New B206B3 'low fuel quantity' requirements.

[Capt Hollywood]

Something for all you Jetranger drivers out there. Got some B206B3 Flight Manual amendments through today and of note is a new requirement to "land as soon as practical" at "low fuel quantity (approximately 20USG...)".

[Eric Hunt]

All nice and good, but once on flood relief, there was nowhere to put it down, so I had to continue down to 4 gallons - pucker valve was running at full RPM.

This warning is mainly to cover for if the boost pumps subsequently fail and you got lots of fuel that you can't access.

[lowlevelhell]

All nice and good, but once on flood relief, there was nowhere to put it down, so I had to continue down to 4 gallons - pucker valve was running at full RPM.

This warning is mainly to cover for if the boost pumps subsequently fail and you got lots of fuel that you can't access.

You can fly a 206 WITHOUT any boost pumps up to 6000ft AMSL, above that altitude the EDFP cannot maintain a head of pressure due to lack of atmospheric pressure in the fuel system, therefore we have boost pumps to supply that pressure above those altitudes. Anyone who flies ANY helicopter down to the fuel warning light should be investigated and have his license suspended pending the outcome of said investigation. Too many variables to account for when operating on the ragged edge of performance, the civilian world doesn't take kindly to "test pilots" so it seems!

[Capt Hollywood]

The Jetranger will run just fine without boost pumps though (up until 6000') or at least it should! In fact one boost pump provides enough pressure for the fuel system, I assume the second one is for redundancy.

I haven't got access to an older 206 manual at the moment but I'm sure the unusable fuel amount was 10USG in case of a failed boost pump and fuel sloshing away from the pickups, and I thought it said something like land as soon as practicable or plan a landing.

UPDATE - I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I've just been told by a relatively new pilot that the manual has always said land as soon as practical at 20USG! How did I miss that in 21yrs and over 3000hrs in Jetrangers! So by saying land at 20USG I figure it gives you time to get on the ground before you get to the unusable fuel with the potential for it all to go vewy, vewy qwiet!

I could have deleted the thread to avoid embarrassment but it turns out I'm not the only one to have not noticed this '20USG land as soon as practical' comment in the FM, so I thought I'd leave the thread here in case there are other muppets out there like me today!

[Eric Hunt]

Anyone who flies ANY helicopter down to the fuel warning light should be investigated and have his license suspended pending the outcome of said investigation.

Geez, LLH, I would have spent some time in suspension.

It only says "Practicable" which sort of means "don't overfly this airport on your way to the next one."

On another flood job near Charleville in 1976 (flat, all roads and rail lines covered, no real way of telling where you are, one NDB pointing in the general direction of the airfield) with pregnant lady who had to get to the hospital, 20 min fuel light on for maybe 10 minutes. Ya duz wot ya gotta duz, mate. No point putting it down in water that you are unsure of how deep it is, and no way for anybody to get to you, and no way to tell them where you are anyway, other than a general direction. Way before the days of GPS. It wasn't "practicable" to do much else.

[blackstump]

Eric
are you saying you were flying an aircraft that had 4 gallons of fuel left in it?

[Gonsky]

And you guys wonder why CASA is all over you?

Regards,

[blackstump]

ERIC

So Twice (at least) you having knowing and deliberately violated the requirements for carriage of fixed reserve / AND common knowledge of both unusable fuel, potential gauge inaccuracy, low fuel levels resulting in pumps sucking air, etc



#1
100 L/h,
20-minute fixed reserve - 33 L of fuel.

Unusable fuel 4.0 L
15.2 litres onboard
11.2 useable @ 100lph = 6.7 minutes of flight remaining till flame out

would assume you would have to be flying straight and level to keep the pump inlets wet
coordinated turns etc
other POB getting put into harms way
no place to land - planning


from a BASI report of a JR flameout
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/2492711/ao2009026.pdf
Table 3: Instrument readings at
300 ft
Time 15:51
Global Positioning
System (GPS) heading 121 °M
GPS speed 43.6 kts
Airspeed 30 kts
Altitude 300 ft
Power turbine speed 47 %
Rotor RPM (Nr) 74 %
Engine torque 0 psi
Rate of descent 800 ft/min
Compressor turbine
speed (N1) 26 %
Compressor turbine
outlet temperature
220 °C
Fuel quantity 9 USG (34 L)

see fuel quantity showing 9gal and the machine flamed out but you had 4 gallons (either indicated or actual)

#2- really?

I quote you -"Ya duz wot ya gotta duz, mate"

yep i bet that would have gone down well with the courts, your employer and the public perception of helicopter pilots if 'luck' had not held

absolute madness and even more so to put it on a site and appear to be quite proud of it!

lets hope you were not an instructor

[lowlevelhell]

Anyone who flies ANY helicopter down to the fuel warning light should be investigated and have his license suspended pending the outcome of said investigation.

Geez, LLH, I would have spent some time in suspension.

It only says "Practicable" which sort of means "don't overfly this airport on your way to the next one."

On another flood job near Charleville in 1976 (flat, all roads and rail lines covered, no real way of telling where you are, one NDB pointing in the general direction of the airfield) with pregnant lady who had to get to the hospital, 20 min fuel light on for maybe 10 minutes. Ya duz wot ya gotta duz, mate. No point putting it down in water that you are unsure of how deep it is, and no way for anybody to get to you, and no way to tell them where you are anyway, other than a general direction. Way before the days of GPS. It wasn't "practicable" to do much else.

Unfortunately we all know CASA too well mate, with all due respect irrespective of PIC experience, hours on type, type being flown, circumstances around flight, weather, mechanical/fuel system reasons, fuel density/specific gravity, etc, etc, when it comes to investigating fuel EXHAUSTION invariably it will ALWAYS boil down to pilot miss-management/neglect/miss-understanding of his aircraft's fuel system. As has been pointed out in another fuel system discussion under another topic here, there are so many variables that can come into play when it comes into fuel management, I'd personally prefer to err on the side of caution as at least that's the one option I have control of in my favour, the other's are out of my control so I won't even give them the benefit of the doubt! Additionally a PTT check of a working low fuel warning light is NO indication it'll actually illuminate with low fuel in the tank, since that's measuring fuel contents in the actual fuel system, as opposed to a PTT check of the filament in the warning light bulb, that's only checking the light itself. Even more reason NOT to fly by, or rely on, a light that may or may not illuminate when you need it the most!

[lowlevelhell]

Anyone who flies ANY helicopter down to the fuel warning light should be investigated and have his license suspended pending the outcome of said investigation.

Geez, LLH, I would have spent some time in suspension.

It only says "Practicable" which sort of means "don't overfly this airport on your way to the next one."

On another flood job near Charleville in 1976 (flat, all roads and rail lines covered, no real way of telling where you are, one NDB pointing in the general direction of the airfield) with pregnant lady who had to get to the hospital, 20 min fuel light on for maybe 10 minutes. Ya duz wot ya gotta duz, mate. No point putting it down in water that you are unsure of how deep it is, and no way for anybody to get to you, and no way to tell them where you are anyway, other than a general direction. Way before the days of GPS. It wasn't "practicable" to do much else.

Unfortunately we all know CASA too well mate, with all due respect irrespective of PIC experience, hours on type, type being flown, circumstances around flight, weather, mechanical/fuel system reasons, fuel density/specific gravity, etc, etc, when it comes to investigating fuel EXHAUSTION invariably it will ALWAYS boil down to pilot miss-management/neglect/miss-understanding of his aircraft's fuel system. As has been pointed out in another fuel system discussion under another topic here, there are so many variables that can come into play when it comes into fuel management, I'd personally prefer to err on the side of caution as at least that's the one option I have control of in my favour, the other's are out of my control so I won't even give them the benefit of the doubt!

Additionally a PTT check of a working low fuel warning light is NO indication it'll actually illuminate with low fuel in the tank, since that's measuring fuel contents in the actual fuel system, as opposed to a PTT check of the filament in the warning light bulb, that's only checking the light itself. Even more reason NOT to fly by, or rely on, a light that may or may not illuminate when you need it the most!

[lowlevelhell]

Anyone who flies ANY helicopter down to the fuel warning light should be investigated and have his license suspended pending the outcome of said investigation.

Geez, LLH, I would have spent some time in suspension.

It only says "Practicable" which sort of means "don't overfly this airport on your way to the next one."

On another flood job near Charleville in 1976 (flat, all roads and rail lines covered, no real way of telling where you are, one NDB pointing in the general direction of the airfield) with pregnant lady who had to get to the hospital, 20 min fuel light on for maybe 10 minutes. Ya duz wot ya gotta duz, mate. No point putting it down in water that you are unsure of how deep it is, and no way for anybody to get to you, and no way to tell them where you are anyway, other than a general direction. Way before the days of GPS. It wasn't "practicable" to do much else.

Unfortunately we all know CASA too well mate, with all due respect irrespective of PIC experience, hours on type, type being flown, circumstances around flight, weather, mechanical/fuel system reasons, fuel density/specific gravity, etc, etc, when it comes to investigating fuel EXHAUSTION invariably it will ALWAYS boil down to pilot miss-management/neglect/miss-understanding of his aircraft's fuel system. As has been pointed out in another fuel system discussion under another topic here, there are so many variables that can come into play when it comes into fuel management, I'd personally prefer to err on the side of caution as at least that's the one option I have control of in my favour, the other's are out of my control so I won't even give them the benefit of the doubt! Additionally a PTT check of a working low fuel warning light is NO indication it'll actually illuminate with low fuel in the tank, since that's rigged to measure fuel contents in the actual fuel system, as opposed to a PTT check of the filament in the warning light, that's only checking the light itself. Even more reason NOT to fly by, or rely on, a light that may or may not illuminate when you need it the most!

[Probbo]

Anybody who’s done remote area commercial ops for a length of time will have experiences of having to cut it fine in regards to fuel reserves. Usually due to weather stress and or operational pressures.
I heard a story of a tuna boat driver allowing his spotter to operate the GPS. When they arrived at the destination where their mother ship should have been he realised they were 60 NM off and only had 15 mins fuel (indicated) left! Luckily there was another boat in the vicinity that they were able to scab fuel off.
It’s funny eh, have the people that are posting here on their high horses actually worked/working in this industry?

[Eric Hunt]

I'm surprised that Stumpy even saw my post, he was supposed to have put me on his ignore list after his insane abusive tirade by PM a few months back. I should post some of it up here to give you an idea of how that jerk works.

Settle down, Stumpy.

Let's have a look at the situation.

Widespread floods, and I mean WIDEspread, covering roads, rail lines, rivers, creeks etc so that very little is identifiable, other than the houses which were smart enough to paint their names on their roof.
Plan a task - go to A, drop food. Go to B, pick up mail and a passenger for point F. Go to C, drop food. Go to D, pick up passenger for Charleville. Go to E, drop food. Go to F, drop passenger. Go to Charleville.
Organise enough fuel to do the job, considering the distance, the loads to be carried out and back. Plot the tracks on a paper map. tell the Ops section how you plan to do it.
Launch off.
Difficult to find A, despite accurate headings and times, because the fine features you need to identify the right house aren't there.
At A, drop food. A passenger (Fred) tells me that Ops approved him to come along to identify the houses for me through local knowledge. He knows Bill's place, spot B, "It's just up the road."
What road?
Heading, time, airspeed. OK, B should be here. "There it is!" says Fred, pointing in the middle distance. Fly a couple of miles over to the house. "Err...that's not it. It's over there!"
Fly over there. Right, this is Bill's place, spot B. Circle, look for wires, find a dryish spot, put it down. Wait for people to splash through mud to get there. Wait for them to put the mail on board, put the extra pax on board. Launch off for Charlie's place, point C.
Repeat, over and over.
The extra time going to the wrongly identified places, the orbits before landing (Ya gotta do yer WOSSATT chex) and everything sucks the fuel up.
Then they say to go to point G, where a pregnant woman has been told to get into hospital RFN. This was not part of the plan, but we should be only 15-20 mins from Charleville - no way to tell other than the NDB bearing.

get the idea? Despite the planning, the situation caused changes to be made. Stopping at any intermediate place was going to cause the whole program to stop. There wasn't no way that fuel could be brought to us, or the food taken to the stranded people, or the lady about to pop open was just gonna burst. There was no thought of "Geez, what will Blackstump and Low level Helly think if I put this on the not-yet-invented internet in 42 years from now?" You get the job done.

Snowflakes behind their screens will crack a hissy fit and demand that enquiries be held. DILLIGAF?

[Hangerbout]

Great post. Tells it like it really is. Reality is its the killer waiting to get you and your passengers. Learn f from these posts and put in place methods to stop yourself falling into the trap of thinking you can get away with it. If you do get away with it and dont learn the next time may not be so pretty.

[Jeffory]

"Back in my day......."

Breaking rules is all well and good, until it isn't. Sadly, there seems to be a strong culture of "This is how we have always done it".

[Skid Marks]

All nice and good, but once on flood relief, there was nowhere to put it down, so I had to continue down to 4 gallons - pucker valve was running at full RPM.

Anyone who flies ANY helicopter down to the fuel warning light should be investigated and have his license suspended pending the outcome of said investigation.

I thought the purpose of the reserve was for exactly what Eric encountered? Things have gone to s#!t and you use the resources available (ie reserve fuel) to get to safety.
I was taught (and continue to teach) that it's not illegal to go below reserves, it's just illegal to plan to go below reserves.
I'd rather have someone land safely with 10 mins fuel remaining than bobbing up and down in the water 10 minutes from safety with 20 mins fuel remaining.

[Bront]

Lot of Muppets on here that have never operated a heli in the real world. Most heli's I've operated had a fuel calibration card next to the fuel gauge. And every Heli I've flown has had a pretty accurate fuel gauge. And if you've operated in the real world you get to know your helicopter. Different story if you're a Muppet going down to the flying school to hire and fly.

[Eric Hunt]

I can post this in the secure knowledge that Stumpy won't read it, because I am on his ignore list. But here are the circumstances for the first excursion below 20gals.

It was in a B206. Flood relief. Low cloud, rain. Searching for hikers cut off on the Colo River north-west of Sydney by the floodwaters. Spent a long time looking for them, getting lowish on fuel, contemplating going to RAAF Richmond for a top-up.
An emergency call comes in, a policeman and his dog have become stranded on a cliff face by the rain - too slippery to go up or down. Head over that way, find him, set up for a hoist, and manage to get him and his pooch into the aircraft. Head south towards Richmond.

Cloud has settled on top of the Colo ridges. Can't get out of the valley here. Have to continue down-river, which is north, away from the fuel.
Finally get a gap in the clouds, head for the fuel, water water everywhere, no point in putting down, nobody can get to me. Keep going.
Richmond in sight, poking above the waters. I cross the airfield boundary and put it on the first piece of tarmac available.
Tower gets a bit uppity, tells me to go to Air Movements to get fuel.
I tell tower I'm not going anywhere, send a fuel truck to me. Annoyed radio calls from tower, simple reply, send me the fuel truck.

[FerrariFlyer]

And you guys wonder why CASA is all over you?

Regards,

Are you passing comment on the subject matter given your years of extensive flying experience? Ever run low on battery power on a drone mission...

Anyone with a modicum of sense and time in our industry is acutely aware how easy it is to be caught out by a combination of variables, both seen and unforeseen. It is not reasonable or possible for any regulator to come up with a totally prescriptive series of rules and regulations that will allow for any and every situation.

Further, for anyone to admit to a mistake - like Eric has in this thread - is both admirable and to be commended. It is an opportunity to learn from something from a fellow pilot so that we can add that to our bag of experience and knowledge that might come in handy down the track.

Case in point. Years ago before heading to Canada for work I received an email message from an older pilot friend who had flown in the area I was heading to on the west coast. He warned me of a few weather traps and phenomenon that could kill. That information contained in his words of wisdom - based on close calls he had had himself - saved my bacon numerous times. Did we need more regulation based on his close calls? No. What do we need? Just more guys like him willing to share his experience to add to our collective and individual wisdom.

[huey]

And you guys wonder why CASA is all over you?

Regards,

Are you passing comment on the subject matter given your years of extensive flying experience? Ever run low on battery power on a drone mission...

Gold.