quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

The stories I could tell! Getting put into a hold these days in a modern airliner creates panic in the young pilot if he/she has to calculate bingo fuel for the alternate. Literally many hours are spent in ground school and the sim learning how to enter the necessary data into The Box (and where to find the correct sub-menu to do so).

Maybe I'm over-simplifying? It was always pretty easy for me to figure how much fuel I need to get from "right here" to the alternate, and fly the approach. I already knew how much I needed for a 45 minute reserve, so it's an easy calculation. But then again, I'm a "numbers guy."

Question about the hold, I know almost nothing about turbine operation. With piston engine(s), as I approach the holding fix, I always reduced power to either a) approach power setting, if the hold was at or near the initial approach fix, or b) if the hold was not associated with the approach, I would use something not much above the minimum power setting that would maintain altitude. I remember trying to get into Marathon (Florida Keys) on a foggy day, when I was # 6 in the stack. The V-tail burned 15.5 gph in normal cruise; I got it down to 6 gph for the hold after playing with the power setting and mixture.

One of my favorite nasty tricks when I was instructing in the simulator, was to give a trainee a holding clearance, omitting the "expect further" part of the clearance. As soon as s/he gave me the read-back, I would fail the communication radio and go get a cup of coffee while the trainee was trying to figure out how long to stay in the hold without further clearance.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

The stories I could tell! Getting put into a hold these days in a modern airliner creates panic in the young pilot if he/she has to calculate bingo fuel for the alternate. Literally many hours are spent in ground school and the sim learning how to enter the necessary data into The Box (and where to find the correct sub-menu to do so).

Maybe I'm over-simplifying? It was always pretty easy for me to figure how much fuel I need to get from "right here" to the alternate, and fly the approach. I already knew how much I needed for a 45 minute reserve, so it's an easy calculation. But then again, I'm a "numbers guy."

Question about the hold, I know almost nothing about turbine operation. With piston engine(s), as I approach the holding fix, I always reduced power to either a) approach power setting, if the hold was at or near the initial approach fix, or b) if the hold was not associated with the approach, I would use something not much above the minimum power setting that would maintain altitude. I remember trying to get into Marathon (Florida Keys) on a foggy day, when I was # 6 in the stack. The V-tail burned 15.5 gph in normal cruise; I got it down to 6 gph for the hold after playing with the power setting and mixture.

One of my favorite nasty tricks when I was instructing in the simulator, was to give a trainee a holding clearance, omitting the "expect further" part of the clearance. As soon as s/he gave me the read-back, I would fail the communication radio and go get a cup of coffee while the trainee was trying to figure out how long to stay in the hold without further clearance.

i guess that depends on how well the instructor covers lost comm procedures on ifr/simulated ifr flights!!

Lots of good stuff covered already.

Short answer: It could possibly be a mechanical problem that was not caused and couldn't reasonably have been expected to be detected by the pilot and/or instructor, but mostly likely a dumb mistake was made, either by the student and not caught/fixed by the instructor, or by the instructor herself.

Flight instructors are still humans and are fully capable of making mistakes.

have no experience with this other than I know a guy who is a pilot and is part of a national safety committee on private flying and he told me running out of fuel is a common mistake. First one never trust the fuel gage when taking off and 2nd one does the numbers of how far they can fly also before taking off... at least that is what I remember him telling me.

I am reminded of this quote -

“Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.”

He was merely teaching the student a valuable lesson he will never forgot.

Wasn't there a Canadian airliner that, through a series of misunderstandings, ran out of fuel in mid-flight?

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

Wasn't there a Canadian airliner that, through a series of misunderstandings, ran out of fuel in mid-flight?

Actually, fuel exhaustion usually occurs toward the end of the flight, rather than mid-flight.

quote:

Originally posted by airbubba:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

One of my favorite nasty tricks when I was instructing in the simulator, was to give a trainee a holding clearance, omitting the "expect further" part of the clearance. As soon as s/he gave me the read-back, I would fail the communication radio and go get a cup of coffee while the trainee was trying to figure out how long to stay in the hold without further clearance.

i guess that depends on how well the instructor covers lost comm procedures on ifr/simulated ifr flights!!

This is true. The point that I was making with my trainees, was: do NOT read the hold clearance back, if it does not include an "expect further" clause. Instead, ask the controller for the expected approach or expected further clearance time. Only after the trainee pilot has that, the clearance should be read back to the controller; the logic here is that if you have a comm failure immediately after the readback, then the readback constitutes acceptance of the clearance.

In real life, I have irritated a controller or two by refusing to read back or accept a clearance that I considered to be incomplete; in the IFR environment, planning for lost comms is a large part of the strategy.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

The stories I could tell! Getting put into a hold these days in a modern airliner creates panic in the young pilot if he/she has to calculate bingo fuel for the alternate. Literally many hours are spent in ground school and the sim learning how to enter the necessary data into The Box (and where to find the correct sub-menu to do so).

Maybe I'm over-simplifying? It was always pretty easy for me to figure how much fuel I need to get from "right here" to the alternate, and fly the approach. I already knew how much I needed for a 45 minute reserve, so it's an easy calculation. But then again, I'm a "numbers guy."

Question about the hold, I know almost nothing about turbine operation. With piston engine(s), as I approach the holding fix, I always reduced power to either a) approach power setting, if the hold was at or near the initial approach fix, or b) if the hold was not associated with the approach, I would use something not much above the minimum power setting that would maintain altitude. I remember trying to get into Marathon (Florida Keys) on a foggy day, when I was # 6 in the stack. The V-tail burned 15.5 gph in normal cruise; I got it down to 6 gph for the hold after playing with the power setting and mixture.

One of my favorite nasty tricks when I was instructing in the simulator, was to give a trainee a holding clearance, omitting the "expect further" part of the clearance. As soon as s/he gave me the read-back, I would fail the communication radio and go get a cup of coffee while the trainee was trying to figure out how long to stay in the hold without further clearance.

Fuel burn varies a lot with altitude and airspeed. In the jet we frequently were holding at the max allowed speed, especially below 10,000 ft. Fuel burn at 6,000 in the terminal area is way different than at 20,000 way out on the STAR. Fuel burn from the holding location to an alternate likewise depended on the hold altitude. Winds aloft become a huge factor when diverting enroute.

That's where your kind of knowledge is critical and where the younger generation struggles. I always added 1000 lbs for a missed approach and back around to an ILS. Add 1600 lbs as an absolute minimum reserve, but 2000 is better. Ask the box for time and burn direct to the alternate at our altitude. That will be safe and legal if the alternate is golden. If time permits, program the full new route into the box while in the hold, but it will give a lower bingo fuel (longer hold time) than my estimate, so I'm bailing out at my number not the box's. I've been burned by ATC numerous times, so betting on the minimums is not something I would do.

What complicates things is any expected arrival routing and approach at the alternate. Doubly so for a surprise situation. SoCal and Denver can bite big time because the STARs are not direct. Divert to ONT from a missed off of LAX and you're going to burn a lot more fuel than the box will calculate. We landed once in Denver with less than go around fuel after losing pitot static heat enroute to STL with forecast freezing rain. Winds aloft were brutal and there were no other alternates available. Then DEN changed direction and STAR when we hit the initial STAR gate. Turning a 5 mile final (night vmc) we briefed landing on any available surface if our runway became unusable for any reason.

The younger generation very much want to message dispatch rather than make a decision. They ask where does the dispatcher want us to go and what will the fuel burn be. That's fine enroute, as the filed alternate frequently is just for legality, so there may be better choices and we have time. After beginning descent it just takes too much time and causes too much distraction to negotiate via ACARs messaging. Know your options and make a decision.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
... the logic here is that if you have a comm failure immediately after the readback, then the readback constitutes acceptance of the clearance.
.
.
.
in the IFR environment, planning for lost comms is a large part of the strategy.

One very fine sunny day we were inbound to Phoenix from SLC. As is typical there was a steady stream of airliners on the various STARs. Approach was training a new controller on their procedures, so he was issuing a hold to every aircraft. There were 2 fixes maybe 20 miles apart, and they were using 2 or 3 altitudes at each fix. Everyone was doing one turn and then being released. No big deal, it was good practice programming a surprise hold into the box.

Right after we were given the hold, American Airlines got a stuck mic. There they were discussing bingo fuel. Then they got concerned after a few minutes that approach wasn't answering them, so they discussed diversion to Las Vegas.

Meanwhile everyone else was trying 121.5 to tell them they had the stuck mic or to talk to approach, but no joy.

So there we were in busy airspace with an EFC 20 minutes out. So now the question is do we stay at our hold altitude which was something like 16,000 msl all the way to the IAF, or do we descend via the STAR profile min/max altitudes? We see on TCAS a couple of aircraft below us depart their holds and start down.

Approach got another frequency going and things got straightened out, but yeah a good reminder that losing comms is possible.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Technology has disconnected pilots far too much from what is going on these days.

This is true in so much of our modern, technology dependent world now.

I'm not a pilot but I always learn a lot reading what you all have to say about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

Know your options and make a decision.

Yup, and you can't teach common sense.

A friend of mine is a senior captain / check pilot / instructor with one of the major airlines. While he was qualifying a candidate in a 737 simulator he introduced some engine problems immediately after take-off, with a 2,000' solid overcast. The candidate continued the climb into the cloud layer to get to the minimum altitude for the initial segment of the approach. Once they were in the clouds with zero visibility, my friend hit the "freeze" button on the simulator, then rolled it back a bit.

"Look out your left window," he said. "There's the airport, in plain sight. You're at 1,600', well below the cloud layer, great visibility. Why, WHY, would you choose to climb into the clouds to initite an instrument approach with an engine problem, with 150 passengers sitting back there, when you could just turn left and head for the airport, remaining in good visual flight conditions?"

The candidate had no answer. The evaluation recommended that he spend some more time in the right seat, gaining experience.

Yea I’m going be the slight contrarian here. Sim instructors come in all flavors, decades into the job I’ve seen the whole variety pack.

Staying VFR is a very good option. Turning immediately back towards the airport though isn’t really realistic in most scenarios. Ask for a straight ahead climb with minimal maneuvering while you sort out your issues. It takes a few minutes to run all the applicable checklists and get the motor shut down. You want to stay close to the airport but that doesn’t mean circling on top. Then there is the very real consideration that even VFR it is a real nice technique to shoot an ILS or more specifically the straight in portion of it while returning to the field. By doing so you slow everything way down. You get nice and stabilized riding down the glide slope. Get you hiccups out of the way and very quickly it’s nearly as smooth and easy as with 2 engines. Given the choice of shooting a nice straight in approach or a bunch of maneuvering VFR single engine to stay in the pattern I’m taking the straight in. It’s the safer easier bet. Plus I need the time to run multiple checklists, coordinate with ATC, and let the stews prepare for what they might be facing upon landing. It’s a lot of shit in a compact amount of time.

Most guys declare the emergency, request an appropriate altitude that makes sense, and ask for vectors around the box while we work the issue and we will tell ATC when we are ready for the approach.

Of course if you are on fire that is a whole different animal. An engine failure is not an emergency that you should rush through though. A lot of bad things can happen by rushing, in fact history has a bunch of crashes that were totally avoidable by not rushing and missing stuff.

As for your buddy I would have said I want a straight ahead climb and vectors back for an ILS which I know will end in a visual straight in. Box me around the pattern. I need the time anyway to get everything done. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. I suspect this guy did a whole lot more wrong than not having an answer to that question. Lol

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
have no experience with this other than I know a guy who is a pilot and is part of a national safety committee on private flying and he told me running out of fuel is a common mistake. First one never trust the fuel gage when taking off and 2nd one does the numbers of how far they can fly also before taking off... at least that is what I remember him telling me.

This is true, but how far (distance)!you can fly in a small airplane is at best a SWAG. The number that is more realistic is how long (time) you can fly. Done properly, you have plan for where you’ll be when and how much fuel you’ll have burned getting there. I’m sure that once in history winds were exactly as forecast, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it. By monitoring progress against your plan you can verify that things are going as expected, or better, and you can stick with your plan; or things aren’t going as expected and you need to adjust(add a fuel stop, stop earlier (in distance) than planned, etc.

My first thought is a leak in the fuelsystem.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
Wasn't there a Canadian airliner that, through a series of misunderstandings, ran out of fuel in mid-flight?

You’re thinking of the Gimli Glider. Boeing 767 if I remember correctly. Air Canada flight 143. The fuel quantity sensors were inop. The ground crew and pilots got puzzled up in a volume to mass conversion and the aircraft launched with a little less than half the fuel needed for the flight to Edmonton. Fortunately, the copilot was a glider pilot and they managed to dead stick the airplane into the former RCAF base in Gimli, Manitoba which had been converted to a racetrack, Gimli Motorsports Park with no major injuries to passengers or anyone on the ground.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
. . . [ snip ] . . .

As for your buddy I would have said I want a straight ahead climb and vectors back for an ILS which I know will end in a visual straight in. Box me around the pattern. I need the time anyway to get everything done. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. I suspect this guy did a whole lot more wrong than not having an answer to that question. Lol

A lot of good logic in your post. As a little airplane pilot, my instinct would have been to bang the airplane around well below 1,600, advise ATC what I was doing and why, and have the airplane back on the ground without ever getting beyond gliding distance of the runway (in my light twin). For all the reasons you make clear in your post and a few others, this is likely *not* the best approach in an airliner.

I could be wrong, but I expect that the sim instructor would have had no problem with your answer. In my mind, the problem wasn’t flying into the clouds, it was flying into the clouds without a plan he could articulate. A guy can be able to handle the airplane perfectly, but if he hasn’t played the “What if …” game and thought things through he’s either going to have to be able to problem solve very quickly under pressure or he’s likely to have a problem if/when an abnormal situation he hasn’t trained for comes up.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by KDR:
...I can't imagine an instructor not calculating fuel for the flight plan correctly...

You're underestimating the power of human stupidity or arrogance, because it has happened.

I read the article. I didn't see where it said he was a "great" instructor. Hell, not even a "good" instructor.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

A friend of mine is a senior captain / check pilot / instructor with one of the major airlines. While he was qualifying a candidate in a 737 simulator he introduced some engine problems immediately after take-off, with a 2,000' solid overcast. The candidate continued the climb into the cloud layer to get to the minimum altitude for the initial segment of the approach. Once they were in the clouds with zero visibility, my friend hit the "freeze" button on the simulator, then rolled it back a bit.

Back in the day we lost all generators at weight off wheels in the 30 seat turboprop. It was a weird failure mode where the aux gens failed to come on when the prop rpm spooled up. We taxied at 65% rpm iirc, then pushed up the condition levers to max rpm as we rolled into position on the runway. The aux gens were supposed to come on line at maybe 75% or 80%. When we got the amber AUX GEN 1/2 light during takeoff roll we continued, per SOP. Then at weight off wheels whatever was wonky with the electrical system control circuitry decided both main gens (geared to the turbine) needed to be shut down. So there we were in full electrical emergency mode, which meant I had minimal flight instruments (attitude, altitude, airspeed) and COM1. This was all steam gauges and way before GPS.

We were launching into about a 1500 overcast with icing, so I stayed VMC and made left traffic while the FO declared the emergency. As we proceeded downwind the ceiling was lowering to about 700 feet, so we turned in before the outer marker.

No time to run all the checklists, but Gear Down 3 Green was all we really needed. Speeds were bugged before takeoff (those little plastic colored pointers that slide around the outside of the round airspeed indicator). You couldn't get away with that in the modern airplanes with everything run through the FMS.