes, tongue firmly in cheek before anyone rips their trousers) W&B calculations on a Saratoga are what you do to look busy while you let your pax do all the heavy lifting and loading the plane :)
 
mtuomi said:
I once had an instructor who said (yes, tongue firmly in cheek before anyone rips their trousers) W&B calculations on a Saratoga are what you do to look busy while you let your pax do all the heavy lifting and loading the plane :)
Click to expand...

That there is funny. :lol:
 
mtuomi said:
Yes, that's why I specified "so it is not flyable because".
You need to fill the front cargo compartment with uranium, and use only front seats and the forward club seats, and even then I think it would be flyable...

I once had an instructor who said (yes, tongue firmly in cheek before anyone rips their trousers) W&B calculations on a Saratoga are what you do to look busy while you let your pax do all the heavy lifting and loading the plane :)
Click to expand...

Lol... That is the truth! :yes:

Most Lance's do have the Bendix dual mag, as it was/is standard. I don't think that was the issue here because all reports indicate the engine was still running at impact.
 
drotto said:
Simple solution is making it a requirement for all attendants to specifically ask the PIC what fuel they want than tell the PIC, "I will be filling with ______ fuel." The PIC must then read back the fuel request and type, just like you would read back taxi routes to ground control. Never would make it 100%, but would help.
Click to expand...

Yep:yes:
 
FormerHangie said:
As others have said, not a lot of options for an emergency landing in the Atlanta metro area, it's either buildings or trees. Probably the biggest open area you'd find is an athletic field, which would most likely be surrounded by tall trees. I-285 was probably one of his only choices
Click to expand...

I flew the exact same departure yesterday out of PDK. It was kind of eerie flying over the scene. You are right, it that particular plane, there aren't a lot of options. I think he did the best he could.

RIP
 
mikea said:
CBS Evening News had a very fair report. They showed a trucker. The plane came "right at" him and left a dent and paint on the hood of the semi tractor. He got out and ran but the plane was a fireball and nobody could approach it.
Click to expand...

Cpt_Kirk said:
...I heard that particular trucker had a warrant out for his arrest. Haha.
Click to expand...

N801BH said:
He was interviewed during the time I was watching the live coverage.. Seemed like a decent guy.... He was in the Red Semi with the empty flat bed trailer parked about 300 feet downstream of the wreckage in the emergency lane..

He said he caught the plane out of the corner of his eye and locked up the brakes.. Had he not, it would have crashed into his right passenger door and killed him instantly.

They then took the camera and showed the damage on his rig.... There was a slight paint transfer on the top left of his hood where the left wingtip of the plane scratched it,, His left drivers side mirror was knocked loose and dangling... I roughly did the math and it appears the plane was 45-60 degrees nose down as it passed across the front of his truck...


Warrant or not... He was polite, well spoken and honest in his interview with the TV reporter... He was about 10 milliseconds away from death.. And he KNEW it..

Lucky guy for sure..
Click to expand...

The report and video link is here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/atlanta-plane-crash-victims-were-heading-to-college-graduation/
 
Flocker said:
I flew the exact same departure yesterday out of PDK. It was kind of eerie flying over the scene. You are right, it that particular plane, there aren't a lot of options. I think he did the best he could.

RIP
Click to expand...

Same here. Flew right over the top of the scene of the accident yesterday as well. My CFI and I were both uncharacteristicly quiet for a few minutes, until he broke the silence with "man... okay, let's head up to Cherokee County..."
 
sourdough44 said:
There was the one report from an airport employee I think, who said the plane was trailing 'black smoke' on departure and climb out. I don't think it was a loading issue or CG. As crazy as it sounds I'm leaning fuel issues, mostly the misfuel.
Click to expand...

One of the things I learned here at POA and that is:

"Watch the fueling from start to finish"

YOUR life is on the line, not the lineman!
 
I find it hard to believe that an airport as busy as PDK would not have the Hoover duckbill on the Jet truck. Maybe somewhere in East Bumblescrew, but not there. Can I imagine a fueler dumb enough to try to jam one into an obviously-incompatible 100LL port? Yes. But not one working the line at PDK. They just get too much traffic there for it to be missed.

Sure, anything is possible. But I would suspect engine trouble before a fueling error. If it had been a PA46, I would suspect a fuel screwup. But not with a Lance.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I find it hard to believe that an airport as busy as PDK would not have the Hoover duckbill on the Jet truck. Maybe somewhere in East Bumblescrew, but not there. Can I imagine a fueler dumb enough to try to jam one into an obviously-incompatible 100LL port? Yes. But not one working the line at PDK. They just get too much traffic there for it to be missed.

Sure, anything is possible. But I would suspect engine trouble before a fueling error. If it had been a PA46, I would suspect a fuel screwup. But not with a Lance.
Click to expand...

Is it possible to load the wrong product into the fuel truck?
 
I don't usually post in these discussions but decided to tonight. I started in GA and then went to military flying. I've since added GA back into my game.

One thing that keeps coming to mind for me is the discipline to safe operations that the military has instilled in me. I'm not saying this could not have happened to me.

I have added a 'post-mx' check flight profile to my GA ops and have yet (in GA) to either not perform or not supervise the refueling of my aircraft.

In the beginning, I called it procedure. Now, I look back and call it controlling the things that can kill me.

So far, that discipline had worked for me, and I don't imply the mishap pilot did not do those things. Instead, I hope that I never lose that discipline and continue to improve it.

One thing that comes to mind in this scenario, for me, is get-there-itis. Potentially recent mx, deadline to get there, availability of aircraft. What was the alternative if they stepped to the plane at origin and it failed to start?

Those are the type of questions we asked in military flying. I hope to continue that discipline in my GA flying.
 
Last edited:
I attended a fly-in at KDOV a week ago, and the MACA safety presentation from the base's air safety officer started out by saying that if we wanted to be 100% safe in aviation, we wouldn't have gotten out of bed that morning. I think all pilots know and accept that fact, that the best we can do is minimize the risks, but the risk inherent in taking a man-made machine up into the air will always be there.

It is always shocking and tragic when any loss of life occurs due to an aviation accident, but I'm willing to take that risk myself, and always try to matter-of-factly explain to my pax that they too must accept that risk (if they want to fly), even though I have done everything in my power to minimize it.
 
I'd be surprised if it was mx-related. This was the second leg that day. Something done wrong would show up on the first flight, unless cylinder bolts had been tightened but not torqued, and needed time to vibrate loose.

But we only have a secondhand report of recent engine work. I'm very careful and preflight thoroughly after work, but the extra care has only been on the first flight, not the second. The implication that maintenance caused engine trouble on the second flight after a presumably normal first flight is troubling . . .
 
Hank S said:
I'd be surprised if it was mx-related. This was the second leg that day. Something done wrong would show up on the first flight, unless cylinder bolts had been tightened but not torqued, and needed time to vibrate loose.
Click to expand...
Not always. It could be any number of things. Could be a maintenance issue unrelated to the recent work. Or could have been something wasn't properly tightened and worked itself loose during the first flight of the day.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Not always. It could be any number of things. Could be a maintenance issue unrelated to the recent work. Or could have been something wasn't properly tightened and worked itself loose during the first flight of the day.
Click to expand...


That is a real possibility...:yes::yes:
 
I'm new to GA so this may be a silly question, but couldn't/shouldn't there be some sort of emergency landing areas designated to every airport in a congested location such as this? Sort of like the emergency truck ramps on steep mountain roads. And have those areas defined on the sectional. I guess nobody would want to give up(or pay for) any land for such a use. (and there may not be a logical location to place such a thing).
 
jimbilly said:
I'm new to GA so this may be a silly question, but couldn't/shouldn't there be some sort of emergency landing areas designated to every airport in a congested location such as this? Sort of like the emergency truck ramps on steep mountain roads. And have those areas defined on the sectional. I guess nobody would want to give up(or pay for) any land for such a use. (and there may not be a logical location to place such a thing).
Click to expand...

Two points:

1) Every takeoff and climb out is different, even with the same airplane. You aren't always in the same place at similar points in a flight to take advantage of a "designated" emergency landing.

2) Where are you going to put 2000+ feet of open space to land an airplane in a dense urban environment? That's pretty much another airport, and then you have to refer back to point #1.
 
So one thing thrown out that I agree with is climbing in the pattern. My CFI had me do that. Climb to 4500 then depart.

How do you handle this at a towered field?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
So one thing thrown out that I agree with is climbing in the pattern. My CFI had me do that. Climb to 4500 then depart.

How do you handle this at a towered field?
Click to expand...
Is it practical to do this on every climbout? No.

I'm interested in this discussion, but I wonder if we just accept that there is a zone where our options are limited to a "best we can do" return to Earth.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
So one thing thrown out that I agree with is climbing in the pattern. My CFI had me do that. Climb to 4500 then depart.

How do you handle this at a towered field?
Click to expand...

Bryan - you have a chute in your Cirrus. You really only need to be at 500 AGL to have the option of using the chute. You'll reach 500 before you would make you crosswind turn anyway.

My procedure on takeoff is to note what 500 AGL is in MSL, make a plan for a straight in landing into the best, softest stuff I can find for 0 to 500 AGL, upon reaching 500 AGL call CAPS alive. From 500 AGL to 1500 AGL if the engine dies, I pull with no delay. Above 1500 AGL I troubleshoot and come up with a plan. It's a three phase process where I've pre-determined my actions ahead of time and I play it as if the engine IS going to fail, I just don't know when.
 
RudyP said:
Bryan - you have a chute in your Cirrus. You really only need to be at 500 AGL to have the option of using the chute. You'll reach 500 before you would make you crosswind turn anyway.

My procedure on takeoff is to note what 500 AGL is in MSL, make a plan for a straight in landing into the best, softest stuff I can fine until I get there and at 500 AGL, call CAPS alive. From 500 AGL to 1500 AGL if the engine dies, I pull. Above 1500 AGL I troubleshoot and come up with a plan. It's a three phase process where I've pre-determined my actions ahead of time and I play it as if the engine IS going to fail, I just don't know when.
Click to expand...

True. Last night w/ me, dad and 82 gallons we were doing 1500 FMP so in 20 seconds we were clear.

But soon I will hopefully have my own significantly less glamorous plane
When that time comes, I have to consider other options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top