Cessna Aircraft and water contamination of fuel.

[sumpthiscom]

My website has always been and still is a non-commercial research only website the sole purpose of is to save lives.
I have grounded my own Cessna 172P bought new in 1981, has 1059 hours, since my last engine failure on April 6, 1999.
I have tested, documented, developed the website all on my own nickel. I have never made one penny on any of this but do it after one rough and three total engine failures in flight. I speak for dead pilots and for those living with a heads-up to prevent your demise from a verifiable irrefutable black and white easy to confirm indicated design flaw. Here is the first Wall Street Journal article, but not the last, about undetectable water in the fuel tanks of Cessna aircraft. Please there is no reason to shoot the messenger!

http://sumpthis.com/wsjarticle04302001/jerryguidera.htm

Now read my Entreaty to the NTSB for further insight into undetectable water in Cessna fuel tanks...

http://sumpthis.com/ntsbpetition/ntsbpe ... ntents.htm

Before and until you do your own test how else can I convince you there may be a problem?

I thought I was a member of a very elite organization, namely my brothers with wings who love aviation and wish to make it as safe as possible.

Due I owe someone some dues?

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Due I owe someone some dues?

No you don't. Unless of course you want to join and support the TIC170A who supports this site.

[GAHorn]

My website has always been and still is a non-commercial research only website the sole purpose of is to save lives....Due I owe someone some dues?

You do not "owe" any dues. (If you should choose to become a member of our association, you may do so by contacting our headquarters@cessna170.org , however membership is not required to comment in this public area of our forums. We do require and appreciate that no commercial use be made of our public forums.)

The following is only a personal opinion. It has absolutely no official basis.

I believe that sumpthis(dot) com , despite it's claim to be a "non-commercial research only website" ... actually does serve a commercial purpose. That purpose is to promote the commercial aspects of a group of "aviation safety and accident consultants" who likely charge for their services, tests, and expert testimony in aircraft accident cases. Therefore I believe it is not completely truthful to represent that they are "non-commercial".

I also believe that repetition of their opinons and literature serves to perpetuate and enhance their commercial purpose.

While certain Piper aircraft (and indeed certain other makes of aircraft, including certain Cessnas) have designs which may be less than ideal and may under certain conditions conceal certain amounts of water, ... I believe any diligent pilot is capable of ascertaining that situation using ordinary and commonly-acceptable techniques of pre-flight actions.

Yes, defective fuel caps and doors may allow large amounts of water to enter fuel systems. And yes, the FAA habit of pointing to the failure to replace/repair defective caps/doors as contributory towards accidents does not fully address the fact that quantities of water exceeding the capacity of gascolators in certain aircraft can lead to engine problems in flight, nor does it obviate the culpability of a sloppy prefight.

It remains the responsibility of the owner/pilot to determine whether or not the fuel has been contaminated and the primary time/method of that determination is during preflight inspections. If an owner/pilot inspects the aircraft, observes the defective caps/doors, and finds water (even in only small amounts) in the fuel, then the owner/pilot is responsible for recognizing that aircraft as UNAIRWORTHY, and rejecting it for flight. There is no certification requirement or responsibility of the mfr'r to guarantee that all potential water contamination from defective caps/doors to be removeable simply thru a preflght inspection,... or even to be detectable! (The fact that defective parts exist automatically requires the pilot to address this issue and any potential sub-issues including water in the fuel.)

Why? Because a preflight inspection...is ONLY an INSPECTION. It is NOT a maintenance action. Excessive water removal from a fuel system is a maintenance action. If the quantity of water to be removed exceeds the actions authorized a pilot in FAR 43 Appdx A,... then only a certified repairman (A&P or equivalent) may perform that action.

If a pilot and his wife blast off without insisting that aircraft be returned to airworhy condition, then it is the pilot who is responsible for operating the unairworthy aircraft.

That is my opinion. It's also my experience that Cessna 170's, all models, having non-bladder, all-metal tanks, are very well designed for water-detection and removal. The A and B models deliver their fuel via lines in the mid-portion of their tanks, while their sump-drains are located where a parked airplane will show any quantity of water which might hazard the gascolator capacity. I have left my plane outdoors in torrential rain for days at a time, and found less than 3 oz of water despite the unfortunate "moat" design. However my moat/caps are kept in very good condition and well-sealed. Regardless, even after the subsequent flight less than 1 oz of water was further drained from the gascolator. I am confident that even 170s with more questionable caps/moats will display water of sufficient quantities to forewarn a proper preflight, again only an opinion, but one based upon almost 40 years of experience with these airplanes.

I do not intend to spend a large amount of time/effort defending this opinion or belaboring this difference with sumpthis(dot)com who I believe have a commercial interest in pursuing their position. I appreciate their opinion, and I also SINCERELY appreciate their presenting the fascinating discoveries they've made with regard to certain aircraft models.

But, having allowed them to present their information, opinion, and their website links here, not only serves our membership well... and while it also meets the forum's obligation to invite discourse on our mutual areas of interest..... it would be inappropriate to allow extended reiteration of a commercial purpose here in our public forums.

Thank you, sumpthis(dot)com for keeping your postings succinct and within our intended purpose. Your opinions are noted.

[sumpthiscom]

(Moderators note: This post was address to an individual who's name I removed because I don't believe it should have been directed to them as an individual)

My father, Norman Horton dedicated his life to saving lives. First as a Commanding Officer in the Coast Guard, then teaching Air Safety at USC, then developing his own company "Aviation & Safety Management Consulting." So you can see from those 3 distinguished careers, his life consisted of unselfish concern for his fellow pilots. The fact that he may have been able to support his family through his life's work does not even suggest a hint of "commercialism." Even as an expert witness in his latter career he often discovered causes of accidents that the firm that hired him did not want to hear. He is about honesty and complete unbiased discovery in accident investigation. I think you need to get over that word "commercialism" and direct it to the NTSB and the FAA that have allowed certain aircraft manufacturers to continue to create faulty systems instead of requiring them to spend a few dollars to correct obvious flaws. As they say "Follow the money." And it certainly did not line my fathers modest pockets.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Horton