Forest Service Safety Alert

[kevin]

A gentleman from the U.S. Forest Service sent along the attached 337 Safety Alert. It asks us to give it the widest possible distribution, so here it is.

It does not seem to have anything new in it for folks that are followers of this site and familiar with the aircraft, but it is always useful to be reminded.

Kevin

[Jerry De Santis]

Kevin, Read the attached. I don't know of any skymasters with rubber bladder type fuel tanks. Are there any out there? However, the point is well taken as to fueling the inner tanks first and moving outward.

Jerry
N34EC

[hharney]

It has always been my policy that if I need the tanks full, you have to return to each outboard and check that the fuel is up to the top. This depends on how fast the fuel is dispensed. With high flow nozzles it is a must. I have found that most DIY nozzles have low enough flows that this is usally not a problem. I is important to tell the fuel attendant to check the outboards after he has fueled both sides.

[Ed Coffman]

Hello,

Once again the forest service is casting blame on the aircraft when it is the operators that are at fault. A Piper Seneca landed with due to fuel exhaustion on a forest service mission and we aren't seeing any emergency directives on that. If you don't put gas in the plane you will run out! That is the pilots responsibility. When these pilots screw up they try to cover their asses and blame their equipment. Perhaps the forest service should fire the companies that don't train their pilots or maintain their equipment and get someone who does. My .02 cents.

Ed Coffman
________
Buy grinder

[Mark McConaughy]

ell I guess I'm telling my age but I remember when you had to be current in category, class AND TYPE. Yes, it use to be the rule that if you were current in a Cessna 172 you could not fly a PA-28 to haul passengers unless you went out and did at least 3 takeoffs and landings. Well in 1975 the FAA changed that and for part 23 airplanes (those under 12,500 lbs.) you only had to be current in category and class.

I suspect that some of these companies in question only require that a pilot be current in category and class. I have to admit over the years I have been put in a position where I had to fly an aircraft in which I had never flown that "type" before. And yes, normally aspirated part 23 airplanes are pretty much alike. Or are they? How many times have you picked up one of the trades and read I learned about flying from that or aftermath and encountered a story where an otherwise competent pilot did so stupid as to be beyond belief. I know myself I have done a few things over the years that in retrospect were not the brightest moves in the world. In looking back at that, what I realize is that in almost every one of those situations I got there by being in a hurry or complacent.

Guess what I'm saying is no matter what you are flying take the time to do it right. In some circles it is said "there is never time to do it right but there is always time to do it over". Trouble is in the aviation world we do not always have the opportunity to do it over, so we really need to do it right the first time. There is no substitute for a good check out, especially for those whose experience is limited.

[Ernie Martin]

I think that -- on balance -- the alert put out by the Forest Service was fair. In fact, considering the point made by Mark above, maybe it didn't go far enough. I would also require either type currency or, at a minimum, proficiency with fuel management if it's a pre-73 Skymaster.

Fuel management on these aircraft with separate auxiliary tanks is anything but trivial. I have a lenghty page on this subject in my "backup" Skymaster website at www.SkymasterUS.com with a quiz at the end. I'd bet that less than half of the pilots flying these aircraft would get all the questions right.

Ernie