Another Older Cessna 210 Accident, remembering 2009 Options

[Becky_KSTS]

Hi all,
Haven't posted in awhile. I really need to vent here because I want any of you out there flying this aircraft to please please be aware and do something about it.

http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.det...4.html?nav=5011

Some of you may recall that I was involved in a small plane crash back in May of 2009 (see "I finally made the news" in this section). Three of us were on a fun flight to the Sierras from lunch and back home on a beautiful calm spring day. I was a passenger in the back seat and all 3 of us were able to walk away. However, since reading the news article this morning in my local paper, I am having trouble understanding why something isn't being done about updating the fuel systems in the older 210s. The reason I say this is because of the NTSB report regarding our crash as follows:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=2...25301&key=1

I read a different version (but I am unable to find it) where various power settings were tested ( I was there to witness it) and all findings were normal. Oh, and the version I read also stated that the fuel modification system that fixed the vapor lock issue did NOT apply to my friend's tail number...seriously? Why not?

I found out that the accident plane in today's news had the same same fuel system set up that his did. I don't feel comfortable providing the specific information on this aircraft at this time. However, I don't know about you, but until we know if this pilot ran out of fuel because of poor fuel management, had a different sort of engine trouble other than the vapor lock, I remain highly suspicious and a just little pissed off.

Why didn't the pilot call out emergency when he was only miles from his destined airport? All I can share with you, is that by the time we realized that we lost all engine power base to final, it was too late. All my friend could do is fly the plane until we came to a sudden stop and flipped over in the soft wet dirt. Unlike these people, we were very fortunate!

The pilot on this fateful day, was too far out and hadn't a chance in hell if the problem was indeed vapor lock.
The most disturbing thought to me is how can vapor lock be proven? The FAA couldn't prove it in our case. How the heck can they prove it in THIS case... just another case of "Pilot Error"? Three people are dead.

What can be done to prevent anyone with this fuel system from having an accident; fatal or otherwise if they are not told or even aware that a fuel vapor lock problem exists in the models built before 1982? How many potential vapor lock 210s are flying out there? How many have to die before the FAA does something about it?

[ChillSpiller]

What a tragic incident. Reading that article it sounds as if that pole was simply not in the right place for an emergency landing. Regarding that the pilot had already asked for fuel does imply that he might have been short of it. But then again asking for fuel is a standard procedure even if you are not short of fuel. Let's hope it was wether pilot nor a mechanics error. If you are proven right with your thoughts Becky I am sure that this incident, as it would be the second, will lead to a change.
Vapour locks are a difficult thing. They occur when too little pressure is on the fuel system, the fuel inside the lines gets too hot or when there are strong curvatures within the fuellines. Usually one would think that these things are unthinkable from design stage or at least from the prototype on. Sometimes certain circumstances lead to this event that have a chance of one to a million to actually occur. It's rather difficult to prove that unless performing a simmulated endurance test. Regarding the many flight hours these models have collected so far, this is more unlikely to happen. Another reason might be an afore-going maintenance error. If the fuellines aren't vented correctly the system will be influenced by air locked in the lines. But to be honest I have no clue either what could cause a vapour lock in a proven system apart from maintenance errors or some reason that simply hasn't been noticed so far. I hope they'll find out soon and if you are right something will definately have to be done.

[bernoulli]

Hi all,
Haven't posted in awhile. I really need to vent here because I want any of you out there flying this aircraft to please please be aware and do something about it.

http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.det...4.html?nav=5011

Some of you may recall that I was involved in a small plane crash back in May of 2009 (see "I finally made the news" in this section). Three of us were on a fun flight to the Sierras from lunch and back home on a beautiful calm spring day. I was a passenger in the back seat and all 3 of us were able to walk away. However, since reading the news article this morning in my local paper, I am having trouble understanding why something isn't being done about updating the fuel systems in the older 210s. The reason I say this is because of the NTSB report regarding our crash as follows:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=2...25301&key=1

I read a different version (but I am unable to find it) where various power settings were tested ( I was there to witness it) and all findings were normal. Oh, and the version I read also stated that the fuel modification system that fixed the vapor lock issue did NOT apply to my friend's tail number...seriously? Why not?

I found out that the accident plane in today's news had the same same fuel system set up that his did. I don't feel comfortable providing the specific information on this aircraft at this time. However, I don't know about you, but until we know if this pilot ran out of fuel because of poor fuel management, had a different sort of engine trouble other than the vapor lock, I remain highly suspicious and a just little pissed off.

Why didn't the pilot call out emergency when he was only miles from his destined airport? All I can share with you, is that by the time we realized that we lost all engine power base to final, it was too late. All my friend could do is fly the plane until we came to a sudden stop and flipped over in the soft wet dirt. Unlike these people, we were very fortunate!

The pilot on this fateful day, was too far out and hadn't a chance in hell if the problem was indeed vapor lock.
The most disturbing thought to me is how can vapor lock be proven? The FAA couldn't prove it in our case. How the heck can they prove it in THIS case... just another case of "Pilot Error"? Three people are dead.

What can be done to prevent anyone with this fuel system from having an accident; fatal or otherwise if they are not told or even aware that a fuel vapor lock problem exists in the models built before 1982? How many potential vapor lock 210s are flying out there? How many have to die before the FAA does something about it?

We'll just have to wait for the results of the investigation, but what's curious in this article is this statement:

Authorities at the airport said the plane's pilot radioed from eight miles and again from five miles out, asking about landing and fuel but never once notifying them of an emergency, according to published reports.

Looking forward to the NTSB report.