Todos
← Back to Squawk list
NATA Aims To Improve Misfueling Awareness
On August 27 last year a Cessna 421C on a medevac flight crashed on initial climb out of Las Cruces, N.M., killing the pilot, two medical workers and the patient. Less than six months later, that sequence was repeated when a Piper PA-46 Malibu went down just after takeoff from Felts Field Airport in Spokane, Wash., killing the lone occupant. (www.ainonline.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
This issue was addressed many years ago with a service letter that required the installation of restrictor plates to prevent the insertion of the new 1980's wide mouth nozzles on JetA trucks into a piston powered airplane fueling port. Its not about the decals, most of this is about the wrong fuel in the right truck. You can't fix stupid! If they can't figure out what fuel to put in the truck, do you really think a decal will make a difference? The manufacturers went so far as to no longer label a piston engine airplane as a turbo to avoid confusion amongst the cranially challenged. It ain't stopped the misfueling! Fly a jet, they run on anything. Or put a couple of drops of fuel on a plain white sheet of paper if you suspect fuel contamination. If the drops disappear, it's avgas, if the drops leave a stain, it's contaminated with JetA. And when I saw the pictures of that 421 with no feathered props and pancaked 5 miles from the field, LFK, I wrote there's JetA in the woodpile. When they have plenty of fuel and both quit at the same time the pilot, for a change, didn't do it! And if they haven't installed the restrictor plates after all these years, they asked for it.
I believe you nailed it. Misfueling has only happened to me once. I got Jet-A out of a truck labeled Avgas 100LL. The lineman wasn't the one who serviced the truck but he picked up the problem after just a few gallons were dispensed into one wing. Decals and fueling port size have no effect on this type of incident.
They missed one -- last month a C421 landed in the median of a highway in Texas after receiving 53 gals of Jet A.
I wonder what ever happened to the decals you could put around the filler indicating type of fuel? Seems like a good safety check to me. GA plane types are getting more and more complicated. Line personnel should be fully trained to know the difference. If unsure, ASK!! And the person taking the fuel request, either by phone or in person, needs to mark down fuel type. Communication -- it's a wonderful thing when used properly.
Bottom line is the PIC is the one responsible for the safe conduct of his flight. Even if the line guy/gal put the wrong fuel in, the PIC is going to pay the consequences.
I wonder what ever happened to the decals you could put around the filler indicating type of fuel? Seems like a good safety check to me. GA plane types are getting more and more complicated. Line personnel should be fully trained to know the difference. If unsure, ASK!! And the person taking the fuel request, either by phone or in person, needs to mark down fuel type. Communication -- it's a wonderful thing when used properly.
Bottom line is the PIC is the one responsible for the safe conduct of his flight. Even if the line guy/gal put the wrong fuel in, the PIC is going to pay the consequences.
does the aviation industry truly have this issue ??? intellectual capacity, anyone ?
This issue has been addressed at most FBOs and yet mis-fueling continues to occur. TAC Air takes the problem very serious and so we have clearly defined procedures that require the LST to verify the fuel grade. If there is no placard we do not fuel until the pilot signs a fuel confirmation form. We maintain nozzle control so round and duck bill nozzles aren't mis-used. We also perform daily QC checks to ensure trucks are only loaded with the correct grade and type of fuel. The missing part of the process is the pilot being present at the aircraft during the fueling operation. This is the final barrier to prevent mis-fueling and yet it is not common practice. It's their aircraft that has a conversion and yet the filler ports aren't updated to reflect the change in fuel type. It's their aircraft that takes diesel and is not properly placarded. Given the fact that the pilot and their passengers ultimately have the most to lose if a mis-fuel occurs, doesn't it make sense for the pilot to play a more active role in monitoring the refueling of their aircraft? We all need to remain vigilante and work together to stop these tragedies.
Dear Bob,in a perfect world the pilot would be there every time an aircraft was fueled. It's not and the pilots are not. Flying is a hurry up and wait game, and I can assure you that owner flown corporate airplanes are not flown by the guys who will be there for every refueling. Ergo, the onus is on you, the fueler and the ultimate price will be paid by the guy that did not check. So don't try to shove that "who done it" meter the other way. Efforts to prevent these types of accidents have been addressed from every spectrum and continue to present themselves from one entity, the fueler. It is rare enough that most folks dont't check, and often enough that anyone that pays attention or does this for a living should!