Hmmm I don't really like the idea of several gallons of avgas (or mogas either) in the cockpit with me. While an off unintended off airport landing (aka in some instances as a "crash") isn't a really high probability, bad things do happen. It seems like carrying go juice inside the cockpit just increases the odds that an event which would otherwise be just an inconvenience or maybe an incident could turn out very badly. FWIW, engines quit a whole lot more frequently than the NTSB db says they do (and the NTSB says engine problems rival LOC-I for bad outcomes). Bigger fuel tanks and more frequent trips to McCall or wherever seems a preferable alternative to bladder bags next to people.

PapernScissors wrote:Hmmm I don't really like the idea of several gallons of avgas (or mogas either) in the cockpit with me. While an off unintended off airport landing (aka in some instances as a "crash") isn't a really high probability, bad things do happen. It seems like carrying go juice inside the cockpit just increases the odds that an event which would otherwise be just an inconvenience or maybe an incident could turn out very badly. FWIW, engines quit a whole lot more frequently than the NTSB db says they do (and the NTSB says engine problems rival LOC-I for bad outcomes). Bigger fuel tanks and more frequent trips to McCall or wherever seems a preferable alternative to bladder bags next to people.

I don't really disagree, but if you think the wing tanks in your 172 are anything close to crash-resistant, you haven't ever seen them up close. They're MUCH flimsier than a steel jerry can. And most engine failures are actually due to a lack of go juice...

TxAgfisher wrote:Thanks for all the info - I can only carry 40 gallons and that's only about 3hrs flight time with reserve. I may be a little over zealous but I would hope to get in 3+ hours in a day.

Bill, are you going to the SC deal again? That's what I am looking at going to in June. There's a Maule gathering in your neck of the woods also next weekend if you have any interest.

It's "highly fluid" this year due to our drilling schedule....and me being a one man show but I'm going to try to go June and September.

Probably target the week before or after the super cub deal. Nothing against the operation or the great folks...it's just too much of a food fight in that canyon and on the ground. I'm editorializing, but it's kind of the opposite of why I go. If schedule dictates that weekend...I'll probably stay at moose creek or upper loon and wait out the crowds. Better fishing anyways.

Not to sound like a nervous nelly....but you are gong to get some solid mountain instruction before buzzing into the frank church correct?

fiftynineSC wrote:Not to sound like a nervous nelly....but you are gong to get some solid mountain instruction before buzzing into the frank church correct?

I've been watching YouTube...

But really, I'd like to go with someone who has been before. Not really any flatlanders down here with a way to teach me anything.

TxAgfisher wrote:

fiftynineSC wrote:Not to sound like a nervous nelly....but you are gong to get some solid mountain instruction before buzzing into the frank church correct?

I've been watching YouTube...

But really, I'd like to go with someone who has been before. Not really any flatlanders down here with a way to teach me anything.

Not to totally derail your thread....but it's important. Also...so I can sleep at night. I learned to fly in 8000-9000 foot density altitude, but I was still overwhelmed with all the "mountain nuances" that are needed. I had about 600 hours total time first trip to the mountains. Flying in a canyon in Idaho is no joke.

You slow the airplane down real well and can put it on a spot, not worried about. Navigating around the canyons, wind, density altitude, traffic, comms, weather....it stacks up pretty quick. I can help you flight plan it but a couple hours of dual in your plane with a pro would go a long way.

If you are at JC, then Arnold Aviation at Cascade normally has lower fuel prices (discount for cash or check and Idaho Aviation Association members) than McCall. They have a loaner van that you can take to get groceries, ice, etc. Chatting w/ Ray is worth the trip.

TD

PapernScissors wrote:Hmmm I don't really like the idea of several gallons of avgas (or mogas either) in the cockpit with me. While an off unintended off airport landing (aka in some instances as a "crash") isn't a really high probability, bad things do happen. It seems like carrying go juice inside the cockpit just increases the odds that an event which would otherwise be just an inconvenience or maybe an incident could turn out very badly. FWIW, engines quit a whole lot more frequently than the NTSB db says they do (and the NTSB says engine problems rival LOC-I for bad outcomes). Bigger fuel tanks and more frequent trips to McCall or wherever seems a preferable alternative to bladder bags next to people.

I don't like it either, but then again I don't like carrying fuel in the wing tanks, it's all bad if things go wrong. A landing out in the Frank.......probably not going to make much difference, just saying. I've always wondered about the big belly fuel pods I see in Alaska (and elsewhere, rarely), that sure seems like a poor location but it doesn't seem to be a huge problem. Anyone ever hear of any problems caused by an in the cabin ferry tank? An incident where the mains didn't ignite, but the ferry tank did? An incident where the crash didn't kill, the wing tanks didn't ignite, but the inside the ferry tank did? Just asking. Seems unlikely, I can't think of any, then again I'm biased.

Hammer wrote:

PapernScissors wrote:Hmmm I don't really like the idea of several gallons of avgas (or mogas either) in the cockpit with me. While an off unintended off airport landing (aka in some instances as a "crash") isn't a really high probability, bad things do happen. It seems like carrying go juice inside the cockpit just increases the odds that an event which would otherwise be just an inconvenience or maybe an incident could turn out very badly. FWIW, engines quit a whole lot more frequently than the NTSB db says they do (and the NTSB says engine problems rival LOC-I for bad outcomes). Bigger fuel tanks and more frequent trips to McCall or wherever seems a preferable alternative to bladder bags next to people.

I don't really disagree, but if you think the wing tanks in your 172 are anything close to crash-resistant, you haven't ever seen them up close. They're MUCH flimsier than a steel jerry can. And most engine failures are actually due to a lack of go juice...

Yep. I am very aware of the proximity of the fuel tanks to the cockpit, and also of the construction of those tanks and the wings that hold 'em. BUT, even that little bit of separation OUTSIDE of the cockpit offers what I think is significant protection compared to a fuel bladder (or can) inside with me and any passengers.

Unfortunately, the 'large number of accidents from running out of gas' is one of those myths that keeps hanging around, despite the data. General aviation NTSB accident for 2014 are displayed in the linked image here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/AviationDataStats2014.aspx#.
This bar graph is very similar to those published by the NTSB from the previous five or six years. Every year "system malfunction: powerplant" far exceeds fuel issues (starvation and exhaustion) as the "Defining Event" for accidents. This is true in terms of both total accident numbers and total fatalities. Notice also that the number of fatalities for 'system malfunction: non-powerplant', 'IFR into IMC', 'CFIT' and other categories also exceed 'fuel related', despite (in many cases) having fewer total accidents. Overall, fuel issues account for a very small proportion of all GA accidents, and all GA fatal accidents.

I'm sure hauling gas in jugs is no more unsafe than in the wings, the reason I bring it up is the last time I hauled 100lbs of propane and 30 gallons of gas to my place. Took off at sea level and was forced to go over the Alaska range at 7 or 8000ft, don't really remember but it was high. To those who have never had a propane tank pop off while hauling gas in the dead of winter, well.....I will just stop while I'm ahead. But I will NEVER do that again. EVER. In Idaho conditions probably no big deal. Just something to think about. And yeah, I have always squeezed the air out of my gas jugs.

Properly secured and netted fuel in the cabin would most likely service a crash just fine and be less likely to rupture and burn than wing fuel. On long trips I will carry 36 gal in cans/bags in the back of the cub. It sounds easy to just say go get more fuel. Depending on plane, distance, and weather at fuel stop it can be a real problem. Pack it right and it won't be a problem.
DENNY

roamak wrote:I'm sure hauling gas in jugs is no more unsafe than in the wings, the reason I bring it up is the last time I hauled 100lbs of propane and 30 gallons of gas to my place. Took off at sea level and was forced to go over the Alaska range at 7 or 8000ft, don't really remember but it was high. To those who have never had a propane tank pop off while hauling gas in the dead of winter, well.....I will just stop while I'm ahead. But I will NEVER do that again. EVER. In Idaho conditions probably no big deal. Just something to think about. And yeah, I have always squeezed the air out of my gas jugs.

I had a filled propane tank, probably overfilled, in single digit weather go off on me while driving the road at 50 mph. It was "only" 10 gallons (?) and I had, since the rest of my small Toyota pickup was filled to the gills, put it on the passenger floor leaned up against the seat, right in front of the heater vent When that sucker popped off, my hired hand, who was following behind, said it was about the funniest damn thing he'd ever seen! Good thing I'm not a smoker. I can't imagine having that happen in the plane, good one Roamak!

I've been carrying gas inside, in ferry tanks, for 20 years now. I've grown accustomed to the 8 hour duration (more even) this offers me. Plus, being able to totally run out a wing tank, every drop, knowing I have more in the ferry, furthers how long I can go. A 3 or 4 hour duration would drive me nuts, especially with "having to" only buy mo gas (my choice) so it's not as simple as landing anywhere and rolling up to the FBO. Flying ultralights before that, we carried gas strapped all over, wherever it fit. One buddy of mine flew into some BIG power lines, the electricity caught the dacron sail cloth on fire, while he pinballed down through the lines to the ground 80' below. I had a ring side seat from above, too bad I didn't have a video camera back then. When I cleaned up the scorched and crumpled wreckage the next day, I took the 4 gallons of gas still in the plastic jugs on the rear of the bird, and dumped it into mine. He was released from the hospital after a few hours, a sore shoulder was it, he's still walking around 35 years later!

courierguy wrote:

roamak wrote:I'm sure hauling gas in jugs is no more unsafe than in the wings, the reason I bring it up is the last time I hauled 100lbs of propane and 30 gallons of gas to my place. Took off at sea level and was forced to go over the Alaska range at 7 or 8000ft, don't really remember but it was high. To those who have never had a propane tank pop off while hauling gas in the dead of winter, well.....I will just stop while I'm ahead. But I will NEVER do that again. EVER. In Idaho conditions probably no big deal. Just something to think about. And yeah, I have always squeezed the air out of my gas jugs.

I had a filled propane tank, probably overfilled, in single digit weather go off on me while driving the road at 50 mph. It was "only" 10 gallons (?) and I had, since the rest of my small Toyota pickup was filled to the gills, put it on the passenger floor leaned up against the seat, right in front of the heater vent When that sucker popped off, my hired hand, who was following behind, said it was about the funniest damn thing he'd ever seen! Good thing I'm not a smoker. I can't imagine having that happen in the plane, good one Roamak

You know my pain! Funny thing about my propane deal is I was just warned of this happening a few weeks before that by a good friend who did the exact same thing with the exact same results.
Like my boss always tells me, "there is a fine line between tough and stupid and your on the wrong side!"

On the issue of engines failing but not getting into the NTSB data base, unless someone gets hurt or there's airframe (not engine) damage exceeding $25,000, they aren't interested. All those who successfully land without doing much damage to the airplane, no matter that a $50,000 engine was cratered, won't see their names in the data base.

I have no idea how often there are successful landings without damage from engine failures, but I'm really glad that I have one! Well, actually, I'd just as soon not have had the engine failure at all, but I'm glad that there was no other damage.

Cary

Cary wrote:On the issue of engines failing but not getting into the NTSB data base, unless someone gets hurt or there's airframe (not engine) damage exceeding $25,000, they aren't interested. All those who successfully land without doing much damage to the airplane, no matter that a $50,000 engine was cratered, won't see their names in the data base.

I have no idea how often there are successful landings without damage from engine failures, but I'm really glad that I have one! Well, actually, I'd just as soon not have had the engine failure at all, but I'm glad that there was no other damage.

Cary

Good question. Based on 550 respondents to a survey many of the participants on this board have contributed their experience... The odds are good that if the engine quits (for any reason) the airplane will not only land safely, it won't arrive on the ground with any serious damage. About 1 in 5 engine failures where the powerplant dies (for any reason) make it to the big league (NTSB DB). Cary, didn't you contribute your lifeline to that interesting survey statistic?

Of my 12 engine failures, only one resulted in major damage. It was a CallAir that only cost me $12,500 in 1994. It was also the first spray plane I ever had hull insurance on.

.

These are the best, including the spout, at least the milsurp models. The new civilian ones might not be worth a shit.

glacier wrote:The lids SUCK, but if you get their newer square cut gaskets ...

Glacier, do you have a part number or vendor for those square cut gaskets?

I have some bags but they tend to leak on some trips .. fuel lube would help but I think I have round gaskets.

I have the bushwheel fillers with the valve but but they have ended up leaking where they go through the cap for the bag. I think I'll get 1 Scepter container and then I can fill it from the bushwheel bags (thanks Gbflyer)

.

...

The odds are good that if the engine quits (for any reason) the airplane will not only land safely, it won't arrive on the ground with any serious damage.

Comforting, but that is simply not true while flying over the Frank, or the Bob, or the Bitterroot, or the Wallowa's or the Sierra's, or almost anywhere else that people access the backcountry on wheels.

Fuel in the Idaho backcountry can be a bit more ticklish than some other places. The "direct to" function on your ipad or gps does not give any sort of accurate indication of true flight distances if the ceiling is "high but present"...say 9,000 feet. During high blue weather there's usually substantial climbing involved in getting anywhere, and it's VERY easy to get blocked by weather that's undetectable from your starting point...including valley fog in the summer, which often makes the fuel stops IFR.

On several occasions I've been heading to Cascade for fuel and had to turn around and fly to Hamilton instead. Not having the fuel to do that wouldn't have been fatal, but it would have been terribly inconvenient and expensive by the time I got someone to fly a few cans of gas into wherever I decided to land.

Unless the weather is absolutely faultless (and maybe even then) it's prudent to have enough fuel to reach McCall, Grangeville, Hamilton, Salmon, or Challis from where you're camped, plus the fuel needed to climb to altitude and make your decisions. That's part of why I'm a big fan of fuel bladders/cans...I don't want to cary all that fuel into tight airstrips, so I land and stash it somewhere easy if tight airstrips are in my plan.

Again, providing you have the decision making ability to divert and land before you get to critical fuel levels there are usually plenty of options in the Frank, but the next 15 gallons you burn might cost considerably more than the 200 gallons that preceded it.