Would you have declared?

Seems like you handled the situation well and everything turned out fine. With that being the case, I think the most important question is: how did the tryouts go?
 
luvflyin said:
I don't know of any exact wording in "rules" about this but there is a good reason to include dead bodies. If there are 4 bodies in the plane and you say 3 souls on board you don't want them finding the other 3 and then saying "we found everyone" and quit looking. Relying on it being in the remarks may not save you when things are happening fast. I think the term "souls on board" is there for a good reason and it is meant to include souls on their way to wherever it is souls go.
Click to expand...


I understand what you are saying. I asked flight service several times while filing flight plans and they all said to not include dead bodies in the passenger count. I asked FSDO and our POI. All said not to include bodies.

I with ya, come up on a plane crash with one listed on board and find 5 bodies would really get everyone wondering what is going on..:lol::lol:
 
Zeldman said:
I understand what you are saying. I asked flight service several times while filing flight plans and they all said to not include dead bodies in the passenger count. I asked FSDO and our POI. All said not to include bodies.

I with ya, come up on a plane crash with one listed on board and find 5 bodies would really get everyone wondering what is going on..:lol::lol:
Click to expand...
I guess it's what they want for the flight plan. Most likely the bodies would be in bag or a box so I guess it wouldn't cause a problem. What's in the remarks tells the story and your covered for search and rescue operations because they'll know it before they even start the search.
 
Zeldman said:
I with ya, come up on a plane crash with one listed on board and find 5 bodies would really get everyone wondering what is going on..:lol::lol:
Click to expand...

There's an old joke about the Polish Air Force crashing in a cemetary... the investigators were up to 300 bodies and still counting...

LOL.

And always load bodies with their heads, forward.
 
Lindberg said:
Because I'm unfamiliar with the area, I went and looked at the map. From Travis to SJC would take you through the SFO B on an unknown route at unknown altitude (NORDO and no Mode C), and into the SJC with possibly no ability to turn your radio and transponder back on when you got there, and the possibility of an escalating situation on board. I'd assume that to allow that, ATC would have to clear out a whole block of airspace along your potential route, along with runways at SJC.

I'm naive to the ways of IFR, flying in congested airspace, and Bs and Cs, so I'm genuinely curious if ATC would accommodate such a request if they didn't consider it an emergency.
Click to expand...

The standard VFR route from the Travis area to SJC is via Concord (CCR) and then following I-680 down to San Jose. The route is all below the SFO Bravo, and can be flown without talking to ATC at all until you hit the SJC Charlie surface area. The only accommodation ATC made was okaying going into the Mode-C veil.

I had a transponder failure one time while flying the SF Bay Tour. Norcal let me finish my tour and return to Palo Alto through the SFO Bravo surface area without issue. They just had me report my altitude each time I switched controllers. They were able to track my primary target well enough that they gave me normal traffic advisories.
 
clear_prop said:
The standard VFR route from the Travis area to SJC is via Concord (CCR) and then following I-680 down to San Jose. The route is all below the SFO Bravo, and can be flown without talking to ATC at all until you hit the SJC Charlie surface area. The only accommodation ATC made was okaying going into the Mode-C veil.
Click to expand...
Well, we don't know what route he took, but if I was a controller, I'd assume direct considering he's dealing with complete electrical failure. But still seems like a pretty big accommodation, considering no Mode C and no radio for self reporting. And no idea what's going to happen next.

I had a transponder failure one time while flying the SF Bay Tour. Norcal let me finish my tour and return to Palo Alto through the SFO Bravo surface area without issue. They just had me report my altitude each time I switched controllers. They were able to track my primary target well enough that they gave me normal traffic advisories.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I called for FF once from within the veil but under the outer shelf of B. I did not know that mode c wasn't working. Approach gave me flight following and then "suggested" headings that took me straight out from under the shelf.

I wonder what controllers do when they have a primary-only return within the outer ring.
 
Lindberg said:
I wonder what controllers do when they have a primary-only return within the outer ring.
Click to expand...

I know that in a one case they asked nearby folks they were talking to if they could identify. Unfortunately all I could say was that the traffic was a high wing. The traffic was so far away I couldn't even tell color much less read a registration. That was traffic in the Bravo. I've also been asked to identify traffic they had mode C on but weren't talking to. That was sort of weird because ATC had me repeat the type ID. It was a skycrane way down low and moving relatively fast.
 
denverpilot said:
Well... In this particular case, you said the voltage regulator had tripped the alternator out of the circuit. Then you pulled the breaker for the alternator and it smoked. I'm not quite sure where the current was coming from to even go through that breaker if the alternator wasn't online. (e.g. Your alternator relay has dumped the field current.)

That's why I'm curious what the failure mode was.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised it took 75 posts to ask this question. How did the breaker "smoke" when PULLED?
 
This is a great thread in several ways -- but most striking (to me) is the number of people who have experienced charging system failures in airplanes.

Personally, I have experienced two complete electrical system failures in rental planes (one at night, flying into MSP -- totally un-fun). In our current plane (a homebuilt Vans RV-8A) I chased charging system problems for two years, replacing every single component of the automotive system to no avail. I only resolved the issue by installing a Plane Power aircraft charging system.

Frankly, I don't know any long-term aircraft owner who hasn't had this type of problem.

BTW: Good job, OP!
 
Jay Honeck said:
This is a great thread in several ways -- but most striking (to me) is the number of people who have experienced charging system failures in airplanes.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised. Most of us (perhaps you now excluded) are flying 40 year old aircraft with electrical systems that weren't particularly stellar examples of the best electrical engineering of their day, when they were new.

My alternator is a freaking Ford part you could buy at NAPA for $60 in today's dollars if it weren't for the FAA stamp on the case. Turned by a belt. I'm amazed the silly things last as long as they do.

The old mechanical voltage regulators by today's standards are a complete joke, but at least in that department there's some decently built and STC'd solid state ones, which we do have on our aircraft after dealing with months of screwing around with a different one a number of years ago.

The breakers that were stock on Cessnas... I don't even want to talk about those. I'll start ranting. I'm sure they were lovely in 1975.

And Cessna had a recall on the split master switch for our airplane... the internal guts of that thing are only slightly better quality than some of the switches I buy from China direct shipped to my door for hobby electronics projects. Complete crap by today's standards.

That said, the components do seem to mostly have survived 40 years, which after you see their guts is somewhat amazing. The gauge lighting on my Cessna is worse quality than most strings of modern Christmas tree lights. LOL.

After becoming an owner and having done a lot of data center and telecom central office power distribution wiring, looking behind the panel at my 182 and what Cessna used for a bus bar and connectors, just makes me want to hurl.

The quest for weight savings is part of it, but man, aircraft wiring jobs look like a dog's breakfast to me. I'd have been literally yelled at if any of my work looked like the crap I've seen behind aircraft panels.

SOME avionics folk take pride in a well done wiring harness, and it shows. But it's not the norm in older aircraft. We had one avionics shop yank an additional two POUNDS of crap from behind our panel when they removed the ADF and antennas that was NOT associated with the ADF. When I saw the pile of hack jobbed cables on the bench afterward, I had to remain calm... again, do that in a professional electrical job, and you'd be shown the door. SOMEONE did that to our airplane sometime in the 90s. And the owner at the time thought they did a good job.

You know, because if all the radios work, who ever looks behind there?

Made me mad, but at least we got it all out of the airplane.

Even the coax for the radios is crap. Talking with a very good avionics guy recently about coax for the higher frequency stuff and what Garmin and FAA want to see installed in airplanes, just made me shake my head. There's so much better low loss stuff out there these days. But a lot of it is encased in plastics that would be Bad News(TM) for giving off toxic smoke if they were ever on fire.

So you'd have to find the appropriately jacketed and cored stuff for an aircraft, and the good stuff would be many many dollars per foot... so aircraft have gone the way of "good enough for short cable runs" and the happy feeling the cable won't poison you (as much) if it's on fire.

The "high quality" stuff the avionics guy said he needs to use to replace the transponder coax and to run the GPS antenna to the top of the wing with, is crap coax in my world... but it's not so high loss at those short distances to cause any problems with either dumping 250W into it from the Transponder, or receiving flea fart GPS signals reliably in attenuated (read: IMC weather) conditions.

At least the FAA lets him use high quality connectors. And he uses them.

Airplane wiring. Bah. If I were made of money, and we were doing a complete panel overhaul, I'd happily tell the avionics shop to rip it all out and do it right. Problem is, that would NOT be cheap in the FAA world.

I've seen some gorgeous work on homebuilts. Definitely not all of them, but some.
 
denverpilot said:
SOME avionics folk take pride in a well done wiring harness, and it shows. But it's not the norm in older aircraft. We had one avionics shop yank an additional two POUNDS of crap from behind our panel

You know, because if all the radios work, who ever looks behind there?
Click to expand...

This.

When our club's Arrow got a 430W and new transponder, the avionics tech shared with me a similar story. Several pounds of excess and unnecessary wiring were removed. In some places, six feet of wire had been used to make connections that were only a foot or so apart.

But the worst was that over the years, a lot of that wiring had come to rest on the yoke tubes, and the tubes had worn through the insulation in several places. There were little micro burn marks all over that wiring and all up and down the tubes. If you haven't looked lately, take a good look back there.
 
WillFly4Food said:
This.

When our club's Arrow got a 430W and new transponder, the avionics tech shared with me a similar story. Several pounds of excess and unnecessary wiring were removed. In some places, six feet of wire had been used to make connections that were only a foot or so apart.

But the worst was that over the years, a lot of that wiring had come to rest on the yoke tubes, and the tubes had worn through the insulation in several places. There were little micro burn marks all over that wiring and all up and down the tubes. If you haven't looked lately, take a good look back there.
Click to expand...
Wiring resting on yoke tubes is one problem, wiring zip ties on the fuel line to the fuel flow gauge is another.
 
denverpilot said:
My alternator is a freaking Ford part you could buy at NAPA for $60 in today's dollars if it weren't for the FAA stamp on the case. Turned by a belt. I'm amazed the silly things last as long as they do.
Click to expand...
Ha! I had a voltage regulator malfunction and pop its circuit breaker in a puff of smoke too. This was in a Turbo 206. I was in a remote area of Wyoming (most areas in Wyoming are remote), and I flew to a nearby airport. The mechanic suggested that one option would be to go to a Ford dealer in town and buy an alternator. He said he would let me use his tools to install it, LOL. Instead, I called my boss and he had one overnighted from Casper.
 
I appreciate all of the feedback and replies. A couple of clarifications and comments:

  • Not sure why people suggested going to Concord (KCCR) instead of San Jose. Concord is also within SFO's mode C veil, and it also has a tower. The same issues wrt transponder and radio communications apply. Concord was not on my direct route from where the alternator failed to San Jose, and at 160knots, the difference in flight time between San Jose and Concord was only about 5-6 minutes.
  • I was never in the Class B airspace. In fact, until reaching San Jose's Class C, I was in Class E airspace all the way. After canceling IFR, I really didn't have to talk to anyone until reaching San Jose, and I doubt that NorCal had to move any traffic out of my way. See and Avoid certainly applied.
  • It is possible that there was a little bit of get-there-itis applying. My first inclination was to land immediately at Yolo Co (KDWA), or University (KEDU), but after making sure that the puff of smoke which came from the breaker (The master was on when the breaker was pulled) wasn't followed by anything else, I decided that I might as well get home as land elsewhere. There were a fair number of airports available near my return route in case things changed. You can be sure, however, that I was constantly monitoring the panel and checking for further smoke. Any additional smoke would have resulted in an immediate landing.
  • One thing that NorCal kinda let me down on was that they told me they would notify San Jose that I would be coming in with an alternator problem. Although NorCal did clear me into the mode C veil without a transponder, they didn't contact San Jose. In my initial call up to San Jose I told them who I was, where I was, and that I had an alternator failure and would like to turn off my radio and transponder to save battery juice after they cleared me to land. I also said that NorCal had told me that they would alert San Jose that I was coming. San Jose tower told me that NorCal had not alerted them to the situation at all. Oh well.
  • For those who asked about the tryouts. My son did not make the team. He's a winger. 5 of the 8 winger slots were already filled by returning or drafted players. There were 28 wingers trying out for the remaining 3 spots, so the odds weren't good. He already had a commitment to play for an EHL team next year in New England, so it's all good for him anyway.
  • I dropped the plane off at LAC last Friday. I'm going to give them a call today to check the status.
  • In my plane, the voltage regulator regulates the field coil to ground. The closer the regulated terminal is to ground potential, the higher the output voltage of the alternator is. Since the overvoltage relay kept tripping, I can think of only a few causes of the problem:
  1. The overvoltage relay is bad and was falsely tripping.
  2. The voltage regulator is bad and was shorting the field to ground.
  3. The alternator itself was bad and was internally shorting the field to ground. I Had the same issue last year with a previous alternator. It turned out to be a rotating short in which the field coil wires expanded towards the case during operation due to the centripetal acceleration and shorted out to the case, causing the alternator to produce max voltage. I'm wondering if the new alternator had a similar issue. According to the mechanic who fixed the issue last year, the factory had/has some quality control issues and had produced a bad batch of these things. At least it should still be under warranty.
  4. Clearly the main breaker needs to be replaced since it smoked when pulled. Not sure how the main breaker could be the root cause of the issue, however.

Again, thanks for all the replies.
 
People told you to go to CCR because you said you were at Travis. CCR is a VERY short flight from Travis, nowhere near as long as SJC.

Now it seems you were a bit further than that. But if you really flew direct from EDU to SJC, you flew right over CCR, and it was a lot more than 5-6 minutes difference.
 
Reading stories like this always makes me glad for the Johnson bar gear and hydraulic flaps in my aircraft. In a complete electrical failure I can land normally minus all the yakking on the radio.
That said, good on the OP for keeping a cool head and landing safely.
 
MAKG1 said:
People told you to go to CCR because you said you were at Travis. CCR is a VERY short flight from Travis, nowhere near as long as SJC.

Now it seems you were a bit further than that. But if you really flew direct from EDU to SJC, you flew right over CCR, and it was a lot more than 5-6 minutes difference.
Click to expand...

From the alternator failure point I went to the Sunol pass and then to SJC. Did not fly over Concord. I just flight planned both routes. You're right, it wasn't 5-6 minutes difference, it was 8. Not really a big difference, and since I would have to deal with the Mode C veil and communications issues at both airports, Concord didn't really (and still doesn't) seem like a good option either way. If there were more going on than a failed alternator which meant I needed to get down right the heck now, then I would have landed at KDWA, which was pretty much right under me when the incident happened. Since that wasn't the case, no reason to go to Concord instead of San Jose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
jimhorner said:
From the alternator failure point I went to the Sunol pass and then to SJC. Did not fly over Concord. I just flight planned both routes. You're right, it wasn't 5-6 minutes difference, it was 8. Not really a big difference, and since I would have to deal with the Mode C veil and communications issues at both airports, Concord didn't really (and still doesn't) seem like a good option either way. If there were more going on than a failed alternator which meant I needed to get down right the heck now, then I would have landed at KDWA, which was pretty much right under me when the incident happened. Since that wasn't the case, no reason to go to Concord instead of San Jose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What kind of jet are you flying? Just SUNOL to SJC is 16 miles, which accounts for all your 8 minutes if you land at cruise speed. CCR was 37 miles from where you really had your problem (but only 15 from where you said initially), and SJC was 75 miles. You can fly 38 miles in 8 minutes? That's 285 knots. You're not allowed to exceed 200 KIAS below Class B.

You had smoke in the cockpit. It WAS more than a failed alternator.

The mode C veil is not the issue. You had an emergency and flew on. Note that 91.3 lets you bust the mode C rule if it's necessary.

If you really flew the route you said, you might not have overflown CCR, but you flew right over Mt. Diablo, which is well within gliding distance from altitudes high enough to clear the peak, and damn close to Livermore. If you really were closer to Yolo at the time, that may have made more sense (depending on altitude), or perhaps Davis or Sac International. But flying near at least four usable airports just to get home was not prudent at all. You could even have landed at Travis.

Now, I'm glad you made it back, but please don't do that again. I don't want to get called out to look for your crispy corpse, especially with the family aboard. I've been doing enough of that lately, for people who underestimated their situation and lost the gamble.
 
steingar said:
Reading stories like this always makes me glad for the Johnson bar gear and hydraulic flaps in my aircraft. In a complete electrical failure I can land normally minus all the yakking on the radio.
That said, good on the OP for keeping a cool head and landing safely.
Click to expand...
Well, the flaps are electric in my Cardinal, but the gear would not be a problem in case of electrical failure, since there is a (hydraulic) emergency extension mechanism that works really well. Its only weakness is that it IS hydraulic, and thus fails in case of a total hydraulic fluid leak. But it is definitely a workable option in case of electrical system failure.

Flaps are optional anyway, but I would put in at least approach flaps early on if I had an alternator failure, so the landing would be fairly easy.
 
azure said:
Well, the flaps are electric in my Cardinal, but the gear would not be a problem in case of electrical failure, since there is a (hydraulic) emergency extension mechanism that works really well. Its only weakness is that it IS hydraulic, and thus fails in case of a total hydraulic fluid leak. But it is definitely a workable option in case of electrical system failure.

Flaps are optional anyway, but I would put in at least approach flaps early on if I had an alternator failure, so the landing would be fairly easy.
Click to expand...

Flaps are fairly likely to finish off your battery; they draw a lot of current. I'd pick a long runway and land without, or maybe extend them to max takeoff on final. No longer because they might not retract again in the event of a go-around. And extend gear with the hand pump if applicable. Electric motors and radio transmission are your big energy drains.

But in the situation given, where a CB has smoked, I'm not using electrical for anything. Master off, period. Land at nearest suitable airport. Use a handheld to declare an emergency if possible.
 
MAKG1 said:
Flaps are fairly likely to finish off your battery; they draw a lot of current. I'd pick a long runway and land without, or maybe extend them to max takeoff on final. No longer because they might not retract again in the event of a go-around. And extend gear with the hand pump if applicable. Electric motors and radio transmission are your big energy drains.
Click to expand...
Yep, but approach flaps (10*) runs the motor for all of 2 seconds. Not a huge drain. And it slows me down so that I can more easily lower the gear without distracting maneuvers, and makes me more stable.
But in the situation given, where a CB has smoked, I'm not using electrical for anything. Master off, period. Land at nearest suitable airport. Use a handheld to declare an emergency if possible.
Click to expand...
No argument there. To be honest I would probably have done what the OP did, due to get-there-itis, but the safest course would be to shut the master off immediately. No flaps, manual gear extension only. I was addressing the generic alternator failure case, not the OP's situation where there has been smoke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top