Single pilot IFR, widespread fog, low fuel, do you bust MDA/DH?

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I'll admit I've never actually looked this up, but it's my understanding is that they only have to be accurate when the tanks are empty and indicate that. I'll look for myself though, thanks for pointing this out.

Nope, common misconception. The gauges are required to be accurate in the air, and they (or another system) must be accurate to determine quantity on the ground. If they aren't, then they need to be repaired. Here's the applicable section from Part 23.1337 (emphasis added):

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) ;
(2) Each exposed sight gauge used as a fuel quantity indicator must be protected against damage;
(3) Each sight gauge that forms a trap in which water can collect and freeze must have means to allow drainage on the ground;
(4) There must be a means to indicate the amount of usable fuel in each tank when the airplane is on the ground (such as by a stick gauge);
(5) Tanks with interconnected outlets and airspaces may be considered as one tank and need not have separate indicators; and
(6) No fuel quantity indicator is required for an auxiliary tank that is used only to transfer fuel to other tanks if the relative size of the tank, the rate of fuel transfer, and operating instructions are adequate to—
(i) Guard against overflow; and
(ii) Give the flight crewmembers prompt warning if transfer is not proceeding as planned.

 

[Blackhawk]

Nope, common misconception. The gauges are required to be accurate in the air, and they (or another system) must be accurate to determine quantity on the ground. If they aren't, then they need to be repaired. Here's the applicable section from Part 23.1337 (emphasis added):

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) ;
(2) Each exposed sight gauge used as a fuel quantity indicator must be protected against damage;
(3) Each sight gauge that forms a trap in which water can collect and freeze must have means to allow drainage on the ground;
(4) There must be a means to indicate the amount of usable fuel in each tank when the airplane is on the ground (such as by a stick gauge);
(5) Tanks with interconnected outlets and airspaces may be considered as one tank and need not have separate indicators; and
(6) No fuel quantity indicator is required for an auxiliary tank that is used only to transfer fuel to other tanks if the relative size of the tank, the rate of fuel transfer, and operating instructions are adequate to—
(i) Guard against overflow; and
(ii) Give the flight crewmembers prompt warning if transfer is not proceeding as planned.

One of the most misunderstood and misquoted regulations. I don't know how many times I've been told a fuel gauge stuck on zero is legal.

 

[derg]

While I'm going to do what I have to do to survive, if you're down to MDA and you're not seeing anything, are you sure you are where you think you are?

 

[drunkenbeagle]

While I'm going to do what I have to do to survive, if you're down to MDA and you're not seeing anything, are you sure you are where you think you are?

If there is any real doubt about having the fuel to try again, straight ahead is probably the best option.

If the ceilings are that bad and the fuel situation is that sketchy, flying the glideslope to the pavement is likely the best option. At less than 500fpm, it should even hurt the airplane.

 

[///AMG]

If there is any real doubt about having the fuel to try again, straight ahead is probably the best option.

If the ceilings are that bad and the fuel situation is that sketchy, flying the glideslope to the pavement is likely the best option. At less than 500fpm, it should even hurt the airplane.

I'm inclinded to trust a good PAR controller or ILS down below mins if the situation warranted, but then again, I hope to never paint myself into the box where I am IMC at 200' and without any other options. I think a light single could withstand most crashes at 2-300 fpm, but also have a family friend who lost his life trying to crash land an RV-7 into trees on a VMC day when his fuel pump went tits up. Again, kind of in the "don't paint yourself into that box" category......not flying an early test flight in heavily wooded terrain would have been more important than how he tried to set it down.

 

[MikeD]

I'm inclinded to trust a good PAR controller or ILS down below mins if the situation warranted, but then again, I hope to never paint myself into the box where I am IMC at 200' and without any other options. I think a light single could withstand most crashes at 2-300 fpm, but also have a family friend who lost his life trying to crash land an RV-7 into trees on a VMC day when his fuel pump went tits up. Again, kind of in the "don't paint yourself into that box" category......not flying an early test flight in heavily wooded terrain would have been more important than how he tried to set it down.

I've had good PAR guys in the WX that can talk you down to the touchdown zone and within a few feet of centerline on touchdown. That's some skill.

 

[jhugz]

I was able to shoot or watch my student shoot some real low PARs out of Yuma. You get a good controller, it's damn impressive.

 

[///AMG]

I've flown them almost to touchdown VMC a few times just to see how well they are doing, and it is pretty impressive with a good controller. Not as good as ACLS, but it gets you as close as anything else.

 

[MikeD]

I've flown them almost to touchdown VMC a few times just to see how well they are doing, and it is pretty impressive with a good controller. Not as good as ACLS, but it gets you as close as anything else.

IMC will be completely impressive, to nearly touchdown.

 

[derg]

IMC will be completely impressive, to nearly touchdown.

How much actual do you have, Daffy?

 

[jrh]

That day was going to be in the Baron(Woohoo!). Anyone that's ever flown the Baron knows that with full fuel, it's useful load is absolutely worthless. So we're weight restricted with fuel all the time. Today I could take 2.5 hours of fuel plus the 45 minute reserve. So 3.2 hours total. Also, anyone that's flown the Baron knows that that there's absolutely no way to know for sure how much gas is in it unless you fill it up. Timing is the only way to estimate. A lot of trust goes into the previous pilot's knowledge of the fuel used. Which is why I expressed such emphasis on the uncertainty of the fuel level in the original post.

Here's something to think about: Would you rather fly a couple hundred pounds overweight, or get forced into approaches you can't go missed from?

Maybe you see where I'm going with this. A good friend of mine has been flying freight in Alaska for five years now. Obviously they deal with very dynamic weather with limited alternates. He once told me, "James, I'm never going to run out of gas. Ever." When I asked what he meant by that, he basically pointed out that the fuel load listed on the dispatch paperwork might not be what's actually in the tanks, wink, wink.

This is one of those areas where the lines of safe and legal get blurry. I've heard it referred to as "ghost" fuel. You dispatch the flight on paper at max gross weight with, say, 80 gallons listed in the tanks in order to make the numbers work. But you're pretty sure there's closer to 120 gallons actually there, in order to give you an extra hour of flying time (I'm assuming 20 gph/side, just for illustration...I don't know what a Baron actually burns).

Is this legal? In the strictest sense, no. But it's also an area that's difficult for a fed to notice to begin with, let alone prove you're doing it intentionally. I'd be surprised to hear of anyone who's actually had an enforcement action against them because of this practice.

Is it safe? Depends. Depends how much you're fudging it by, what aircraft you're flying, the airports you're operating out of, etc. That's why they pay you the big bucks, captain.

I certainly wouldn't brag about doing this at your next job interview. But, when we're talking about how to survive long enough to get to your next job interview...well, it's another tool in your bag.

SO, in that situation, with the information that was available, would have have just diverted to the Sioux Falls area while you were over Fort Dodge, or would you have done what I did and continued to STP? After typing this all out, I know the answer already, but I'm curious what others think.

I probably would have diverted early. I consider widespread fog to be sort of like flying over water or mountains...don't stick myself into a huge area of it, with only one option for landing, unless I'm darn sure I'll be able to make the landing once I get there, or else have the fuel to get back out.

But hindsight's always 20/20. You lived to tell us about it, so you must've done something right! Times like these are what make you a better pilot in the future.

 

[MikeD]

Here's something to think about: Would you rather fly a couple hundred pounds overweight, or get forced into approaches you can't go missed from?

Is this legal? In the strictest sense, no. But it's also an area that's difficult for a fed to notice to begin with, let alone prove you're doing it intentionally. I'd be surprised to hear of anyone who's actually had an enforcement action against them because of this practice.

Thats a gamble where you better be prepared to pay the price if you lose, one way or another.

Where Ive seen this get busted directly was an accident post-takeoff, normally immediately following. Saw this with a PA-32R taking off from Arkansas just a few years ago. Crashed just after takeoff after being "only" 200 lbs overweight, killing 3 people, with two more injured. Granted the pilot was killed, so in terms of enforcement action, thats a moot point. But facts and intentions can be proven at particular times.

Here's where the question of necessity comes in. Can the plane fly overweight? Likely yes. But why would you be doing it; in terms of what is the priority of the mission that would drive doing this? It's one thing to be doing what needs to be done in order to save a human beings' life/limb/eyesight. It's another to do it for junk boxes or cargo.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

But, when we're talking about how to survive long enough to get to your next job interview...well, it's another tool in your bag.

If I had to do something illegal and borderline dangerous in order to "survive," then I would go ahead and find another job right away, even if it was a lateral career move. Never risk your certificate in this business with such silliness. You spent too much time and money to get there.

 

[Tommay85]

I can see where you're coming from, but as MikeD pointed out(in a less gross way than I'm about to), the FAA has a large phallic device and they love to use it. They're the ultimate Monday morning quarterbackers.

I can bump cargo no problem if I need to take more fuel in the Baron. Given the information I had on the ground in OMA. I didn't see the need.

 

[MikeD]

Back in my 135 cargo days 18 years ago, I flew for two separate companies in AZ....the first in PA-32/32R and Cessna 207; and the second in PA-31-350 and C-208. With both of them, our aircraft were only ever about 50%-60% full on fuel at homebase, as destinations......whether enroute or final.....could be made on that fuel with easy VFR reserves. We'd load up with our cargo, generally cubing out oftentimes, then onload any additional fuel as necessary, if needed for IFR reserves or a different destination. W&B was then quickly computed old-school, and we launched.

 

[Tommay85]

That's more or less what I do. I get a text from the guy leaving Denver on what the weight is and fuel up accordingly. MOST of the time going back to STP is only 200ish pounds of cargo, with the occasional heavy day. Unless I'm in the 210, that always gets full fuel. Thing is a truck! Flies like one too. haha

 

[jrh]

Thats a gamble where you better be prepared to pay the price if you lose, one way or another.

Yes, indeed. I was hesitant to even bring this topic up because I know how "cowboy" it sounds. But I also think it's worth talking about, because I know it happens out in the real world.

Where Ive seen this get busted directly was an accident post-takeoff, normally immediately following. Saw this with a PA-32R taking off from Arkansas just a few years ago. Crashed just after takeoff after being "only" 200 lbs overweight, killing 3 people, with two more injured. Granted the pilot was killed, so in terms of enforcement action, thats a moot point. But facts and intentions can be proven at particular times.

It's hard for me to comment on this without knowing more details. Here are a couple of the first thoughts that popped into my mind--200 pounds in a PA32R is not the same as 200 pounds in a a Baron, or 402, or Beech 1900 (in terms of percent GTOW). Also, what was the runway length/obstacles/density altitude? Was the accident caused directly and solely as a result of the weight? I can't help but wonder if engine trouble or weight outside of CG limits were also a factor.

Additionally, I didn't mean to imply 200 pounds overweight is somehow a magic number for being safe. 200 pounds is quite a lot, depending on the aircraft and location.

This is why in my original post I questioned the safety of ghost fuel and left it up to decide by the PIC in the moment.

Here's where the question of necessity comes in. Can the plane fly overweight? Likely yes. But why would you be doing it; in terms of what is the priority of the mission that would drive doing this? It's one thing to be doing what needs to be done in order to save a human beings' life/limb/eyesight. It's another to do it for junk boxes or cargo.

Very true. Unfortunately that's getting in to philosophy beyond what any of us can solve in a single thread on the interwebs.


Let me add a few thoughts that might help clarify my original post.

There are many operators who fly without really knowing what's on their flight and could easily end up a bit overweight in the real world, while the numbers work on paper. I saw a joke in another thread recently about how ALL airline passengers weigh the FAA-standard 189 pounds in the winter. Sure.

I'll use my own carrier as an example, flying 402s. I should add, there are numerous reasons why I would never need to "ghost" fuel at this operation, but I'll use the numbers from here because it's what I know best.

We ask for passenger body weights during check-in. Let's say all nine pax fudge their weight by 10 pounds to the flattering side (or two passengers each lie by 40 or 50 pounds--not at all impossible!). And our fuel gauges are pretty accurate, but it's still not impossible to mis-read by 50 or 60 pounds. The difference between 500 and 550 pounds is hard to see. Now we're talking about potentially carrying 150 pounds total more than we intended. At normal cruise speed, that's nearly an hour's worth of fuel. At holding speed, that's over an hour's worth.

The OP pointed out how it's very difficult to know exactly how much fuel is in a Baron. We all agree this is not an exact science.

So why place a fuel order under the assumption that it IS an exact science? Especially when you know you're going to be dealing with unpredictable weather. And you're trusting the previous pilot's count, who might have been trusting the pilot before him as well. In the original post, times are mentioned down to the tenth of a hour. Why are you measuring fuel down to the tenth of an hour when you didn't REALLY know how much fuel you started with?

I think there is a time and place to "stack the deck" in your favor, so to speak. Sometimes that extra 100 pounds of fuel is going to make the difference between an easy diversion, versus sweating your balls off, constantly glancing at the gauges, hoping you don't become a glider in low IMC.

I should also point out that I'm not talking about sticking a little extra freight on to be a company man, or flying with twice as much fuel as you need, without listing it. I'm not advocating flying over gross weight all the time. Don't throw out flight planning because a guy on the internet said it doesn't matter. That's not what I'm saying. Don't let the company push you into doing something you don't think is safe. I can't stress this enough--you have to use this advice within reason.

All I'm saying is, this is another tool to help keep yourself from getting backed in to a corner.

 

[jrh]

If I had to do something illegal and borderline dangerous in order to "survive," then I would go ahead and find another job right away, even if it was a lateral career move. Never risk your certificate in this business with such silliness. You spent too much time and money to get there.

I totally agree.

But I think many pilots have been in a spot of wanting a little extra "just in case" fuel. Sure, they have a legal fuel load for the forecasted weather, but maybe they have local knowledge that such a forecast doesn't always prove accurate. Fog rolls in sooner, thunderstorms build faster, etc. than expected. Or maybe they're flying "that" plane that cruises 10 knots slower than the others for some reason. There are many reasons why the textbook flight might not go as planned, but it's hard to explain these to a dispatcher who sees the textbook plan look fine on paper.

All I'm talking about is a way of giving oneself some wiggle room for the unplanned details, so that the unplanned details don't result in needing to shoot an approach below MDA. That's where my "survive" comment came from. Not from the idea that it's ok for a company to push a pilot into dangerous situations.

 

[Roger Roger]

Thats a gamble where you better be prepared to pay the price if you lose, one way or another.

Where Ive seen this get busted directly was an accident post-takeoff, normally immediately following. Saw this with a PA-32R taking off from Arkansas just a few years ago. Crashed just after takeoff after being "only" 200 lbs overweight, killing 3 people, with two more injured. Granted the pilot was killed, so in terms of enforcement action, thats a moot point. But facts and intentions can be proven at particular times.

Here's where the question of necessity comes in. Can the plane fly overweight? Likely yes. But why would you be doing it; in terms of what is the priority of the mission that would drive doing this? It's one thing to be doing what needs to be done in order to save a human beings' life/limb/eyesight. It's another to do it for junk boxes or cargo.

Hearing tales from some of the Alaska flying OGs I find it hard to believe that a PA 32 would crash from being 200 lbs overweight unless the pilot loaded it obscenely out of CG or did something else incredibly dumb like using a 1500' muddy grass strip surrounded by 50' trees on a 95* day.

Also I love how when this topic comes up, the same guys who screech "YERRR DANGEROUSSS!" to anybody who would even consider slipping a little extra fuel on board are the same guys who have no problem with the "FAA standard person" or with moving bags to the overheads to get a jumpseater on.

 

[z987k]

Thats a gamble where you better be prepared to pay the price if you lose, one way or another.

Where Ive seen this get busted directly was an accident post-takeoff, normally immediately following. Saw this with a PA-32R taking off from Arkansas just a few years ago. Crashed just after takeoff after being "only" 200 lbs overweight, killing 3 people, with two more injured. Granted the pilot was killed, so in terms of enforcement action, thats a moot point. But facts and intentions can be proven at particular times.

Here's where the question of necessity comes in. Can the plane fly overweight? Likely yes. But why would you be doing it; in terms of what is the priority of the mission that would drive doing this? It's one thing to be doing what needs to be done in order to save a human beings' life/limb/eyesight. It's another to do it for junk boxes or cargo.

A pa32 flies 700lbs overweight.... at least. He crashed for other reasons. Hell there's even the 15% over mgtow ops spec. You can get ferry permits to be 1000 over. Plane still flies, just load it right.
IF our options are being overweight or having a fuel issue. I'll go overweight and live every time.