Re: Mogas - UK accident

[tonyb42uk]

'Hello to all,
Some of you on this forum will know me as a member of the Fairchild
Club and of my long standing interest and continuing research into
the production and service history of the Fairchild M-62's and F-
24's. I must make it clear that I am neither a professional
historian nor have I any practical experience of owning or flying any
aircraft.

I read with great interest the thread relating to Mogas and have
debated for several days whether or not to contribute. In August
1998 there was an accident involving a Fairchild PT-19A in the UK
which had fatal consequences for the restorer, owner and pilot,
Richard Fox.

I met Richard Fox on three occasions and we had corresponded on the
history and provenance of his ex-Uruguayan PT-19A for sometime. This
was not the first vintage aircraft Richard had restored and in my
judgement his skill, workmanship and his attention to detail were
first class. It was therefore a great shock when, during the evening
of August 15, 1998, I first heard of his fatal accident .

Even before the accident report was published one of AAIB
investigators made it clear to me that after eliminating several
possibilities suggested by the eye witness reports and after an
analysis of the fuel remaining in the tanks (fortunately, there was
no post crash fire) they were coming to the conclusion that a "vapour
lock" in the fuel lines had occurred and that the volatility of the
motor gasoline was the major cause.

The accident report can be read or downloaded via either of the
following links, assuming your computer has Adobe Reader software:

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/april_1999/fairchild
_500172.cfm

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_500172.pdf

There are several points in the text that I feel are worth further
consideration:
Whilst not familiar with Woburn Park, the mention of the parkland
containing many trees probably indicates why the pilot was unable to
attempt a forced landing straight ahead when the engine first
faltered and why he initiated a turn, possibly to avoid these trees,
which developed into a spin immediately after the engine failed
completely. I am told these obstructions were relevant in a Gipsy
Moth accident at an earlier Moth Rally at Woburn Park.

I felt at the time of the publication of the report, and still feel
today, that the potential consequences of using Mogas in the UK were
not highlighted sufficiently. I cannot comment as to the situation
in the USA, but understand that Mogas can be approved for use in the
Fairchild M-62 in the USA. I also understand it is commonly used by
operators there and despite the ambient temperatures reached in some
US states (recalling my own visit to Oshkosh in August 1999!) being
much higher than that reached on a summer's afternoon in the UK -
there does not seem to be a history of this particular problem on
the western side of the pond. To the best of my knowledge there
have only ever been three other civil registered M-62's operated in
the UK and AFAIK, none of these suffered this type of engine failure.

From what is said in the AAIB report it seems likely the problem may
lie with the fuel Richard was using, and possibly, with the standards
set in the UK for gasoline for automobile use. If the problem of the
volatility quality of UK Mogas was the root cause then this is of
little consequence to most readers of this forum. However, there may
well be other operators of US vintage aircraft outside the States,
who whilst not having the official approval for the use of Mogas in
their machines, are well aware this is approved for their aircraft in
the USA and consequently make regular use of it, specially if like
Richard, they operate out of a small strip with no Avgas facilities.
It may be that the AAIB took the view that as the fuel being used was
not approved for use in this type of aircraft by UK authorities and
was therefore the responsibility of the desceased owner and as there
were no other current British-registered examples it needed no
further action beyond the usual publication of accident report.

I would imagine the circumstances of this accident are more relevant
in the case of a low-wing aircraft where the fuel is lifted from wing
tanks or the center section and less so in the case of an aircraft
where the fuel is initially gravity fed from tanks in high set wings,
such as the Model 24.

Having owned an ex-British Army of the Rhine 'Lightweight' Land Rover
for a period of twelve years, 'vapour lock' was a problem I had heard
of prior to these events, and had some personal experience of.
However, the embrassment of a failure of a vehicle to respond to your
right foot are not generally as serious as that of an aircraft engine
failure.

Hope some of you might find the AAIB report of interest.

Tony Broadhurst'

[Mike Danielle]

'Interesting thread. I can't find a mogas STC for any low-wing Fairchild
probably because of that very same reason. The high-wing birds apparently
have sufficient head pressure to preclude vapor locks. An additional boost
pump installation goes a lot further to ease the mind.

Mike D.

----- Original Message -----
From: "tonyb42uk"
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 6:00 AM
Subject: [fairchildclub] Mogas - UK accident


> Hello to all,
> Some of you on this forum will know me as a member of the Fairchild
> Club and of my long standing interest and continuing research into
> the production and service history of the Fairchild M-62's and F-
> 24's. I must make it clear that I am neither a professional
> historian nor have I any practical experience of owning or flying any
> aircraft.
>
> I read with great interest the thread relating to Mogas and have
> debated for several days whether or not to contribute. In August
> 1998 there was an accident involving a Fairchild PT-19A in the UK
> which had fatal consequences for the restorer, owner and pilot,
> Richard Fox.
>
> I met Richard Fox on three occasions and we had corresponded on the
> history and provenance of his ex-Uruguayan PT-19A for sometime. This
> was not the first vintage aircraft Richard had restored and in my
> judgement his skill, workmanship and his attention to detail were
> first class. It was therefore a great shock when, during the evening
> of August 15, 1998, I first heard of his fatal accident .
>
> Even before the accident report was published one of AAIB
> investigators made it clear to me that after eliminating several
> possibilities suggested by the eye witness reports and after an
> analysis of the fuel remaining in the tanks (fortunately, there was
> no post crash fire) they were coming to the conclusion that a "vapour
> lock" in the fuel lines had occurred and that the volatility of the
> motor gasoline was the major cause.
>
> The accident report can be read or downloaded via either of the
> following links, assuming your computer has Adobe Reader software:
>
> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/april_1999/fairchild
> _500172.cfm
>
> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_500172.pdf
>
> There are several points in the text that I feel are worth further
> consideration:
> Whilst not familiar with Woburn Park, the mention of the parkland
> containing many trees probably indicates why the pilot was unable to
> attempt a forced landing straight ahead when the engine first
> faltered and why he initiated a turn, possibly to avoid these trees,
> which developed into a spin immediately after the engine failed
> completely. I am told these obstructions were relevant in a Gipsy
> Moth accident at an earlier Moth Rally at Woburn Park.
>
> I felt at the time of the publication of the report, and still feel
> today, that the potential consequences of using Mogas in the UK were
> not highlighted sufficiently. I cannot comment as to the situation
> in the USA, but understand that Mogas can be approved for use in the
> Fairchild M-62 in the USA. I also understand it is commonly used by
> operators there and despite the ambient temperatures reached in some
> US states (recalling my own visit to Oshkosh in August 1999!) being
> much higher than that reached on a summer's afternoon in the UK -
> there does not seem to be a history of this particular problem on
> the western side of the pond. To the best of my knowledge there
> have only ever been three other civil registered M-62's operated in
> the UK and AFAIK, none of these suffered this type of engine failure.
>
>>From what is said in the AAIB report it seems likely the problem may
> lie with the fuel Richard was using, and possibly, with the standards
> set in the UK for gasoline for automobile use. If the problem of the
> volatility quality of UK Mogas was the root cause then this is of
> little consequence to most readers of this forum. However, there may
> well be other operators of US vintage aircraft outside the States,
> who whilst not having the official approval for the use of Mogas in
> their machines, are well aware this is approved for their aircraft in
> the USA and consequently make regular use of it, specially if like
> Richard, they operate out of a small strip with no Avgas facilities.
> It may be that the AAIB took the view that as the fuel being used was
> not approved for use in this type of aircraft by UK authorities and
> was therefore the responsibility of the desceased owner and as there
> were no other current British-registered examples it needed no
> further action beyond the usual publication of accident report.
>
> I would imagine the circumstances of this accident are more relevant
> in the case of a low-wing aircraft where the fuel is lifted from wing
> tanks or the center section and less so in the case of an aircraft
> where the fuel is initially gravity fed from tanks in high set wings,
> such as the Model 24.
>
> Having owned an ex-British Army of the Rhine 'Lightweight' Land Rover
> for a period of twelve years, 'vapour lock' was a problem I had heard
> of prior to these events, and had some personal experience of.
> However, the embrassment of a failure of a vehicle to respond to your
> right foot are not generally as serious as that of an aircraft engine
> failure.
>
> Hope some of you might find the AAIB report of interest.
>
> Tony Broadhurst
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

'

[cgalley]

'Your speculation on the cause of this accident is just that and I would suggest that car gas had nothing at all to do with the accident. You are giving car gas a bad rap.

First, unless you can tell me with a straight face that the temperature was approaching 100° in England, the vapor lock is highly improbable.


Having been in England in July when it rained 12 of the 13 days and never got over 60° while I was there, a more likely cause might be carburetor Icing.

Cool days of high humidity makes carb ice happen. After the engine quits and the plane is forced down; the ice just melts leaving not a trace to show that there was ice. Just repeating that car gas causes all engine failures is not very realistic even when car gas is the fuel.

Ironically, the worse case of carb Ice I ever had was on a 80° hazy evening in Iowa. Carb ice can happen even when temps approach 100°



Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
New address - cgalley@mchsi.com

----- Original Message -----
From: tonyb42uk
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 8:00 AM
Subject: [fairchildclub] Mogas - UK accident


Hello to all,
Some of you on this forum will know me as a member of the Fairchild
Club and of my long standing interest and continuing research into
the production and service history of the Fairchild M-62's and F-
24's. I must make it clear that I am neither a professional
historian nor have I any practical experience of owning or flying any
aircraft.

I read with great interest the thread relating to Mogas and have
debated for several days whether or not to contribute. In August
1998 there was an accident involving a Fairchild PT-19A in the UK
which had fatal consequences for the restorer, owner and pilot,
Richard Fox.

I met Richard Fox on three occasions and we had corresponded on the
history and provenance of his ex-Uruguayan PT-19A for sometime. This
was not the first vintage aircraft Richard had restored and in my
judgement his skill, workmanship and his attention to detail were
first class. It was therefore a great shock when, during the evening
of August 15, 1998, I first heard of his fatal accident .

Even before the accident report was published one of AAIB
investigators made it clear to me that after eliminating several
possibilities suggested by the eye witness reports and after an
analysis of the fuel remaining in the tanks (fortunately, there was
no post crash fire) they were coming to the conclusion that a "vapour
lock" in the fuel lines had occurred and that the volatility of the
motor gasoline was the major cause.

The accident report can be read or downloaded via either of the
following links, assuming your computer has Adobe Reader software:

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/april_1999/fairchild
_500172.cfm

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_500172.pdf

There are several points in the text that I feel are worth further
consideration:
Whilst not familiar with Woburn Park, the mention of the parkland
containing many trees probably indicates why the pilot was unable to
attempt a forced landing straight ahead when the engine first
faltered and why he initiated a turn, possibly to avoid these trees,
which developed into a spin immediately after the engine failed
completely. I am told these obstructions were relevant in a Gipsy
Moth accident at an earlier Moth Rally at Woburn Park.

I felt at the time of the publication of the report, and still feel
today, that the potential consequences of using Mogas in the UK were
not highlighted sufficiently. I cannot comment as to the situation
in the USA, but understand that Mogas can be approved for use in the
Fairchild M-62 in the USA. I also understand it is commonly used by
operators there and despite the ambient temperatures reached in some
US states (recalling my own visit to Oshkosh in August 1999!) being
much higher than that reached on a summer's afternoon in the UK -
there does not seem to be a history of this particular problem on
the western side of the pond. To the best of my knowledge there
have only ever been three other civil registered M-62's operated in
the UK and AFAIK, none of these suffered this type of engine failure.

From what is said in the AAIB report it seems likely the problem may
lie with the fuel Richard was using, and possibly, with the standards
set in the UK for gasoline for automobile use. If the problem of the
volatility quality of UK Mogas was the root cause then this is of
little consequence to most readers of this forum. However, there may
well be other operators of US vintage aircraft outside the States,
who whilst not having the official approval for the use of Mogas in
their machines, are well aware this is approved for their aircraft in
the USA and consequently make regular use of it, specially if like
Richard, they operate out of a small strip with no Avgas facilities.
It may be that the AAIB took the view that as the fuel being used was
not approved for use in this type of aircraft by UK authorities and
was therefore the responsibility of the desceased owner and as there
were no other current British-registered examples it needed no
further action beyond the usual publication of accident report.

I would imagine the circumstances of this accident are more relevant
in the case of a low-wing aircraft where the fuel is lifted from wing
tanks or the center section and less so in the case of an aircraft
where the fuel is initially gravity fed from tanks in high set wings,
such as the Model 24.

Having owned an ex-British Army of the Rhine 'Lightweight' Land Rover
for a period of twelve years, 'vapour lock' was a problem I had heard
of prior to these events, and had some personal experience of.
However, the embrassment of a failure of a vehicle to respond to your
right foot are not generally as serious as that of an aircraft engine
failure.

Hope some of you might find the AAIB report of interest.

Tony Broadhurst





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

'

[Bob Haas]

'I have to agree, after flying well over 1,000 hours behind a
Ranger in a PT 19 using Mo Gas New York to the Florida Keys.

Now here in Fl, on a hot summer day, crank starting got tedious until you
sat down for a spell under the wing. It still

hasn?t quit while the prop was turning. Bob Haas.





_____

From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of cgalley
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:02 PM
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] Mogas - UK accident



Your speculation on the cause of this accident is just that and I would
suggest that car gas had nothing at all to do with the accident. You are
giving car gas a bad rap.

First, unless you can tell me with a straight face that the temperature was
approaching 100° in England, the vapor lock is highly improbable.

Having been in England in July when it rained 12 of the 13 days and never
got over 60° while I was there, a more likely cause might be carburetor
Icing.

Cool days of high humidity makes carb ice happen. After the engine quits and
the plane is forced down; the ice just melts leaving not a trace to show
that there was ice. Just repeating that car gas causes all engine failures
is not very realistic even when car gas is the fuel.

Ironically, the worse case of carb Ice I ever had was on a 80° hazy evening
in Iowa. Carb ice can happen even when temps approach 100°

Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
New address - cgalley@mchsi. com

----- Original Message -----
From: tonyb42uk
To: fairchildclub@ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 8:00 AM
Subject: [fairchildclub] Mogas - UK accident

Hello to all,
Some of you on this forum will know me as a member of the Fairchild
Club and of my long standing interest and continuing research into
the production and service history of the Fairchild M-62's and F-
24's. I must make it clear that I am neither a professional
historian nor have I any practical experience of owning or flying any
aircraft.

I read with great interest the thread relating to Mogas and have
debated for several days whether or not to contribute. In August
1998 there was an accident involving a Fairchild PT-19A in the UK
which had fatal consequences for the restorer, owner and pilot,
Richard Fox.

I met Richard Fox on three occasions and we had corresponded on the
history and provenance of his ex-Uruguayan PT-19A for sometime. This
was not the first vintage aircraft Richard had restored and in my
judgement his skill, workmanship and his attention to detail were
first class. It was therefore a great shock when, during the evening
of August 15, 1998, I first heard of his fatal accident .

Even before the accident report was published one of AAIB
investigators made it clear to me that after eliminating several
possibilities suggested by the eye witness reports and after an
analysis of the fuel remaining in the tanks (fortunately, there was
no post crash fire) they were coming to the conclusion that a "vapour
lock" in the fuel lines had occurred and that the volatility of the
motor gasoline was the major cause.

The accident report can be read or downloaded via either of the
following links, assuming your computer has Adobe Reader software:

http://www.aaib

dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/april_1999/fairchild
_500172.cfm

http://www.aaib

dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_500172.pdf

There are several points in the text that I feel are worth further
consideration:
Whilst not familiar with Woburn Park, the mention of the parkland
containing many trees probably indicates why the pilot was unable to
attempt a forced landing straight ahead when the engine first
faltered and why he initiated a turn, possibly to avoid these trees,
which developed into a spin immediately after the engine failed
completely. I am told these obstructions were relevant in a Gipsy
Moth accident at an earlier Moth Rally at Woburn Park.

I felt at the time of the publication of the report, and still feel
today, that the potential consequences of using Mogas in the UK were
not highlighted sufficiently. I cannot comment as to the situation
in the USA, but understand that Mogas can be approved for use in the
Fairchild M-62 in the USA. I also understand it is commonly used by
operators there and despite the ambient temperatures reached in some
US states (recalling my own visit to Oshkosh in August 1999!) being
much higher than that reached on a summer's afternoon in the UK -
there does not seem to be a history of this particular problem on
the western side of the pond. To the best of my knowledge there
have only ever been three other civil registered M-62's operated in
the UK and AFAIK, none of these suffered this type of engine failure.

From what is said in the AAIB report it seems likely the problem may
lie with the fuel Richard was using, and possibly, with the standards
set in the UK for gasoline for automobile use. If the problem of the
volatility quality of UK Mogas was the root cause then this is of
little consequence to most readers of this forum. However, there may
well be other operators of US vintage aircraft outside the States,
who whilst not having the official approval for the use of Mogas in
their machines, are well aware this is approved for their aircraft in
the USA and consequently make regular use of it, specially if like
Richard, they operate out of a small strip with no Avgas facilities.
It may be that the AAIB took the view that as the fuel being used was
not approved for use in this type of aircraft by UK authorities and
was therefore the responsibility of the desceased owner and as there
were no other current British-registered examples it needed no
further action beyond the usual publication of accident report.

I would imagine the circumstances of this accident are more relevant
in the case of a low-wing aircraft where the fuel is lifted from wing
tanks or the center section and less so in the case of an aircraft
where the fuel is initially gravity fed from tanks in high set wings,
such as the Model 24.

Having owned an ex-British Army of the Rhine 'Lightweight' Land Rover
for a period of twelve years, 'vapour lock' was a problem I had heard
of prior to these events, and had some personal experience of.
However, the embrassment of a failure of a vehicle to respond to your
right foot are not generally as serious as that of an aircraft engine
failure.

Hope some of you might find the AAIB report of interest.

Tony Broadhurst

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

'

[tonyb42uk]

'Hello Cy,
Please read the AAIB report.

I think you will find it was not my speculation that the cause of
Richard's accident was the use of mogas.

It was the opinion of those professional investigators at Farnborough
that inspected the wreckage, authorised the analysis of the fuel and
various engine parts by experts in their field and finally wrote the
accident report. That this could occur in the cooler British climate
whereas there seems to be a similar problem in the USA is as much a
mystery to me. I attempted to make that clear in my posting.

The report records the temperature had been up to 21 degrees C during
the day of the accident.

It was certainly not my intention to give "car gas a bad rap".

My own speculation was more about whether the quality of the Mogas
purchased in the UK differs from that available in the US. Following
the reports publication in 1999 I asked around about this apparant
variation of volatility and if there was a significant differences,
but never found a helpful answer.

I thought long and hard about whether I should contribute to thread
as it bound to be controversial.

May be my decision to contribute via the forum was a mistake after
all - but I said I hoped some of you might find the report useful. As
I understand it, the purpose of a AAIB investigation and the
subsequent publication of the report is not to a portion blame, but
as a measure to limit the likelihood of a similar event.

Thank you for your comments, Tony

--- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "cgalley" wrote:
>
> Your speculation on the cause of this accident is just that and I
would suggest that car gas had nothing at all to do with the
accident. You are giving car gas a bad rap.
>
> First, unless you can tell me with a straight face that the
temperature was approaching 100° in England, the vapor lock is highly
improbable.
>
>
> Having been in England in July when it rained 12 of the 13 days and
never got over 60° while I was there, a more likely cause might be
carburetor Icing.
>
> Cool days of high humidity makes carb ice happen. After the engine
quits and the plane is forced down; the ice just melts leaving not a
trace to show that there was ice. Just repeating that car gas causes
all engine failures is not very realistic even when car gas is the
fuel.
>
> Ironically, the worse case of carb Ice I ever had was on a 80° hazy
evening in Iowa. Carb ice can happen even when temps approach 100°
>
>
>
> Cy Galley
> EAA Safety Programs Editor
> Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
> New address - cgalley@...
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tonyb42uk
> To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 8:00 AM
> Subject: [fairchildclub] Mogas - UK accident
>
>
> Hello to all,
> Some of you on this forum will know me as a member of the
Fairchild
> Club and of my long standing interest and continuing research
into
> the production and service history of the Fairchild M-62's and F-
> 24's. I must make it clear that I am neither a professional
> historian nor have I any practical experience of owning or flying
any
> aircraft.
>
> I read with great interest the thread relating to Mogas and have
> debated for several days whether or not to contribute. In August
> 1998 there was an accident involving a Fairchild PT-19A in the UK
> which had fatal consequences for the restorer, owner and pilot,
> Richard Fox.
>
> I met Richard Fox on three occasions and we had corresponded on
the
> history and provenance of his ex-Uruguayan PT-19A for sometime.
This
> was not the first vintage aircraft Richard had restored and in my
> judgement his skill, workmanship and his attention to detail were
> first class. It was therefore a great shock when, during the
evening
> of August 15, 1998, I first heard of his fatal accident .
>
> Even before the accident report was published one of AAIB
> investigators made it clear to me that after eliminating several
> possibilities suggested by the eye witness reports and after an
> analysis of the fuel remaining in the tanks (fortunately, there
was
> no post crash fire) they were coming to the conclusion that
a "vapour
> lock" in the fuel lines had occurred and that the volatility of
the
> motor gasoline was the major cause.
>
> The accident report can be read or downloaded via either of the
> following links, assuming your computer has Adobe Reader software:
>
>
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/april_1999/fairchild
> _500172.cfm
>
>
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_500172.pdf
>
> There are several points in the text that I feel are worth
further
> consideration:
> Whilst not familiar with Woburn Park, the mention of the parkland
> containing many trees probably indicates why the pilot was unable
to
> attempt a forced landing straight ahead when the engine first
> faltered and why he initiated a turn, possibly to avoid these
trees,
> which developed into a spin immediately after the engine failed
> completely. I am told these obstructions were relevant in a Gipsy
> Moth accident at an earlier Moth Rally at Woburn Park.
>
> I felt at the time of the publication of the report, and still
feel
> today, that the potential consequences of using Mogas in the UK
were
> not highlighted sufficiently. I cannot comment as to the
situation
> in the USA, but understand that Mogas can be approved for use in
the
> Fairchild M-62 in the USA. I also understand it is commonly used
by
> operators there and despite the ambient temperatures reached in
some
> US states (recalling my own visit to Oshkosh in August 1999!)
being
> much higher than that reached on a summer's afternoon in the UK -
> there does not seem to be a history of this particular problem on
> the western side of the pond. To the best of my knowledge there
> have only ever been three other civil registered M-62's operated
in
> the UK and AFAIK, none of these suffered this type of engine
failure.
>
> From what is said in the AAIB report it seems likely the problem
may
> lie with the fuel Richard was using, and possibly, with the
standards
> set in the UK for gasoline for automobile use. If the problem of
the
> volatility quality of UK Mogas was the root cause then this is of
> little consequence to most readers of this forum. However, there
may
> well be other operators of US vintage aircraft outside the
States,
> who whilst not having the official approval for the use of Mogas
in
> their machines, are well aware this is approved for their
aircraft in
> the USA and consequently make regular use of it, specially if
like
> Richard, they operate out of a small strip with no Avgas
facilities.
> It may be that the AAIB took the view that as the fuel being used
was
> not approved for use in this type of aircraft by UK authorities
and
> was therefore the responsibility of the desceased owner and as
there
> were no other current British-registered examples it needed no
> further action beyond the usual publication of accident report.
>
> I would imagine the circumstances of this accident are more
relevant
> in the case of a low-wing aircraft where the fuel is lifted from
wing
> tanks or the center section and less so in the case of an
aircraft
> where the fuel is initially gravity fed from tanks in high set
wings,
> such as the Model 24.
>
> Having owned an ex-British Army of the Rhine 'Lightweight' Land
Rover
> for a period of twelve years, 'vapour lock' was a problem I had
heard
> of prior to these events, and had some personal experience of.
> However, the embrassment of a failure of a vehicle to respond to
your
> right foot are not generally as serious as that of an aircraft
engine
> failure.
>
> Hope some of you might find the AAIB report of interest.
>
> Tony Broadhurst
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

'

[jhed9253@aol.com]

'       I think that you are right on your assessment.  I know that Oregon state does not monitor gasoline for quality.  They don't know what the alcohol content is for each station of fill up at that station (or other additives for that matter).  STC's all state that the fuel needs to meet the ASTM stated minimums for quality.  The Auto gas in this state may meet those requirements, it may not.  You don't know for sure.  I know of two individuals who have made off airport landings because of auto gas contamination problems.  
      Folks are correct.  The problem with modern auto fuels (aviation fuel too) is not the octane.  It is higher than old aircraft engines require, it is the lack of lead (replaced by alcohols and EBTH etc.) that is the issue.  If the EPA takes all the lead out of aviation fuel, someone will produce an additive that we will use to replace it, most likely, illegally.  Not a safe situation for anyone.  
     I have talked to the EAA folks too about the mixing of fuels.  Sounds good and makes sense.  Gets the octane where we need it, now if we could just get the additives right.

     Good discussion.  I hope that we all find something that works and keeps us flying, safely.

     I know my Warner really hates the 100LL.

NC81265

-----Original Message-----
From: tonyb42uk
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 4:21 pm
Subject: [fairchildclub] Re: Mogas - UK accident




























Hello Cy,

Please read the AAIB report.



I think you will find it was not my speculation that the cause of

Richard's accident was the use of mogas.



It was the opinion of those professional investigators at Farnborough

that inspected the wreckage, authorised the analysis of the fuel and

various engine parts by experts in their field and finally wrote the

accident report. That this could occur in the cooler British climate

whereas there seems to be a similar problem in the USA is as much a

mystery to me. I attempted to make that clear in my posting.



The report records the temperature had been up to 21 degrees C during

the day of the accident.



It was certainly not my intention to give "car gas a bad rap".



My own speculation was more about whether the quality of the Mogas

purchased in the UK differs from that available in the US. Following

the reports publication in 1999 I asked around about this apparant

variation of volatility and if there was a significant differences,

but never found a helpful answer.



I thought long and hard about whether I should contribute to thread

as it bound to be controversial.



May be my decision to contribute via the forum was a mistake after

all - but I said I hoped some of you might find the report useful. As

I understand it, the purpose of a AAIB investigation and the

subsequent publication of the report is not to a portion blame, but

as a measure to limit the likelihood of a similar event.



Thank you for your comments, Tony

--- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "cgalley" wrote:

>

> Your speculation on the cause of this accident is just that and I

would suggest that car gas had nothing at all to do with the

accident. You are giving car gas a bad rap.

>

> First, unless you can tell me with a straight face that the

temperature was approaching 100° in England, the vapor lock is highly

improbable.

>

>

> Having been in England in July when it rained 12 of the 13 days and

never got over 60° while I was there, a more likely cause might be

carburetor Icing.

>

> Cool days of high humidity makes carb ice happen. After the engine

quits and the plane is forced down; the ice just melts leaving not a

trace to show that there was ice. Just repeating that car gas causes

all engine failures is not very realistic even when car gas is the

fuel.

>

> Ironically, the worse case of carb Ice I ever had was on a 80° hazy

evening in Iowa. Carb ice can happen even when temps approach 100°

>

>

>

> Cy Galley

> EAA Safety Programs Editor

> Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot

> New address - cgalley@...

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: tonyb42uk

> To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com

> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 8:00 AM

> Subject: [fairchildclub] Mogas - UK accident

>

>

> Hello to all,

> Some of you on this forum will know me as a member of the

Fairchild

> Club and of my long standing interest and continuing research

into

> the production and service history of the Fairchild M-62's and F-

> 24's. I must make it clear that I am neither a professional

> historian nor have I any practical experience of owning or flying

any

> aircraft.

>

> I read with great interest the thread relating to Mogas and have

> debated for several days whether or not to contribute. In August

> 1998 there was an accident involving a Fairchild PT-19A in the UK

> which had fatal consequences for the restorer, owner and pilot,

> Richard Fox.

>

> I met Richard Fox on three occasions and we had corresponded on

the

> history and provenance of his ex-Uruguayan PT-19A for sometime.

This

> was not the first vintage aircraft Richard had restored and in my

> judgement his skill, workmanship and his attention to detail were

> first class. It was therefore a great shock when, during the

evening

> of August 15, 1998, I first heard of his fatal accident .

>

> Even before the accident report was published one of AAIB

> investigators made it clear to me that after eliminating several

> possibilities suggested by the eye witness reports and after an

> analysis of the fuel remaining in the tanks (fortunately, there

was

> no post crash fire) they were coming to the conclusion that

a "vapour

> lock" in the fuel lines had occurred and that the volatility of

the

> motor gasoline was the major cause.

>

> The accident report can be read or downloaded via either of the

> following links, assuming your computer has Adobe Reader software:

>

>

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/april_1999/fairchild

> _500172.cfm

>

>

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_500172.pdf

>

> There are several points in the text that I feel are worth

further

> consideration:

> Whilst not familiar with Woburn Park, the mention of the parkland

> containing many trees probably indicates why the pilot was unable

to

> attempt a forced landing straight ahead when the engine first

> faltered and why he initiated a turn, possibly to avoid these

trees,

> which developed into a spin immediately after the engine failed

> completely. I am told these obstructions were relevant in a Gipsy

> Moth accident at an earlier Moth Rally at Woburn Park.

>

> I felt at the time of the publication of the report, and still

feel

> today, that the potential consequences of using Mogas in the UK

were

> not highlighted sufficiently. I cannot comment as to the

situation

> in the USA, but understand that Mogas can be approved for use in

the

> Fairchild M-62 in the USA. I also understand it is commonly used

by

> operators there and despite the ambient temperatures reached in

some

> US states (recalling my own visit to Oshkosh in August 1999!)

being

> much higher than that reached on a summer's afternoon in the UK -

> there does not seem to be a history of this particular problem on

> the western side of the pond. To the best of my knowledge there

> have only ever been three other civil registered M-62's operated

in

> the UK and AFAIK, none of these suffered this type of engine

failure.

>

> From what is said in the AAIB report it seems likely the problem

may

> lie with the fuel Richard was using, and possibly, with the

standards

> set in the UK for gasoline for automobile use. If the problem of

the

> volatility quality of UK Mogas was the root cause then this is of

> little consequence to most readers of this forum. However, there

may

> well be other operators of US vintage aircraft outside the

States,

> who whilst not having the official approval for the use of Mogas

in

> their machines, are well aware this is approved for their

aircraft in

> the USA and consequently make regular use of it, specially if

like

> Richard, they operate out of a small strip with no Avgas

facilities.

> It may be that the AAIB took the view that as the fuel being used

was

> not approved for use in this type of aircraft by UK authorities

and

> was therefore the responsibility of the desceased owner and as

there

> were no other current British-registered examples it needed no

> further action beyond the usual publication of accident report.

>

> I would imagine the circumstances of this accident are more

relevant

> in the case of a low-wing aircraft where the fuel is lifted from

wing

> tanks or the center section and less so in the case of an

aircraft

> where the fuel is initially gravity fed from tanks in high set

wings,

> such as the Model 24.

>

> Having owned an ex-British Army of the Rhine 'Lightweight' Land

Rover

> for a period of twelve years, 'vapour lock' was a problem I had

heard

> of prior to these events, and had some personal experience of.

> However, the embrassment of a failure of a vehicle to respond to

your

> right foot are not generally as serious as that of an aircraft

engine

> failure.

>

> Hope some of you might find the AAIB report of interest.

>

> Tony Broadhurst

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
































________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

'

[Kenneth Hamberg]

'Hello everybody,

My two cents worth:

My understanding is that Tony is trying to open/continue the
discussion of the possible dangers of Mogas.
I think this is the right place to ventilate them - my thanks to Tony
for overcoming his initial hesitation.

As of pure chance this text happened in front of me, text is from Avweb:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1000-full.html#196596

-----
The environmental group Friends of the Earth says Lead emissions from
general aviation aircraft endanger public health and warrant
regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency. Friends of the
Earth is calling on the agency to either regulate or, if lacking
present evidence, to investigate "the health and environmental impacts
of lead emissions from general aviation aircraft." The EPA has
responded with a Notice of Petition For Rulemaking and is asking for
public comment by March 17, 2008. Friends of the Earth claims that 70
percent of general aviation aircraft can be accommodated with unleaded
automobile gas and 82UL (a fuel that has not yet been produced for
general aviation). The group contends that the remaining 30 percent
"can potentially use" AGE85 (an ethanol based aviation fuel).
----

Best regards from Finland

Kenneth Hamberg

On Nov 18, 2007, at 16:00, tonyb42uk wrote:

> Hello to all,
> Some of you on this forum will know me as a member of the Fairchild
> Club and of my long standing interest and continuing research into
> the production and service history of the Fairchild M-62's and F-
> 24's. I must make it clear that I am neither a professional
> historian nor have I any practical experience of owning or flying any
> aircraft.
>
> I read with great interest the thread relating to Mogas and have
> debated for several days whether or not to contribute. In August
> 1998 there was an accident involving a Fairchild PT-19A in the UK
> which had fatal consequences for the restorer, owner and pilot,
> Richard Fox.
>
> I met Richard Fox on three occasions and we had corresponded on the
> history and provenance of his ex-Uruguayan PT-19A for sometime. This
> was not the first vintage aircraft Richard had restored and in my
> judgement his skill, workmanship and his attention to detail were
> first class. It was therefore a great shock when, during the evening
> of August 15, 1998, I first heard of his fatal accident .
>
> Even before the accident report was published one of AAIB
> investigators made it clear to me that after eliminating several
> possibilities suggested by the eye witness reports and after an
> analysis of the fuel remaining in the tanks (fortunately, there was
> no post crash fire) they were coming to the conclusion that a "vapour
> lock" in the fuel lines had occurred and that the volatility of the
> motor gasoline was the major cause.
>
> The accident report can be read or downloaded via either of the
> following links, assuming your computer has Adobe Reader software:
>
> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/april_1999/fairchild
> _500172.cfm
>
> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_500172.pdf
>
> There are several points in the text that I feel are worth further
> consideration:
> Whilst not familiar with Woburn Park, the mention of the parkland
> containing many trees probably indicates why the pilot was unable to
> attempt a forced landing straight ahead when the engine first
> faltered and why he initiated a turn, possibly to avoid these trees,
> which developed into a spin immediately after the engine failed
> completely. I am told these obstructions were relevant in a Gipsy
> Moth accident at an earlier Moth Rally at Woburn Park.
>
> I felt at the time of the publication of the report, and still feel
> today, that the potential consequences of using Mogas in the UK were
> not highlighted sufficiently. I cannot comment as to the situation
> in the USA, but understand that Mogas can be approved for use in the
> Fairchild M-62 in the USA. I also understand it is commonly used by
> operators there and despite the ambient temperatures reached in some
> US states (recalling my own visit to Oshkosh in August 1999!) being
> much higher than that reached on a summer's afternoon in the UK -
> there does not seem to be a history of this particular problem on
> the western side of the pond. To the best of my knowledge there
> have only ever been three other civil registered M-62's operated in
> the UK and AFAIK, none of these suffered this type of engine failure.
>
> From what is said in the AAIB report it seems likely the problem may
> lie with the fuel Richard was using, and possibly, with the standards
> set in the UK for gasoline for automobile use. If the problem of the
> volatility quality of UK Mogas was the root cause then this is of
> little consequence to most readers of this forum. However, there may
> well be other operators of US vintage aircraft outside the States,
> who whilst not having the official approval for the use of Mogas in
> their machines, are well aware this is approved for their aircraft in
> the USA and consequently make regular use of it, specially if like
> Richard, they operate out of a small strip with no Avgas facilities.
> It may be that the AAIB took the view that as the fuel being used was
> not approved for use in this type of aircraft by UK authorities and
> was therefore the responsibility of the desceased owner and as there
> were no other current British-registered examples it needed no
> further action beyond the usual publication of accident report.
>
> I would imagine the circumstances of this accident are more relevant
> in the case of a low-wing aircraft where the fuel is lifted from wing
> tanks or the center section and less so in the case of an aircraft
> where the fuel is initially gravity fed from tanks in high set wings,
> such as the Model 24.
>
> Having owned an ex-British Army of the Rhine 'Lightweight' Land Rover
> for a period of twelve years, 'vapour lock' was a problem I had heard
> of prior to these events, and had some personal experience of.
> However, the embrassment of a failure of a vehicle to respond to your
> right foot are not generally as serious as that of an aircraft engine
> failure.
>
> Hope some of you might find the AAIB report of interest.
>
> Tony Broadhurst
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

'