Dipstick error leads to pilot making emergency landing

[Waterbaby]

Berni is not going to like this

13 Dec 2017

"A pilot who used the wrong dipstick to test fuel levels on his aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing in a field after running out of fuel, an incident report has found.
...
It later became clear during the course of the same conversation that the pilot had in fact used the dipstick for a Cessna172 which measures in US gallons equivalent to around four litres, as opposed to the dipstick for a Cessna 177A which measures in litres."

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/tra ... -1.3326387

WB

[toecutter]

Shall we all just agree the Rodney Trotter joke goes without saying?

[Messy]

It certainly sounds like that aircraft had two dipsticks that day

[bernicarey]

Berni is not going to like this

A classic mistake by a light aircraft pilot, which happens more often than you'd think, especially somewhere like the USA where there are so many 'weekend pilots'.
The story and the photo from the Irish Times just add to the confusion of the general public.
This statement is incorrect, you can get Gal or Ltr dipsticks for both models...

It later became clear during the course of the same conversation that the pilot had in fact used the dipstick for a Cessna172 which measures in US gallons equivalent to around four litres, as opposed to the dipstick for a Cessna 177A which measures in litres.

and the photo shows a car engine oil dipstick
You'd most likely think surely the dipstick is there all the time, just like the car engine one...

Light aircraft do not always have fuel gauges, or they are not generally that accurate, hence the need to 'dip the tanks' before flight.

The 'Dipstick' is generally a clear tube, with markings on the outside, or a tube with a float up the middle. You put it in the tank until it reaches the bottom and then either read off from the float markings or, if the marked tube version, you put your finger over the end and withdraw it to read it, a bit like you would do with a straw in a glass of drink.
So you need to have the right dipstick because the size of the tanks will be different between aircraft models. Being marked in Gal or Ltr and not knowing the difference is an entirely different problem.... Irish or not, the Pilot is clearly an even bigger Dipstick!

See this image for an example of a dipstick https://www.flightstore.co.uk/images/ce ... medium.jpg

[Stevie Johnno]

I might be over cautious here but as a matter of course I would always top my Tanks off before takeoff just in case there was any type of emergency in flight.
In the 1990's we were on a commercial flight to the US when we apparently hit very strong headwinds and as a result the Pilot had to make an unscheduled landing at Gander AFB to emergency refuel. We weren't allowed off the Plane and the Doors had to remain open in case there was a fire during refuelling, needless to say it was "Brass Monkey" weather. I know Pilots have to calculate the minimum ammount of fuel to carry with a margin for error or emergencies but sometimes even they get it wrong.

[bernicarey]

I might be over cautious here but as a matter of course I would always top my Tanks off before takeoff just in case there was any type of emergency in flight.

That is infrequently done in civil aviation for a number of reasons.
Commercially, you don't want to waste money carrying around fuel you don't need, because you're going to be burning fuel just to carry it around.
You also don't want to be carrying fuel when you could be carrying passengers.

That is particularly relevant to light aircraft, where weight limits are far closer. Excess fuel for the trip may mean you can't carry a passenger's bag, or even the passenger.

There are some tourist flights around the world, and the Grand Canyon comes to mind, where passengers are weighed as they buy their ticket. At some 8,000ft elevation (at the Grand Canyon), the weights are even more critical.
Hot and High means less power from the engine(s) and less lift from the wings.


As an aside, in matters of fuel reserves, the RAF lost 6 Hawker Hunter Mk1 aircraft on 8 February 1956 when they ran out of fuel; 1 pilot was killed.
Like many British aircraft, the Hunter was a great flying machine, but the slick design didn't really leave enough room for a lot of fuel. Later marks had the ability to carry external Drop Tanks and also had some additional internal fuel tanks, but the original Mk1 aircraft were pretty short range.
Brief details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Hawk ... t_accident

[witsd]

Well, the last time I heard of an imperial / metric mix-up, the Mars Climate Orbiter ended up disintegrating in the Martian atmosphere, so I guess at least this wasn't quite such an expensive mistake.

[ssmith65]

hang on a min, doesnt every plane have a fuel gague in the cockpit? and surely looking at it is part of the pre-flight checks? I remember from my hours in a chipmunk that even they had a fuel gague. We had to be carefull of taking any loose into the plan becuase it could get below and stop the plane from working becuase everything was done with pullies and bits of string!.

[bernicarey]

hang on a min, doesnt every plane have a fuel gague in the cockpit? and surely looking at it is part of the pre-flight checks? I remember from my hours in a chipmunk that even they had a fuel gague. We had to be carefull of taking any loose into the plan becuase it could get below and stop the plane from working becuase everything was done with pullies and bits of string!.

Light aircraft fuel gauges are notoriously inaccurate, if they actually work. Most of them rely on old fashioned float systems, a bit like a 1950s car fuel contents. They may only read E 1/2 F
See here for an example of gauges from a Cessna 172, as mention in the OP https://www.ebay.com/itm/Cessna-172-Fue ... 2587607311

A new gauge could cost £600 and tell you very little.