• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Oops, darn it...

It was a SuperCub and a Beaver. Both high wing. News has wrong N number. Still sad.

midair_7-31-20.jpg



Hi wing - low wing? Sad and it's only July.

Gary
 

Attachments

  • midair_7-31-20.jpg
    midair_7-31-20.jpg
    194.9 KB · Views: 290
Crazy hip shooting news sources...NTSB (now FAA) as quoted first it was an Aztec and Beaver (hence my comment low vs his wing), now it's (maybe) a PA-12 and Beaver. Either way a bad deal for all.

Gary
 
Last edited:
Clint Johnson (NTSB); you could not ask for a more consummate, knowledgeable professional. We are fortunate to have him heading our Northern NTSB and trying to help us all.
 
This is a video from yesterday of Carbon Cub nose over in a river. The pilot really takes full responsibility and dissected his mistakes which is great. A lot can be learned. For what it’s worth, the production quality of the video looks great.

https://youtu.be/QJrVUZKcxrU
 
Why land on water with tires? I did it a few times with a C-185 on 8:50's only because the water rose up on a 600' strip and I had a camp and crew to evacuate. Learned my lesson but given a choice or "hold my beer" You Tubes, why?

Gary
 
Why land on water with tires? I did it a few times with a C-185 on 8:50's only because the water rose up on a 600' strip and I had a camp and crew to evacuate. Learned my lesson but given a choice or "hold my beer" You Tubes, why?

Gary

He didn’t try landing on water. He had a takeoff and loss of power due to incorrect fuel selector setting as a result of not following his checklist. I think it is great to see this and a diagnosis from the person who causing. Checklists and procedures need to be followed. Distraction is always a problem.

How many of the accidents mentioned in this thread were due to distraction or not following checklists? Possibly very many...
 
I was pleasantly surprised to see Cory publish this and take full responsiblity. I had seen the raw footage a few days ago and wondered how he would handle it.

I have met so many accident / incident pilots who blame everything and everybody else including the FAA on their accident and never take responsibility for the role they played in their event. It's definitilely one of the "hazardous attitudes".

This kind of thing was the crux of why Steve Pierce wanted to do the "Stuff Happens" video on YouTube - "fun" requires even greater attention to detail than point A to point B. If you have not watched Steve's program, it is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwcUfuTgXEE

sj
 
I think Cory saw all the You Tube views we got with that video and nosed his airplane over to cash in on the new trend. ;) :lol:
 
This is a video from yesterday of Carbon Cub nose over in a river. The pilot really takes full responsibility and dissected his mistakes which is great. A lot can be learned. For what it’s worth, the production quality of the video looks great.

https://youtu.be/QJrVUZKcxrU

Im trying to wrap my head around the fuel starvation situation as presented here.
Obviously the engine quit from lack of fuel, but “air bubbles in the system from the fuel pump” thing does not make sense.
Id like to see how the system was plumbed. I think there’s more to the story..
Cory, as well as other popular “YouTube” pilots, have often times demonstrated their complete lack of mechanical knowledge with regard to their aircraft.
Not that you need to be an A&P to fly an aircraft, but basic systems knowledge, especially for off airport flying, should be right up there with flying skills.
 
Never Plumb into the line going to the fuel valve. Always plumb into the wing tank or it will do exactly what it did.

Edit. This post is not directed at Cory and I hate to see bent airplanes. It is just information for anyone else out there that has their belly tank plumbing going to the fuel valve line.
 
Last edited:
Never Plumb in to the line going to the fuel valve. Always plumb into the tank or it will do exactly what it did.

“air bubbles in the site tube” lead me to assume he had the aux fuel line “T”’d into the one of the site tube fittings on left tank. Which shouldn’t result in fuel starvation, unless left wing tank was empty.
Air bubbles in the brain would result in someone plumbing directly into the fuel valve/system as you suggested. Guess we got a pretty good demonstration of how that can end up.
 
The way we did them is to plumb into the top of site gauge then you can see that it’s pumping. Or not.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
I believed they plumbed into the main fuel line from the tank to the valve. Pump pressure exceeded head pressure and the pump was pushing air and the net result is caught on video. I reliable source that was there said they replicated the exact same scenario on the ground. Needs to be plumbed like Mike said then you see the fuel going into the tank and you know when it is all transferred or so i am told by one of those old high time fish spotter pilots. ;)
 
Cory's lucky strike was that the prop was set to stop at the 9-3 position such that is never touched ground. The spinner absorbed an impact with the sand/gravel reducing the chance of damage. He got away lucky.
 
Never Plumb into the line going to the fuel valve. Always plumb into the wing tank or it will do exactly what it did.

I am "portnuefflyer" on YouTube, and I made a lengthy comment there on Cory's video about how I've been using my ferry tank for over 20 years on two different planes. It's somewhat surprising to me that how to plumb it is even an issue up for discussion. I'm not patting myself on the back, but I "didn't know what I was doing" when I did mine, but it still has worked perfect and with NO need for any human intervention other then putting some gas in now and then. KISS applies here big time.
 
I explain the simplicity of it in the comments sections on that video, here it is:

When I heard "ferry tank", you had my full attention, having flown with one for 20 years in my two different RANS S-7's. Incidents like your's are why I have NO selector valves. I have two wing tanks, that drain into a 3 gallon header tank, and then teed into the line coming out the bottom of the header tank on the way to the firewall, is the line going to my 9 gallon ferry bladder (Nauta, made for marine use, close enough). Like most planes, the S-7 will empty one tank faster then the other. SO WHAT? I don't care, it doesn't matter....I'm not going to run out of gas until the last 3 gallons in the header is gone, AND....the header tank has it's own sight gauge, and is tapered and 100% usable. I have two valves: one under my seat on the line right before it goes thru the firewall, the other is panel mounted (by the fuel transfer pump switch) to isolate the ferry bladder positively just in case it's self sealing quick disconnect ever failed. I've heard all the damn reasons pilots feel they have to have a fuel selector valve, and fuel mismanagement incidents like yours continue to happen. The only practical disadvantage I've found to the simple way I do it, is with full tanks, parked on a side slope, which I can always find a workaround for, using the bubble already in the panel to park level. Glad it worked out for you, no biggie, didn't look that violent at all, like you said, a good thing about a slow flying plane is slow crashes
 
Our SC belly tanks were plumbed to dump fuel into the left tank. Run fuel down on left, switch to right, pump fuel to left, etc.

With Cessna Flint tanks, run one tank down, switch tanks, pump from outboard to main on side not in use, repeat.

Which brings up the value of a fuel selector: Possible fuel contamination. You MAY be able to isolate a contaminated tank with a fuel selector. No chance without. That said, odds are pretty low, but I know of a case where lives may have been saved......

MTV
 
Fueled up one tank at Yarger Lake east of Tok AK. Vendor from Northway pumped at least a gallon of H2O into the Cessna's left tank. Headed south then it started sputtering with selector on Both. Switched to Right and landed on an unnamed lake nearby then ran the left float up on the swamp shore. Drained out what we could then switched to Left and flushed that line good. Did the same procedure for the Right tank. Taxied around some until it ran better then proceeded with the job. As MTV notes the selector was a bonus.

Gary
 
I believed they plumbed into the main fuel line from the tank to the valve. Pump pressure exceeded head pressure and the pump was pushing air and the net result is caught on video. I reliable source that was there said they replicated the exact same scenario on the ground. Needs to be plumbed like Mike said then you see the fuel going into the tank and you know when it is all transferred or so i am told by one of those old high time fish spotter pilots. ;)

Do the carbon cubs have a both on the fuel selector? I know there are several nuances with the twin cessna pumps/tanks setup where you can pump a tank empty and select it. I'm fairly certain I saw him plug in the cigarette lighter to turn on the pump?

Not sure why you would need an aux tank flying around in the lower 48?? Seems like a pressure switch inline with the fuel pump would make sense to turn off the pump when it is no longer pumping fuel. Often times they use the fuel to keep the pumps cool.
 
CC's have R/L/Both/Off.

CC's come with two tank options; basic 12 gal per side (20 useable) or 'extended range' 22 gal per side (40 useable). Cory might have the smaller 12 gal tanks, hence the aux belly tank.
 
Last edited:
I came up with my setup for my particular needs, though only in the lower 48. I burn mogas exclusively, so I can't land at the nearest airport and taxi up to the fuel island and just swipe my credit card. Well, I could, the Rotax will tolerate Avgas, but I don't, ever. Not in 15 years anyway, and about 200 hours a year flying on average, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and my home state of Idaho. 8 to 10 hours of range makes this somewhat practical, or at least I make it so, it's all part of the sense of accomplishment of flying a home built light plane in the mountain west, can't make it too easy.

IF I ever get a batch of bad fuel, I'm screwed, as it will ALL be bad. I can see the scenario MTV and BC-12D relate justifying the fuel selector setup. I'm just saying that the way I have plumbed my ferry tank is seemingly foolproof (I should know, as I have done foolish things) and I have inadvertently worst case tested it every way possible, with never a hiccup. I love my 3 gallon header tank, with it's sight gauge. I don't feel anymore at risk with it in the upper baggage area then I do with the wing tanks up by my head, it's all bad if things go south. The 3 or 4 times I have stretched things enough to actually be running off the remaining 3 gallons in that header, I discovered something interesting. Due to it's tapered shape, when I first eyeball the dropping fuel level 3 g., 2 3/4 g., and so on, the rate of drop accelerates, though the fuel burn is the same of course. Keeping in mind 3 gallons is an easy 45 minutes or even an hour with the Rotax, it's still a bit disconcerting to see that sight gauge drop the last few inches a lot quicker then the first few! I'm not proud to say it, but I landed once with 1/2 gallon remaining, but that last 10 minutes was over friendly farm ground (and owned by friends) and I knew exactly how much fuel I had left, and was not surprised by the small amount left. If I ever have a ski problem, say one ski down and one up, or the tips flip up, whatever, my plan is to use all the fuel and my fire risk ought to be about zero, short of the vapors.
 
My take-away from all this is not so much how to plumb your aux tank, but:
1) what the pilot said-- don't let something distract you from doing your normal procedure / protocols / checklist.
2) DO NOT mess with the fuel feed anywhere close to the ground.
No transferring fuel from the aux tank, no switching tanks.
I know of several incidents where pilots have come to grief by switching tanks right before landing, right before takeoff, right after takeoff.
Do all of that at a safe altitude & during a less critical phase of the flight.
 
With five or six video cameras on your airplane, seems to me you're pretty likely to be distracted most of the time.

MTV
 
I made a few years ago, none since, as the state of the art, multiple cameras as you say, maybe a drone also, sound tracks, and fancy editing make it beyond what I want to mess with. I am thankful for that.....I don't have to worry about getting sucked down the YouTube drain hole of doing more and more off the wall flying in order to "get more hits." My still camera is bad enough. It's an interesting phenomenon for us old timers, to see these younger pilots all over it but then also having too pay the price when things go wrong. Cory's response has been great, especially to the dweebs and arm chair pilots, he's more polite then I'd be with some of the comments he's getting!

An edit: I don't want to sound like I think Cody was flying like he was solely for YouTube, he, like myself, fly like we do simply because we enjoy the challenge and it's fun, heck I skied today, once i got the ducks out of the way. And I also did other stuff that if I posted a video of it, would get me slammed by many for flying like that just to get more hits. That's the double edged sword of posting videos, life is much simpler for me to desist.
 
Last edited:
With five or six video cameras on your airplane, seems to me you're pretty likely to be distracted most of the time.

MTV

Especially if you were trying to publish all of it.

But I think a camera pointing at your instrument panel and part of the windshield would be very useful for things like test flights and practicing configurations at different airspeeds. But I'd rather just set it and forget it instead of fiddling with it while flying. I think memory is cheap enough for that nowadays.
 
Back
Top