Ed Cesnalis Posted August 14, 2013 Report Share Posted August 14, 2013 Here is another CTLS accident. In Iran! http://airfactsjourn...tm_medium=email Interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted August 14, 2013 Report Share Posted August 14, 2013 I remember this. Someone posted it back in Feb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted August 15, 2013 Report Share Posted August 15, 2013 I didn't even know they had GA in Iran. Shows how isolated we can be in our own little worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted August 15, 2013 Report Share Posted August 15, 2013 How would he know he had no fuel flow ? i presume a dynon type display with flow indicator if the engine had stopped through ice or other fault would this not show no flow ? am i right in thinking the CT LS has mechanical and electric fuel pumps it would be unlikely they both failed Mike After you land next time pull the cowl off and grab a carb. Hold it as long as you can. (maybe a second or two) The pilot stated that he lost fuel flow and icing wouldn't actually cause that. Carb ice in a variable throat carb is less likely to happen than a standard fixed throat carb, but it can happen. It happens more often in the UK verses places like our Southwest US states because of the right conditions existing more often. Cool temps around 70F +/- and water saturated air. Many carbs don't get very hot because of their location and cowling setup, but a CT's carbs get quite hot. You can't have a fuel flow loss if only one carb is affected. They would both need to be totally blocked to loose total fuel flow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted August 15, 2013 Report Share Posted August 15, 2013 The LS and SW only have the mechanical pump. If the engine stops there would not be any fuel flow, but at that point it would be a mute point. Even if the mechanical pump failed there would still be fuel flow and the engine won't quit. It would still run at a reduced rpm. I believe either the pilot or the NTSB has missed some fact(s). Running an engine for 2 min.for a test is a joke. It can run that long on just the fuel in the fuel lines and or carb bowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted August 15, 2013 Report Share Posted August 15, 2013 yes i did think 2 mins was a bit daft it does mention a electric fuel pump in the report ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted August 15, 2013 Report Share Posted August 15, 2013 Hi Mike, It doesn't have an electric pump unless someone added an un-approved one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted August 16, 2013 Report Share Posted August 16, 2013 The airplane did not have an electric fuel pump. He told me that at some point during the event he looked down and had no fuel pressure, he didn't say anything about fuel flow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted August 16, 2013 Report Share Posted August 16, 2013 No pressure No flow pretty much the same thing ! taken from the NTSB report "The engine responded to throttle inputs during the operational test run with the electric fuel pump in the OFF position. Additional examination of the fuel system filter, gascolator bowl, and the two carburetor bowls revealed no particulate or water contamination. The postaccident examination did not reveal any mechanical or fuel system anomalies that would have prevented normal engine operation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted August 16, 2013 Report Share Posted August 16, 2013 The old man is going to be violated, I'd bet. If I were him I'd start getting my ducks in a row to counter any inaccuracies in the NTSB report. I'd probably strongly consider getting a competent aviation lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted August 16, 2013 Report Share Posted August 16, 2013 Its hard not to suspect the report when it includes a test with a non-existent fuel pump off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted August 16, 2013 Report Share Posted August 16, 2013 Yes I agree it kooks like someone didn't look very hard or was a bit slap dash when they wrote it , it makes you wonder what else was missed Mkke Its hard not to suspect the report when it includes a test with a non-existent fuel pump off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opticsguy Posted August 17, 2013 Report Share Posted August 17, 2013 When did he have the 5-year rubber replacement? It could be something floating around from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 They said the bowls were clean. They gave a really poor report and I wouldn't have been happy with that. There was a lot more to look into and check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 The rubber replacement was 6 months prior, and it included a new style fuel pump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.