8/24 PAO fuel emergency ATC

ChasenSFO

ChasenSFO

hen teaser

A friend of mine e-mailed me the full LiveATC.net archive for PAO tower containing this event, so I trimmed it up and made this video to share it. Very interesting that the pilot doesn't admit to a fuel emergency until well into his conversation with PAO, and even then sounded almost reluctant. I compressed this file, almost 2 minutes had passed in real time before the fuel problem was brought to light. Yet, from the rest of the clip, one can gather how serious this fuel emergency really was. Great job by PAO tower getting the pilot into SQL instead and working with their tower to keep the pilot on his frequency. Also good to hear another pilot giving the obviously unfamiliar emergency airplane advice for an off-field landing.

I wonder if a 709 ride may be in the future...sure it could have been mechanical issues leading to the low fuel situation, but one has to question the pilots hesitance to state his situation.
 
Last edited:
Not that I haven't had moments like that in my illustrious career, but it certainly is a reminder of how casually (assuming no mechanical fault) we can take flying.

Also, who is flying around the bay area in a modern airplane with no GPS? He didn't have GPS right? Cuz he sounded pretty lost.
 
Very good job by ATC. Clear, not too speedy, short, precise instructions. Had him remain under his control the entire time and help keep him from becoming even more panicked. Kept reinforcing to the pilot that he was there with him and updating his position. Very important psychologically. Kept the pilot more focused. Good job. How soon many forget, until things go tits up, just how damn good these guys are and how desperately we need their help when they do.

Man, the pilot just sounded out to lunch. Sounded like he didn't know what the hell he was doing. Be interesting if there is some follow up that will be revealed.
 
Last edited:
Why do people like to stretch it on fuel? What would happen if he would have had to go around? I always land with an hour of fuel in my tanks, honestly I start looking for a stop with about an hour and a half left.
 
MikeOH58 said:
"Unknown Pilot" was annoying!
Click to expand...
It was useful information, the area around where this happened is mostly hills, buildings, and marshland. That info could have really narrowed down the vision of the panicking pilot on a specific area to put the plane down if it came to it.
 
escapepilot said:
So...he didn't have fuel, then he has fuel once he sees San Carlos???
Click to expand...
Since he said right wing, maybe he had the fuel selector on left and that was running dry, then noticed the right tank had fuel? I don't know if there is a "both" setting on that plane or not, but I was wondering the same thing.
 
m77y said:
Why do people like to stretch it on fuel? What would happen if he would have had to go around? I always land with an hour of fuel in my tanks, honestly I start looking for a stop with about an hour and a half left.
Click to expand...

Complacency? And you'll get to a point where landing with an hour of fuel in your tanks will be detrimental to your job most likely.
 
escapepilot said:
So...he didn't have fuel, then he has fuel once he sees San Carlos???
Click to expand...

ChasenSFO said:
Since he said right wing, maybe he had the fuel selector on left and that was running dry, then noticed the right tank had fuel? I don't know if there is a "both" setting on that plane or not, but I was wondering the same thing.
Click to expand...

Willing to bet he had already run one tank dry. And the other was nearly there.
 
If I remember correctly, the Flight Design CT burns about 3-4 gph. The fuel gauges are inside the top of the cockpit at the wing spars. They're basically clear tubes with markings next to it. So an hour of fuel would show ~2 gallons per side which barely registers on the tube. If you bank one way or the other the fuel readings can be inaccurate. That plane can easily cause a pucker factor if fuel is not managed/monitored properly.
 
Binet-Simon said:
If I remember correctly, the Flight Design CT burns about 3-4 gph. The fuel gauges are inside the top of the cockpit at the wing spars. They're basically clear tubes with markings next to it. So an hour of fuel would show ~2 gallons per side which barely registers on the tube. If you bank one way or the other the fuel readings can be inaccurate. That plane can easily cause a pucker factor if fuel is not managed/monitored properly.
Click to expand...

Wait what? I know that the FARs basically state that the purpose of a fuel gave is to essentially tell the PIC they have no fuel. And I know that thou shalt not trust fuel remaining solely by a fuel gauge. But that design seems like it's poorly executed.

Hopefully I'm picturing this wrong. But that design screams potential lawsuit.
 
Whatusername said:
Wait what? I know that the FARs basically state that the purpose of a fuel gave is to essentially tell the PIC they have no fuel. And I know that thou shalt not trust fuel remaining solely by a fuel gauge. But that design seems like it's poorly executed.

Hopefully I'm picturing this wrong. But that design screams potential lawsuit.
Click to expand...

A sight gauge, is probably the simplest, most accurate fuel gauge for a piston airplane. And a CTSW might burn as much as 5.5gph, depending on throttle settings.
 
Here are the best pics I could find
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    193.2 KB · Views: 135
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    71.9 KB · Views: 133
ChasenSFO said:
You'd think with all that glass on the panel, you could get a pretty idea of where to look out the window and see the runway.
Click to expand...

Yeah but throw in a bit of haze, strange lighting (not sure of time of day), amateurish paranoia about busting class B and that dry feeling in your mouth when you know you have really •ed up - well it all goes pear shaped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top