CFI (MEI) mishap

gtpilot

gtpilot

Well-Known Member
I have a buddy who has had the following happen:

He was on a long xc with a student in a Seminole and on the return trip one engine ran out of fuel. The school he works for immediately fired him and said if he went quietly they would not take any further action. Because he was well liked, over half of his students left the school too and the school is now threatening to end his career. We just can't figure out how they can end his career or what action the FAA might take.

Here are the details as I know them - The CFI says that they were 4 hrs into the flight and less than 50NM from the destination on a VFR flight. The trip was around 480 NM total and the CFI says it was not run at full throttle. When the engine quit, both the CFI and the student observed a reading just under 10 gallons on both fuel gages. They landed and found the one side dry and the other side seemed to have fuel. They refueled and returned home and the CFI reported the problem to the school as a faulty fuel gage and a potential fuel leak.

My friend feels he had some responsibility in the incident but does not know what action the FAA can take against him if they determine him fully responsible. Any thoughts?
 
Would his filing of a NASA report protect him from certificate action, or would this not even apply in this case because a deviation from the rules did not occur? Either way he should write one up and mail it out in today's mail.
 
As long as he planned to have his FAA reserve he did nothing illegal. Further by the fact nothing got bent and no one got hurt I dont see what the FAA could do even if the school pressed the issue. The school is just being a bunch of pricks because they CAN be. They seem pretty quick to disbelieve the CFI over a maintenance issue (like its a cover up).

If hes not a member tell him to pay the $39 and join AOPA and then tell him to call AOPA legal department (and if need be by their coverage plan) and see if they can write a letter to the school on his behalf and put the fear of god into them.
 
If he is a member of AOPA, he can seek free legal advice from their website. That and filling out a NASA form would be one of the first things that I do.
 
If I were him, not only would I take my students and go elsewhere, I'd threaten to tell the world that the school overlooks possible MX issues!
 
[ QUOTE ]
As long as he planned to have his FAA reserve he did nothing illegal. Further by the fact nothing got bent and no one got hurt I dont see what the FAA could do even if the school pressed the issue. The school is just being a bunch of pricks because they CAN be. They seem pretty quick to disbelieve the CFI over a maintenance issue (like its a cover up).



[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.
 
Assuming he calculated the performance correctly and leaned properly, I don't see how he could get in trouble. You never rely on the fuel gagues, but they are required to read accuratly when the tank is empty. If it was out and read 10 gal, that's a Mx issue. He could threaten suit against the flight school for improper Mx of the a/c. That threat alone would probably get them to change their mind about what they want to do with your friend's career.
 
[ QUOTE ]
they are required to read accuratly when the tank is empty.

[/ QUOTE ]

common misconception. They are callibrated when the tank is empty but required to read accurately all the time. If I was the cfi I would threaten legal action against the school for shoddy maintainence, and I would cite other problems encountered during my time there. It's a bad situation but if they want to play the game I'm sure your friend can find some dirt to spit back at them (to get them to leave your friend alone).
 
If I were this MEI, I would be extremely careful about playing the maintenance "blame game" - if the FAA starts investigating the flight school and finds a bunch of maintenance problems, then they're going to come down on both the flight school AND the people who have flown the aircraft (including the CFI).

A similar incident happened at a flight school where I was working. After reviewing the maintenance records, the FAA fined the flight school $15,000, then suspended the owner's CFI certificate for 90 days. Most of the pilots and flight instructors received warning letters.

My personal opinion on this (and I'll probably get flamed for it) is that your buddy ran out of fuel due to poor flight planning. Flying a Seminole for four hours (plus) without refueling is a bit of a stretch. With respect to fuel planning, there's three things you really can't rely on:

(1) The published fuel capacity of the airplane. Depending on how the airplane is parked (level versus non-level surface) and the nose strut extension, the airplane may or may not contain the specified amout of fuel, even though the tanks appear to be full. This is a BIG problem on most of the Cessna 210's, for example.

(2) The published fuel burn. The figures published in the Aircraft Flight Manual are wildly optimistic. Even with proper leaning, you're still probably going to be 20% (or more) off.

(3) Fuel gauges.

If I were this MEI, I'd send in the NASA form ASAP and try to learn from this experience, not blame the flight school (note to CFI's: this is called RATIONALIZATION). Since the situation ended without any bent metal, I suspect nothing will come of it with respect to the FAA.

Best of luck,
E. Roberts, CFI
 
[ QUOTE ]



(2) The published fuel burn. The figures published in the Aircraft Flight Manual are wildly optimistic. Even with proper leaning, you're still probably going to be 20% (or more) off.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true, and you can't even count on the usual fuel burn under similar conditions. My father used to tow banners for fun when he wasn't on one of his trips in an L-19 Birddog. The engine had undergone some major maintenance about 5 tach hours before (I'm not sure exactly what). Due to useless fuel guages (see #1 in the previous post), you had to base the endurance on fuel burn. Well, for some reason it was burning about 25% more than the usual burn and he ran out of fuel a few miles from the airport, at low altitude carrying a banner. He ended up on a hillside with the plane destroyed, and thousands of dollars in dental work to be done from his face hitting the control stick. This from someone with 20,000+ hours and many hours in the Birddog from Vietnam.

The moral to the story is that you cannot count on the rate of fuel burn so leave a lot of extra reserve, not just the FAA minimum.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[common misconception. They are callibrated when the tank is empty but required to read accurately all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't necessarily disagree, but can you please cite a source? We have an FAA Examiner down here telling kids this misconception and I'd like to know where to find such info (I'd like my students to have accurate information).
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[common misconception. They are calibrated when the tank is empty but required to read accurately all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't necessarily disagree, but can you please cite a source? We have an FAA Examiner down here telling kids this misconception and I'd like to know where to find such info (I'd like my students to have accurate information).

[/ QUOTE ]FAR 23.1337:

==============================
(b) Fuel quantity indication. There must be a means to indicate to the flightcrew members the quantity of usable fuel in each tank during flight. An indicator calibrated in appropriate units and clearly marked to indicate those units must be used. In addition:
(1) Each fuel quantity indicator must be calibrated to read "zero" during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply determined under § 23.959(a);
==============================

The "read zero" par is that the gauges are set up to indicate zero, not when the tanks are empty, but when they have no usable fuel.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[common misconception. They are calibrated when the tank is empty but required to read accurately all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't necessarily disagree, but can you please cite a source? We have an FAA Examiner down here telling kids this misconception and I'd like to know where to find such info (I'd like my students to have accurate information).

[/ QUOTE ]FAR 23.1337:

==============================
(b) Fuel quantity indication. There must be a means to indicate to the flightcrew members the quantity of usable fuel in each tank during flight. An indicator calibrated in appropriate units and clearly marked to indicate those units must be used. In addition:
(1) Each fuel quantity indicator must be calibrated to read "zero" during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply determined under § 23.959(a);
==============================

The "read zero" par is that the gauges are set up to indicate zero, not when the tanks are empty, but when they have no usable fuel.

[/ QUOTE ]

A nitpicker would say that the rule doesn't say anything about it being calibrated for anything but zero.
spin2.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FAR 23.1337:==============================
(b) Fuel quantity indication. There must be a means to indicate to the flightcrew members the quantity of usable fuel in each tank during flight. An indicator calibrated in appropriate units and clearly marked to indicate those units must be used. In addition:
(1) Each fuel quantity indicator must be calibrated to read "zero" during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply determined under § 23.959(a);
==============================

The "read zero" par is that the gauges are set up to indicate zero, not when the tanks are empty, but when they have no usable fuel.

[/ QUOTE ]

A nitpicker would say that the rule doesn't say anything about it being calibrated for anything but zero.
spin2.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I'm exhausted and it's getting late, but why does it sound like the opposite is true? ("There must be a means to indicate to the flightcrew members the quantity of usable fuel in each tank during flight.")
That makes it sound like this freakin' fuel gauge HAS to work. Or has lack of sleep finally caught up with my brain?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FAR 23.1337:==============================
(b) Fuel quantity indication. There must be a means to indicate to the flightcrew members the quantity of usable fuel in each tank during flight. An indicator calibrated in appropriate units and clearly marked to indicate those units must be used. In addition:
(1) Each fuel quantity indicator must be calibrated to read "zero" during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply determined under § 23.959(a);
==============================

The "read zero" par is that the gauges are set up to indicate zero, not when the tanks are empty, but when they have no usable fuel.

[/ QUOTE ]

A nitpicker would say that the rule doesn't say anything about it being calibrated for anything but zero.
spin2.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I'm exhausted and it's getting late, but why does it sound like the opposite is true? ("There must be a means to indicate to the flightcrew members the quantity of usable fuel in each tank during flight.")
That makes it sound like this freakin' fuel gauge HAS to work. Or has lack of sleep finally caught up with my brain?

[/ QUOTE ]

It says there must be means to indicate, it doesn't say that those means have to be accurate. It only says that those means have to be calibrated to zero correctly.
 
I think Mr. Fearless hits the issue on the head - when my friend related the issue to me, I told him it was BS and he basically took responsibility and said the he was PIC and the plane ran out of fuel, end of story. We don't know if it will help in this case but he did file an ASR with NASA shortly after it happened. He was originally going to file a report with the FAA too but AOPA's legal encouraged him not too.

Unfortunately, when I spoke to him this evening he had received a message from the FAA to call them about a complaint that had been filed late last week. The incident took place over a month ago now.

What's really sad is he's never said anything bad in my hearing about this school or the owners. I think they got upset because he was well liked and I've heard that most of his students left the school. To my knowledge, he encouraged anyone who called him to stay and work with another CFI at the school.

Guess we'll see how it works out!
 
I'm gonna call shenanigans, Fearless.

A Seminole has 108 gallons of gas, 106 of that is usable I believe. Flight planning 20 gallons per hour (10 per engine ) is more than conservative enough. I've never hit 20 an hour in a Seminole, more like 16. That's at full power at around 10,000' and 2,300' RPM. That gives you at least 4 hours with a one hour reserve (my personal minimum). I've done 4 hours legs in a Seminole before with no problems. In fact I've normally landed and had more than an hour left in the tanks (unless of course the meter for the gas pump is jacked in which case I wouldn't have a clue how much time I had left in the tanks).

Furthermore, the way the fuel system is setup each engine feeds off it's own tank, so unless you for some reason setup a crossfeed to run both engines off of one tank you have almost no possbility of a fuel imbalance. In other words, if you run one engine dry the second one should be pretty soon behind it.

One engine burning that much more gas than the other engine? What's wrong with the engine?

If I had a schol go after me like that, I'd sick the FAA on them pretty fast. If you're going to get taken down, they might as well come with you.

EDIT: One other note, I flight plan Seminoles at 130 knots on the ground, which is fairly conservative. At 480 miles that's only 3.7 hours. If he was still short of his destination by 50 miles, you're probably looking at 3.5 hours or under. Running a Seminole dry in 3.5 hours? Something is wrong.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, the way the fuel system is setup each engine feeds off it's own tank, so unless you for some reason setup a crossfeed to run both engines off of one tank you have almost no possbility of a fuel imbalance. In other words, if you run one engine dry the second one should be pretty soon behind it.

One engine burning that much more gas than the other engine? What's wrong with the engine?


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps they were running the heater. There's a way to get one tank lower than the other with everything else equal.
 
That might well be true, but the heater only adds what? 1.8 gallons per hour? Still no reason to run the tanks dry after 3.7 hours max.
 
[ QUOTE ]

A Seminole has 108 gallons of gas, 106 of that is usable I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's 110 total, 108 useable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top