Fuel Management Questions - various strategies

[sns3guppy]

It was SOP in the piston airliners for decades.

I went to work for a firm flying four engine radial powered airplanes, and during the initial ground school, was dismayed to learn that the company actually had a policy of running one engine with a half hour less fuel than the outboards, and one inboard engine with an extra half hour. The theory was that when one engine ran dry, the outboards had a half hour remaining, the other inboard had an hour, and the dry engine could be crossfed off the hour engine.

Most stupid thing I ever heard.

I refused to engage in that idiocy. There is no good reason to run an engine dry.

Why not always carry an extra hour of fuel on board, I asked. Why not, indeed?

It's hard to run out of fuel if you don't burn off the bottom half of the tank, unless you so badly mismanage the fuel that you've left yourself no choice.

Don't run tanks dry. Carry enough you don't have to, and plan ahead to you don't need to engage in that foolishness. It's an unwise thing to do.

We never ran large radials dry, incidentally. The one company had a policy when I arrived, but it didn't take long to get that policy turned around, and I didn't know anyone, personally, who was foolish enough to do it.

[Walter Atkinson]

Originally Posted by sns3guppy

I went to work for a firm flying four engine radial powered airplanes, and during the initial ground school, was dismayed to learn that the company actually had a policy of running one engine with a half hour less fuel than the outboards, and one inboard engine with an extra half hour. The theory was that when one engine ran dry, the outboards had a half hour remaining, the other inboard had an hour, and the dry engine could be crossfed off the hour engine.

Most stupid thing I ever heard.

I refused to engage in that idiocy.

That sounds stupid to me, too.

Originally Posted by sns3guppy

There is no good reason to run an engine dry.

I disagree. There are a number of reasons to run a TANK dry, but I agree, not the entire engine's fuel. A one hour reserve--ALL IN ONE TANK is the safest option.

Originally Posted by sns3guppy

Don't run tanks dry. Carry enough you don't have to, and plan ahead to you don't need to engage in that foolishness. It's an unwise thing to do.

So, in a Twin Beech, that has three tanks per side, you are recommending leaving fuel in all three tanks? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, let me ask you this. Would you rather have your reserve spread around three tanks or all in one tank with all fuel choices made when you're on approach?

Originally Posted by sns3guppy

We never ran large radials dry, incidentally.

I have no idea who "we" is, but it was SOP at AA, United, Pan AM, Delta and all I know of to run the aux tanks dry in flight on a routine basis. It was a safety issue to have all of the fuel in one place during the approach and possible missed.

Captain John Miller ran R-3350s, four at a time for over 20,000 hours and says he ran the aux tanks dry on EVERY flight because he did not want to look stupid in an NTSB report for smacking the dirt with fuel spread around many tanks.

That said, do as you please. If you are afraid to run tanks dry, one day it is quite possible that you will NEED to and not be comfortable with the process when you need to be.

I run tanks dry routinely on max range trips and have yet to land with less than my one-hour reserve, but it is all in one place with my fuel decisions made more than an hour before landing.

[sns3guppy]

If you are afraid to run tanks dry, one day it is quite possible that you will NEED to and not be comfortable with the process when you need to be.

It's not a matter of fear. It's a matter of airmanship and common sense. Running a tank dry is stupid.

Running a wetted component dry is foolish. There's no need.

There are a number of reasons to run a TANK dry, but I agree, not the entire engine's fuel. A one hour reserve--ALL IN ONE TANK is the safest option.

An hour reseve in one tank should always be kept anyway. It's still no reason to run any other tank dry.

Run an engine dry in flight, you may or may not get it started again. You may or may not damage the fuel pump and fuel system. You may or may not end up cavitating a pump and either damaging it or being unable to restore fuel flow. You run a tank dry and then attempt to switch tanks, and find yourself stuck on the low tank (I've seen it happen), and now all your fuel is in one place...where you can't use it.

Run a tank low. Don't run it dry.

The only exception I've used in the Skymaster has been using tip tanks; pumped into the main based on time, when needed, but only on exceptionally long flights. I found that based on calculated consumption, I could easily push those flights past 9 hours if needed, without ever being concerned about running a tank dry. Nor would I try.

If you continually plan your flights down to the last dregs and find yourself needing to run a tank dry to make up for poor planning, you're doing yourself no favors, nor are you being kind to the airplane. You're abusing your equipment and your chances.

I presently fly (among other things) a large four engine aircraft internationally; fuel management is an important issue. I can't imagine anyone being foolish enough to push fuel to the limits. Land sooner. Plan tech stops. Get more fuel. Don't go as far. I fly into some remote places and fly some very long legs, and I wouldn't ever, ever consider being foolish enough to compromise fuel, let alone run tanks dry. Whether piston or turbine equipment, it makes no difference.

Teaching others to run tanks dry is irresponsible. Hopefully those reading can understand why, or have enough common sense not to go try it themselves.

[Walter Atkinson]

Originally Posted by sns3guppy

It's not a matter of fear. It's a matter of airmanship and common sense. Running a tank dry is stupid.

Running a wetted component dry is foolish. There's no need.


An hour reseve in one tank should always be kept anyway. It's still no reason to run any other tank dry.

Run an engine dry in flight, you may or may not get it started again. You may or may not damage the fuel pump and fuel system. You may or may not end up cavitating a pump and either damaging it or being unable to restore fuel flow. You run a tank dry and then attempt to switch tanks, and find yourself stuck on the low tank (I've seen it happen), and now all your fuel is in one place...where you can't use it.

Run a tank low. Don't run it dry.

The only exception I've used in the Skymaster has been using tip tanks; pumped into the main based on time, when needed, but only on exceptionally long flights. I found that based on calculated consumption, I could easily push those flights past 9 hours if needed, without ever being concerned about running a tank dry. Nor would I try.

If you continually plan your flights down to the last dregs and find yourself needing to run a tank dry to make up for poor planning, you're doing yourself no favors, nor are you being kind to the airplane. You're abusing your equipment and your chances.

I presently fly (among other things) a large four engine aircraft internationally; fuel management is an important issue. I can't imagine anyone being foolish enough to push fuel to the limits. Land sooner. Plan tech stops. Get more fuel. Don't go as far. I fly into some remote places and fly some very long legs, and I wouldn't ever, ever consider being foolish enough to compromise fuel, let alone run tanks dry. Whether piston or turbine equipment, it makes no difference.

Teaching others to run tanks dry is irresponsible. Hopefully those reading can understand why, or have enough common sense not to go try it themselves.

I'm betting that the four engine aircraft you now fly internationally is a jet or turbo prop. If so, not running tanks dry is proper.

Piston aircraft are different. The WILL restart in flight if they STOP. I've never had an engine not restart--ever... it's part of the FAA certification requirements that you must be able to turn off the fuel, let the engine die and simply add fuel and have it restart. Unless Sir Isaac Newton was wrong, it WILL restart. Putting an aircraft in the dirt (or water) from fuel exhaustion while having fuel spread around other tanks is going to look stupid in an NTSB report. Teaching piston pilots the safety of running tanks dry is the only responsible thing to do. Not running tanks dry on a max range trip in a piston engined aircraft is foolish enough to compromise your fuel situation.

We have the liberty of disagreeing. What should we tell the 400 MILLION flight hours of piston airliners with paying customers on board that ran tanks dry on every flight? What should we tell the thousands of pilots worldwide who are doing this successfully as a matter of routine? That it doesn't work and there are having all sorts of failures as you outline and dying as a result? As Confucius say, "Do not tell man something impossible when he already do it."

That said, do it your way.

[Roger]

Don't call me stupid, Shirley .

Alternatively: http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182044-1.html