Again, I repeat, how many of you that know so much about aviation, NTSB and the FAA have actually poured red dyed water into the fuel tank of any Cessna as it sits in its normal ground attitude? If any one of you aviation professionals would care to take the time to actually do a test you would clearly understand that Cessna aircraft do not meet certification standards.
Cessna aircraft have an indicated design flaw in the fuel tanks. The preflight procedure is like wise flawed. The lack of oversight on the part of the NTSB and FAA is even a greater flaw.
How many of you aviation professionals have read FAA Safety Recommendations 99.283 and 99.284? How many of you aviation professionals can explain the just released SAIB CE-10-40R1 advising pilots to try and prevent water from getting into the fuel tanks of the 100, 200 and 300 series Cessna aircraft? Not seeing water in your sump cup means the fuel tanks are not functioning as they should. With the inept FAA watching we poured 52 ounces of red dyed water into both wings of my Cessna 172P. With 104 ounces of red dyed water on board we did not see one drop of it at any of the ten sump drains.
The FAA actually stopped deliveries of Cessna aircraft for one day. That afternoon Cessna big wigs flew to Kansas City to meet with FAA. Both safety recommendations vanished. FOIA request for what happened at that meeting was returned redacted. I have personally tested, by pouring red dyed water into the fuel tanks of the following Cessna's..172P, 172RG, 150 and 152. Each aircraft held undetectable water that exceeded the capacity of the gascolator. How many Cessna aircraft have you tested?
The inept NTSB walked away from their own safety recommendation A-83-6 twenty four years ago. As they walked away they marked this life taking design flaw as "closed but UNACCEPTABLE". The inept NTSB caved in to the tomb stone FAA about undetectable water in the fuel tanks of Cessna aircraft. Pilots and passengers continue to die as the inept NTSB has never looked back. In fact as I write the NTSB has written off engine failures in General Aviation aircraft well over 6,418 times with the probable cause of UNDETERMINED. Hell, if the NTSB cannot figure out air, spark and UNCONTAMINATED FUEL I would say that is INEPT. Seems the NTSB could find just one good old country boy mechanic to help figure out why the Cessna engines keep sputtering. You aviation professionals can can tell all of us what you think, but how many of you have actually poured water into any Cessna fuel tank to check for the positive detection of water in the fuel tank? Come back after you have actually done the test and then let me know what you know instead of what you think. What ever reason the Cessna 172 engine failed the flaw of undetectable water in the Cessna fuel tanks still exists, waiting to take down the next pilot and passenger with a sputtering engine.
“A lot of the time you’ll see inexperienced pilots flying this type because that’s what they learned on. But there’s no way to tell how many hours this pilot had.”
What is inexperienced and In my opinion, inept, is the NTSB and FAA.
The NTSB has written off engine failures in General Aviation aircraft well over 6,418 times with the probable cause of UNDETERMINED.
The "investigators" can do what ever they wish to the engine, but the indicated design flaw is in the wing fuel tanks!
The Cessna aircraft engine has two spark plugs per cylinder. The Cessna aircraft engine has four cylinders. Four cylinders with a total of eight spark plugs.
The Cessna aircraft engine has two magnetos which provide spark to the eight spark plugs.
The Cessna aircraft engine runs on air, spark and UNCONTAMINATED FUEL.
Do you think all eight spark plugs failed at the same time?
Do you think that both magnetos failed at the same time?
Do you think all four cylinders failed at the same time?
Do you think the aircraft engine ran out of air?
This is not rocket science.
Do your own red dyed water in the fuel tank test and then you can really appreciate both agencies charged with oversight. The inexperienced and inept FAA and NTSB.
No speculation from sumpthis just a heads-up on one possible cause as I stated in my original post. Salsa do you mean you do not think Cessna aircraft hide water in the fuel tanks the pilot cannot positively detect during the preflight of the aircraft? If so, then maybe you could elaborate on what water tests you have performed on what Cessna aircraft and had different results? Or maybe you have read the timeline on my non-commercial research only website and have some other explanation as to why an aircraft engine would sputter. Pending the discovery of a major engine malfunction or fuel exhaustion I still suggest it may, I repeat, may be undetectable water in the fuel.
I understand from witness reports the Cessna engine was heard sputtering. One possible cause for a Cessna engine to sputter could be the indicated design flaw well known to both the U.S. FAA and NTSB for well over two decades. Seems there is a lack of positive detection of water in the fuel tanks the pilot cannot positively detect during the pre-flight of the aircraft. Just asking pilots of Cessna aircraft a few questions can be very illuminating.
Ask the pilots how often they have seen water in the sump cup during the pre-flight of the Cessna aircraft. Ask all the pilots if they are aware of the indicated design flaw in the Cessna fuel tanks that does NOT allow for the positive detection of water in the fuel tanks. Ask all the pilots if they are aware of the Wall Street Journal article about the indicated design flaw from April 30, 2001. Ask all the pilots if they are aware of NTSB Safety Recommendation A-83-6, how about FAA Safety Recommendations 91.283 and 91.284 about a lack of positive detection in Cessna integral fuel tanks. The point is the engine failure could be water in the fuel tanks which can also make for carburetor ice lacking any mechanical reason for this engine failure that is where I would look for engine failure. Easy to prove by just pouring 16 ounces of red dyed water into the fuel tank as the Cessna sits in its normal ground attitude then go to the sump drain and see if you can positively detect and then eliminate the same 16 ounces of red dyed water you just poured into the tank.
If it turns out not to be an engine problem you should look for contaminated fuel. In, fact a simple test should be preformed. Pour sixteen ounces of red dyed water in the fuel tank as the aircraft sits in its normal ground attitude. Then go to the sump drain and see if you can identify and eliminate the same sixteen ounces of red dyed water you just poured in the fuel tank.
The following links illustrate an indicated design flaw about a lack of positive detection of water in the fuel tanks of many Cessna aircraft. In 1983 the NTSB identified a lack of positive detection of water in Cessna rubber bladder fuel tanks. I have identified the lack of positive detection of water in the integral (wet wing) fuel tanks and regular fuel tanks like those in the Cessna 150/152.
Plane sputtered before crashing
Again, I repeat, how many of you that know so much about aviation, NTSB and the FAA have actually poured red dyed water into the fuel tank of any Cessna as it sits in its normal ground attitude? If any one of you aviation professionals would care to take the time to actually do a test you would clearly understand that Cessna aircraft do not meet certification standards. Cessna aircraft have an indicated design flaw in the fuel tanks. The preflight procedure is like wise flawed. The lack of oversight on the part of the NTSB and FAA is even a greater flaw. How many of you aviation professionals have read FAA Safety Recommendations 99.283 and 99.284? How many of you aviation professionals can explain the just released SAIB CE-10-40R1 advising pilots to try and prevent water from getting into the fuel tanks of the 100, 200 and 300 series Cessna aircraft? Not seeing water in your sump cup means the fuel tanks are not functioning as they should. With the inept FAA watching we poured 52 ounces of red dyed water into both wings of my Cessna 172P. With 104 ounces of red dyed water on board we did not see one drop of it at any of the ten sump drains. The FAA actually stopped deliveries of Cessna aircraft for one day. That afternoon Cessna big wigs flew to Kansas City to meet with FAA. Both safety recommendations vanished. FOIA request for what happened at that meeting was returned redacted. I have personally tested, by pouring red dyed water into the fuel tanks of the following Cessna's..172P, 172RG, 150 and 152. Each aircraft held undetectable water that exceeded the capacity of the gascolator. How many Cessna aircraft have you tested?
Plane sputtered before crashing
The inept NTSB walked away from their own safety recommendation A-83-6 twenty four years ago. As they walked away they marked this life taking design flaw as "closed but UNACCEPTABLE". The inept NTSB caved in to the tomb stone FAA about undetectable water in the fuel tanks of Cessna aircraft. Pilots and passengers continue to die as the inept NTSB has never looked back. In fact as I write the NTSB has written off engine failures in General Aviation aircraft well over 6,418 times with the probable cause of UNDETERMINED. Hell, if the NTSB cannot figure out air, spark and UNCONTAMINATED FUEL I would say that is INEPT. Seems the NTSB could find just one good old country boy mechanic to help figure out why the Cessna engines keep sputtering. You aviation professionals can can tell all of us what you think, but how many of you have actually poured water into any Cessna fuel tank to check for the positive detection of water in the fuel tank? Come back after you have actually done the test and then let me know what you know instead of what you think. What ever reason the Cessna 172 engine failed the flaw of undetectable water in the Cessna fuel tanks still exists, waiting to take down the next pilot and passenger with a sputtering engine.
Plane sputtered before crashing
“A lot of the time you’ll see inexperienced pilots flying this type because that’s what they learned on. But there’s no way to tell how many hours this pilot had.”
What is inexperienced and In my opinion, inept, is the NTSB and FAA. The NTSB has written off engine failures in General Aviation aircraft well over 6,418 times with the probable cause of UNDETERMINED.
The "investigators" can do what ever they wish to the engine, but the indicated design flaw is in the wing fuel tanks!
The Cessna aircraft engine has two spark plugs per cylinder. The Cessna aircraft engine has four cylinders. Four cylinders with a total of eight spark plugs.
The Cessna aircraft engine has two magnetos which provide spark to the eight spark plugs.
The Cessna aircraft engine runs on air, spark and UNCONTAMINATED FUEL.
Do you think all eight spark plugs failed at the same time?
Do you think that both magnetos failed at the same time?
Do you think all four cylinders failed at the same time?
Do you think the aircraft engine ran out of air?
This is not rocket science.
Do your own red dyed water in the fuel tank test and then you can really appreciate both agencies charged with oversight. The inexperienced and inept FAA and NTSB.
Plane sputtered before crashing
No speculation from sumpthis just a heads-up on one possible cause as I stated in my original post. Salsa do you mean you do not think Cessna aircraft hide water in the fuel tanks the pilot cannot positively detect during the preflight of the aircraft? If so, then maybe you could elaborate on what water tests you have performed on what Cessna aircraft and had different results? Or maybe you have read the timeline on my non-commercial research only website and have some other explanation as to why an aircraft engine would sputter. Pending the discovery of a major engine malfunction or fuel exhaustion I still suggest it may, I repeat, may be undetectable water in the fuel.
Plane sputtered before crashing
I understand from witness reports the Cessna engine was heard sputtering. One possible cause for a Cessna engine to sputter could be the indicated design flaw well known to both the U.S. FAA and NTSB for well over two decades. Seems there is a lack of positive detection of water in the fuel tanks the pilot cannot positively detect during the pre-flight of the aircraft. Just asking pilots of Cessna aircraft a few questions can be very illuminating.
Ask the pilots how often they have seen water in the sump cup during the pre-flight of the Cessna aircraft. Ask all the pilots if they are aware of the indicated design flaw in the Cessna fuel tanks that does NOT allow for the positive detection of water in the fuel tanks. Ask all the pilots if they are aware of the Wall Street Journal article about the indicated design flaw from April 30, 2001. Ask all the pilots if they are aware of NTSB Safety Recommendation A-83-6, how about FAA Safety Recommendations 91.283 and 91.284 about a lack of positive detection in Cessna integral fuel tanks. The point is the engine failure could be water in the fuel tanks which can also make for carburetor ice lacking any mechanical reason for this engine failure that is where I would look for engine failure. Easy to prove by just pouring 16 ounces of red dyed water into the fuel tank as the Cessna sits in its normal ground attitude then go to the sump drain and see if you can positively detect and then eliminate the same 16 ounces of red dyed water you just poured into the tank.
Update: Engine trouble preceded plane's emergency landing in Harrison
If it turns out not to be an engine problem you should look for contaminated fuel. In, fact a simple test should be preformed. Pour sixteen ounces of red dyed water in the fuel tank as the aircraft sits in its normal ground attitude. Then go to the sump drain and see if you can identify and eliminate the same sixteen ounces of red dyed water you just poured in the fuel tank.
The following links illustrate an indicated design flaw about a lack of positive detection of water in the fuel tanks of many Cessna aircraft. In 1983 the NTSB identified a lack of positive detection of water in Cessna rubber bladder fuel tanks. I have identified the lack of positive detection of water in the integral (wet wing) fuel tanks and regular fuel tanks like those in the Cessna 150/152.
http://sumpthis.com/ntsbrecommendationtofaaandfaaresponse/a836.htm
http://sumpthis.com/cessna150andcessna152tanktest/cessna150tankandcessna152tanktest.htm
http://sumpthis.com/10292003lettertofaafsdonashville/faafsdonashvilleletter10292003.htm