Message-ID: <365497A1.7EA0@ibm.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:11:45 -0600
From: Snowbird <snbird@ibm.net>
Reply-To: snbird@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Airport Etiquette?
References: <365324D1.9D16E70@birdland.sky> <365376BB.5D22@ibm.net> <73169t$s04$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> <36542438.4DDC@ibm.net> <731e7g$r84$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.37.111.192
X-Trace: 19 Nov 1998 23:25:15 GMT, 129.37.111.192
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 37
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!newsfeed.sgi.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed.cwix.com!165.87.194.242!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!129.37.111.192
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:39439

Dylan Smith wrote:

> >Yeah, and if the tach in a different C172 reads 100 lower than actual
> >rpm or you're flying at 3000 agl and 75% power, the fuel burn might
> >be closer to 8.3 gph or more.  Do you count/flight plan on getting 
> >6.6 gph?
 
> In our club's C172, I can get this fuel burn with confidence. (...) 
> But if I stick religiously to a 65% power setting *in that particular > airplane* I don't see what the problem with planning for the actual 
> fuel burn that has been repeatedly demonstrated at that power setting.

Well, this gets in to a lot of stuff like "how much fuel reserve do
you plan" and "how do you know whether you actually have it?", but
my response is "because stuff changes, sometimes maybe while I'm
up flying or between the last time I flew and now, so I'd rather be
conservative".

When the post "New ticket in July Accident in August" was posted, 
one response was :
:Well, we can surely learn from this, but not much.  Departing at
:0735 and flying all the way until 1205.  In a 172, assuming it has
:regular tanks.  Yeah. ....Shall I say "common sense"?

Since that's only 4 1/2 hrs and 40 gallons at 6.6 gph should 
allow 6 hrs of fuel (heck even at 8.3 gph should be 4.8 hrs).
For all we know, the pilot in question might have been familiar
with the plane and its fuel burn; should the response instead
have been "I don't understand how this accident happened, she
was probably only counting on the fuel burn she'd previously 
gotten in that plane at that power setting and the time 40 gallons
should give her at that rate?" 

I don't know.

Snowbird


