Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Part 135
Cape Air glides into Naples >

Cape Air glides into Naples

Search
Notices
Part 135 Part 135 commercial operators

Cape Air glides into Naples

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-31-2009, 04:55 PM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: PA-31/left, LJ31/right
Posts: 350
Default

Originally Posted by FlyJSH View Post
Quite an attitude change since your first post....

At least we agree on something. I know my first post came off half cocked, and for that, I do deserve a slap on the wrist.
mshunter is offline  
Old 02-01-2009, 11:34 AM
  #42  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FlyingChipmunk's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: DA50EX
Posts: 240
Default NTSB Prelim

ERA09IA140
FlyingChipmunk is offline  
Old 02-01-2009, 12:56 PM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: PA-31/left, LJ31/right
Posts: 350
Default

Hmmmm. So it sounds like the pilot went from a tank he knew had fuel, to one that was suspect, because when he switched to a tank he knew had fuel, things started getting worse. Then when tested the airplane, it sounds as if they were able to get it to run with the fuel on board. And they found the selector valve in-between 2 settings. Some one smell an AD coming (as should have already been done due to experience from A&P's fighting this issue). But why were the investigators able to get in running w/out adding any fuel?

Still looking for some guidance on weather I should run for the hills or stand my ground. It sounds like the pilot did everything he should, but was it done properly? The investigators were able to get it running.
mshunter is offline  
Old 02-01-2009, 01:17 PM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 103
Default

Originally Posted by mshunter View Post
Hmmmm. So it sounds like the pilot went from a tank he knew had fuel, to one that was suspect, because when he switched to a tank he knew had fuel, things started getting worse. Then when tested the airplane, it sounds as if they were able to get it to run with the fuel on board. And they found the selector valve in-between 2 settings. Some one smell an AD coming (as should have already been done due to experience from A&P's fighting this issue). But why were the investigators able to get in running w/out adding any fuel?

Still looking for some guidance on weather I should run for the hills or stand my ground. It sounds like the pilot did everything he should, but was it done properly? The investigators were able to get it running.
Your persistence makes up for your lack of tactfulness. You sound like you're headhunting, go work for the feds.
We can read the preliminary without your Monday morning quarterbacking.
JUG47 is offline  
Old 02-01-2009, 01:37 PM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: PA-31/left, LJ31/right
Posts: 350
Default

Originally Posted by JUG47 View Post
Your persistence makes up for your lack of tactfulness. You sound like you're headhunting, go work for the feds.
We can read the preliminary without your Monday morning quarterbacking.

I am not head hunting. I am asking a serious question. I have no knowledge of the way the selector valves work in this airplane and am asking the serious question if it was the fuel valves or the pilot. It sounds like he tried his best to restore engine power, to no avail. So, should I be running for the hills with my tail between my legs? Why else would the fuel valves be taken by the investigators. Mabey I wasn't clear with my post. But it sounds like, and I hate to say it because of my first post, we should all be praising the pilot? Am I wrong? I am simply asking because I don't understand how the fuel system in the airplane works. PM me if you feel it necessary.
mshunter is offline  
Old 02-01-2009, 06:44 PM
  #46  
Tuk er jerbs!
 
NightIP's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: B747 Left
Posts: 1,342
Default

Originally Posted by mshunter View Post
Still looking for some guidance on weather I should run for the hills or stand my ground. It sounds like the pilot did everything he should, but was it done properly? The investigators were able to get it running.
If the report is accurate, the left fuel selector was pointed to draw from the left tank (tank-to-engine), but wasn't engaged into the detent. This means that it was still in the crossfeed position, with the left engine running off of the right tank. When the pilot moved the right fuel selector to the left tank (full of fuel), the right engine quit as well.

I believe, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't have two engines in crossfeed at one time. With the left engine already in crossfeed (with the pilot unaware), the right engine wouldn't accept a crossfeed to the left tank. I can't tell you why the engines started on the ground with the fuel in the tank, but these engines are very finicky. Perhaps they'd run while on a level ramp, but in the air in a nose-down pitch attitude they wouldn't. Nothing conclusive can be drawn from this yet.
NightIP is offline  
Old 02-01-2009, 07:09 PM
  #47  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: PA-31/left, LJ31/right
Posts: 350
Default

Originally Posted by NightIP View Post
If the report is accurate, the left fuel selector was pointed to draw from the left tank (tank-to-engine), but wasn't engaged into the detent. This means that it was still in the crossfeed position, with the left engine running off of the right tank. When the pilot moved the right fuel selector to the left tank (full of fuel), the right engine quit as well.

I believe, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't have two engines in crossfeed at one time. With the left engine already in crossfeed (with the pilot unaware), the right engine wouldn't accept a crossfeed to the left tank. I can't tell you why the engines started on the ground with the fuel in the tank, but these engines are very finicky. Perhaps they'd run while on a level ramp, but in the air in a nose-down pitch attitude they wouldn't. Nothing conclusive can be drawn from this yet.
Thank you for the clarification. Not quite time to run yet. But my gut tells me it's comming soon.
mshunter is offline  
Old 02-02-2009, 06:24 AM
  #48  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FlyingChipmunk's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: DA50EX
Posts: 240
Default

Originally Posted by NightIP View Post
If the report is accurate, the left fuel selector was pointed to draw from the left tank (tank-to-engine), but wasn't engaged into the detent. This means that it was still in the crossfeed position, with the left engine running off of the right tank. When the pilot moved the right fuel selector to the left tank (full of fuel), the right engine quit as well.

I believe, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't have two engines in crossfeed at one time. With the left engine already in crossfeed (with the pilot unaware), the right engine wouldn't accept a crossfeed to the left tank. I can't tell you why the engines started on the ground with the fuel in the tank, but these engines are very finicky. Perhaps they'd run while on a level ramp, but in the air in a nose-down pitch attitude they wouldn't. Nothing conclusive can be drawn from this yet.
Yup you are correct, when the left side was xfeeding from the right tank it cuts off supply from the left tank at the selector where the right xfeed line draws its fuel from. As far as starting on the ground who knows what they were able to do diffently.
FlyingChipmunk is offline  
Old 02-02-2009, 11:57 AM
  #49  
Day puke
 
FlyJSH's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
Default

Originally Posted by mshunter View Post
Hmmmm. So it sounds like the pilot went from a tank he knew had fuel, to one that was suspect, because when he switched to a tank he knew had fuel, things started getting worse. Then when tested the airplane, it sounds as if they were able to get it to run with the fuel on board. And they found the selector valve in-between 2 settings. Some one smell an AD coming (as should have already been done due to experience from A&P's fighting this issue). But why were the investigators able to get in running w/out adding any fuel?

Still looking for some guidance on weather I should run for the hills or stand my ground. It sounds like the pilot did everything he should, but was it done properly? The investigators were able to get it running.

Which A&P's are you referring to?

They were able to get the engines running because there was nothing wrong with the engines.

You really are beginning to sound like an ambulance chaser.

Lawyers make me nervous. Just the thought of a lawyer can make me break out in a cold sweat! I think I have PTSD!!! I AM GOING TO SUE!
FlyJSH is offline  
Old 02-02-2009, 03:06 PM
  #50  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: PA-31/left, LJ31/right
Posts: 350
Default

ARRGGGGHHHHH. I give up. unsubscribing. Never mind that I was here to gain some knowledge.
mshunter is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
freightdog
Regional
64
12-03-2009 02:17 PM
cencal83406
Regional
17
02-03-2009 07:19 PM
Ozpilot414
Regional
1
01-05-2009 12:37 PM
mregan
Regional
10
09-29-2008 12:25 PM
zephyr
Part 135
68
09-21-2008 12:03 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices