With the engine losing RPM in a Pa28, I moved my hand towards carb heat, then mixture, without touching either, as I was 9,000 or so over Utah, and had not descended. I switched on electric fuel pump, and engine briefly kicked. This confirmed fuel in my mind, and when I changed tanks the engine ran normally to my (near) destination.
In Scotland, with an O200 in a Jodel, carb heat on is first response. I’ve put on electric fuel pump and changed to front tank a few times. Post maintenance leak at mechanical pump twice, which shows in a climb on rear tank, with electric pump off. And a partially blocked rear tank finger filter, which only showed after a long run on rear tank.
On a rental checkout some years ago, I was given an engine failure, above 3,000’. As I went through the checks, the instructor grabbed the controls, and said “If this was for real, you’ld be in a panic. I want you to pick a field.”
My response: “I’ve always managed to get it running before.”
I prefer the Pa28 to the C172, for pleasure flying, but consider the C172 a better plane for bad weather.
There’s a fatal Pa28 in Alaska this December, where a non-IR pilot took off into IMC, and 4 died. For such accidents, the aircraft type is irrelevant.
At my local club we have 2 C172s and 2 P28As; both the C172s and one of the P28As are used for training – the idea behind that is to get students used to flying with aircraft with fuel injection and carburettors, as well as high wing and low wing with tank changes. We always drill into people the necessity to watch their fuel levels. Unfortunately even the great and mighty forget this…..
One of our instructors took an Archer III from our club for a flight with a pilot who’d not flown for a while. They flew to Düsseldorf, landed, refuelled and did some air work on the way back. Coming back to the club, the engine spluttered and died. The instructor immediately announced ‘I have control’ and took over, aimed for a field and performed a perfect forced landing – from 3000 feet AGL. He then returned to the club, bathing in his glory that he had rescued the pilot and the plane.
Unfortunately when the mechanics came over to take the plane apart and remove it from the field, they noted no fuel in the left hand tank; they also noted that the pilot and instructor had filled up the right hand tank and the fuel selector was positioned to LEFT. Now came the interesting discussion – why, at that altitude (approx 3000 feet AGL), he had not checked the three items needed for combustion – fuel, air and a spark – and instead blindly decided to perform an engine out landing when in reality, switching to RIGHT and turning on the pump would have probably restarted the engine…..
However we could at least be thankful it happened at altitude and with an instructor who landed safely. Slightly more than 10 years ago, an Archer III from the club took off with a pilot who hadn’t flown for more than 90 days, he fuelled up the right tank and took off, aiming to perform 3 circuits before landing and flying further afield. After the second circuit, he rotated, reached about 300 feet AGL when the engine spluttered and quit. The outcome was less fortunate as the pilot tried to turn back to the field, stalled and spun into a corner of the airfield with his partner watching. The investigation showed the fuel selector was on left and that he had probably ran out of fuel in that tank…..
Having said that, BOTH isn’t the holy remedy – in one of the C172 I had an issue which lead to fuel only being drained from the right tank; the only way to access the fuel in the left tank was actually selecting LEFT….
With low wing tanks, a “both” selection should lead to the pumps choosing air, as easier to pump, if one tank is low enough.
An RV was modified, without approval, and ditched on an early (first?) flight. In Ireland, I think. Sligo?
A small collector tank lower than wing tanks would allow selecting “both” in low wing airplane.
Years ago I switched from flying C172’s to a SR20 and had to get used to changing tanks. I found it quite handy to program in a message ‘change tank’ in the G430 that blinked every 30 mins, or adapt the timing as needed for a particular flight. Many aircraft now carry such avionics and/or pilots carry tablets so I guess we have excellent tools to make it very unlikely to create a problem caused by forgetting to change tanks.
aart wrote:
Years ago I switched from flying C172’s to a SR20 and had to get used to changing tanks. I found it quite handy to program in a message ‘change tank’ in the G430 that blinked every 30 mins, or adapt the timing as needed for a particular flight. Many aircraft now carry such avionics and/or pilots carry tablets so I guess we have excellent tools to make it very unlikely to create a problem caused by forgetting to change tanks.
You’d be surprised how often pilots forget to change tanks because when the message flashes up, they acknowledge it and then get distracted (e.g. by an ATC call) before switching tanks. A couple of recent Cirrus parachute deployments were caused because the pilots simply forgot to change tanks and immediately assumed they had had an engine failure… But just imagine that, descending merrily below a chute, looking down to the centre console and seeing one tank showing empty, one tank showing full fuel and the selector on the empty tank….
A couple of recent Cirrus parachute deployments were caused because the pilots simply forgot to change tanks and immediately assumed they had had an engine failure…
What I don’t get in this case is just how lose to the line he had to be flying to get this problem. In an SR20/22 you would need to be flying for several hours on one tank to get an engine failure. Even assuming they have useless fuel gauges like most GA has (which I am sure they don’t) just how dumb do you have to be to fly on one tank for hours (and not look at the fuel gauges for hours, too)?
This is a problem with any plane that has switchable tanks, of course.
descending merrily below a chute, looking down to the centre console and seeing one tank showing empty, one tank showing full fuel and the selector on the empty tank….
Well, looking at the positive aspects, your insurance company will love you, and it will be another “BRS save” 
I prefer to use the clock face method: from 00 to 30 – Right Tank, 30 to 60 – Left Tank….that way there is no need to remember when you changed or for how long it was on which tank….
In any case on a long trip I record the tank change time and have a little table to keep a running cumulative total minutes for each tank….but the clock-face method does not require noting anything down…
That system doesn’t support the initial running down of the left tank, which helps a lot with roll forces when flying alone, or flying 3-up.
Peter wrote:
That system doesn’t support the initial running down of the left tank, which helps a lot with roll forces when flying alone, or flying 3-up.
I guess that’s the downside of the wide TB20 cockpit!
I can’t say it’s been a problem in the “narrow body” types that I fly…
