The PA-32's in-wing fuel indicators are both reliable and accurate, but with a full (not to mention over-full) cabin there is hardly any useful load left for fuel. The Piper 6XT (really a late-market Saratoga) I sometimes fly has a useful load of only 482 kgs, and that is with fixed undercarriage and no air conditioner. It is turbocharged and generally has a fuel flow significantly higher than book values due to TIT limits. T/O and climb ff is 36-38 gph. (I do not know if the accident aircraft was turbo'ed; I believe many of the Saratogas are.)
The PA-32 would not be my favorite airplane to deadstick off-airport. Visibility for the pilot is limited, the wing loading is high and the glide angle is on the steep side, perhaps contributing to the temptation for the pilot to over-stretch the glide, as seems to have happened here.
This is not to defend the accident pilot who seems to have made more than one poor decision, but these are conditions that might not have have worked in his favour. And then I suspect that a full cabin does not do much good for the survivability of a violent crash-landing, especially since there was most likely not restraints for everyone.
with a full (not to mention over-full) cabin there is hardly any useful load left for fuel
4 of the 8 persons on board were children, some of them very small. I would not take it as a fact that the aircraft had no useful load left for fuel. A skinny family can easily have less weight together than one standard super-size-me US-passenger...
Most IFR tourers are not visually inspectable once below 50% - due to the wing dihedral versus the filler hole location.
Hmm? For my C172 I have a calibrated fuel quantity tester which is very accurate. For my TR182 I'd do one myself if I needed it. This aircraft can go with 4 adults + luggage + full fuel so I always fill up. Also I have a very accurate fuel totalizer.
If I owned a Saratoga, I would have my own fuel tester. For a rented aircraft, one doesn't have that option usually. No way I would ever do something with a rented aircraft that would get me near the last third of the fuel reserves.
acimha, your Cessna's wing has very little dihedral. In Pipers, Mooneys and I guess most other low wing types the dihedral tilts the fuel away from the filler hole. In my Dakota I know there is at least 10 gals if I can see any fuel at all. And I do have a fuel tester, and I have calibrated it.
If I had a Saratoga, I would have a fuel tester also, but that would be to determine whether it was quite full or almost full. The Saratoga actually has 4 tanks although they are interconnected in pairs. The inner two hold 25 gals each, and they are the ones having the mechanical dials in the wing. This is because there is no other way to inspect or otherwise know the quantity in those tanks. The dials will indicate 25 gals if there 25 gals or more in that wing. Only the outer tanks can be inspected, but they seem dry until there is, I believe, at least 20 gals of fuel in that wing. So fuel is filled into the outer tanks and run, helped by the dihedral, into the inner ones until they are full.
You may very well be right about the cabin not being overloaded after all. But Saratogas are easily overloaded.
(I should use the preview function more, I guess 
)
So fuel is filled into the outer tanks and run, helped by the dihedral, into the inner ones until they are full.
How quickly does that happen? Is it possible that on a Saratoga, you could measure 25 Gallons in the outer tank and think you have 50 (25 inner plus 25 outer) but the inner be dry and you only have 25 in that wing, with it draining through while you complete other pre-flight bits and pieces?
No can't happen.
Achimha,
That device will do you no good at all with the Saratoga tanks, I'm afraid. For the reasons previously stated of dihedral.
Some confusion here over the tank layout;
Early PA32 260 & 300 and PA32R 300 I & II with the hershy-bar wing have the 4 tank layout of wing-root tanks and wing tip tanks. Capacity varied between 84 and 94 USG. There is no cross-feed or physical way for the fuel to flow from one tank to another
Later PA32 301 and PA32R 301 variants with the taper wing had two tanks with a total capacity of 107 USG, of which 5 USG was deemed unusable. The electrical fuel tank gauges aren't worth a damn, but the mechanical gauges built into the tank are pretty good. I can confirm that once the tank contents drop below 60 USG, it isn't possible to visually check the contents.
I have personally never been brave/mad enough to land with less than 60 litres on board, and that is with an EDM 730 fitted. FWIW I have 500hrs in PA32's of one description or another...
If this guy really took off with only 110l on board, I would have been happy to fly for an hour on the basis that fuel load.
The rate of decent in a PA32 fully laden, power-off, simply has to be seen to be believed - think of a rapidly descending lift, rather than a glider.
The later models of PA32 had, as huv says, become quite 'lardy' with a limited useful load; mine is an early PA32r-301 which has manual flaps and no air-con, so has a useful load of 1,300lb. Late versions of the same model come in 2-250 lbs heavier
This sounded like a flight that was simply never going to end happily
If this guy really took off with only 110l on board, I would have been happy to fly for an hour on the basis that fuel load.
Where are the 110l from? It's not in the police report, is it? All I saw is that at some point he added 110l, didn't say how much there was to begin with.
See my post earlier on this thread. I got it from somebody quite reliable.
See my post earlier on this thread. I got it from somebody quite reliable.
Then that person would be required to report this information to the police. And if he knew about the 30l + 80l and the planned trip, he would be asked why he didn't stop the pilot from taking off...
... he would be asked why he didn't stop the pilot from taking off...
And how would he have done that?
