Its interesting how we end up discussing the subject of ferry tanks.
And I think AeroPlus has it more or less figured out.
I personally think the use of a Turtle Pack is a calculated risk I can be willing to take. Here are some thoughts:
- It will increase your range to such an extend that you can actually reach your destination+Alternate+45min reserve(almost impossible on an Atlantic crossing without a modification). However I would think twice about using such a ferry tank without having an escape route during the En-route segment. Say you fly BIRK-CYYR, you must be able to reach BGBW(greenland) on your wing fuel. You must also calculate Points of No return should you find the Ferry tank fuel unavailable. Weather MUST be good at en-route alternates.
Taking the direct route without an en-route alternative is a NO-NO
- You must verify that the system works on a longer over-land flights before heading out to sea. You must have a back-up pump system.
Crash protection on the other hand you cannot really mitigate. Yes you can strap as good as you can, but it probably won’t save your life in a crash.
SO its a calculated risk.
Some of us are willing to calculate, and better our odds, but you can hardly make such an operation risk free.
Unless the ferry tank is the reason you crash your aircraft, I don’t think an European insurer will deny any pay out. If you have used the ferry tank to set yourself in a situation with out any OUT’s, then yes, they will probably reduce or deny payment when you loose the aircraft.
my 0.02$
Spirit49 – I don’t think anyone here is disputing the utility of the TurtlePack or any other ferry tank installation .
It’s installing one without proper validation under the applicable regulations, or worse, just carrying extra fuel in the cabin, that is coming under fire, scuz’ the pun ….
Michael wrote:
I don’t think anyone here is disputing the utility of the TurtlePack or any other ferry tank installation .It’s installing one without proper validation under the applicable regulations, or worse, just carrying extra fuel in the cabin
I don’t get how the same Turtle Pack will be safer in a crash when it comes to fire hazard because of some paperwork.
Unless, of course, you would make a parachute out of the paperwork and leave the plane with its help before it crashes and burns.
Rwy20 wrote:
I don’t get how the same Turtle Pack will be safer in a crash when it comes to fire hazard because of some paperwork.
What don’t you get about having a bonafide Engineer validating an installation – as opposed to just tossing in a 100 gallon TP on the back seat with a couple of seatbelts to hold it ???
Again, it’s NOT JUST the fire hazard !
C210_Flyer wrote:
I guess the reason aviation insurance may be different is because you dont have to have it.
That would rather drive prices up. If insurance is not mandatory, there is a tendency that low risk parties will not bother with insurance and the insurance companies would certainly know about it.
Group insurance policies (e.g. life insurance) are usually considerably cheaper than individual policies for that reason.
By the helicopter or by the pilot leaving the door open?
By the helicopter pilot. I was 10 m away in the hangar, and AFAIK there’s no rule that the door of the airplane has to be closed whil i go for a tool
Show me 10 random GA aircraft and I will come up with 100 discrepancies that technically render them unairworthy…
You’re welcome to try mine. I bet you will not the smallest detail.
I don’t get how the same Turtle Pack will be safer in a crash when it comes to fire hazard because of some paperwork.Quote
The right paperwork serves as evidence that the installation has been evaluated for safety and design compliance, and is at least safe for flight.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Airborne_Again 30-Aug-15 12:12 #72
C210_Flyer wrote:
I guess the reason aviation insurance may be different is because you dont have to have it.
That would rather drive prices up. If insurance is not mandatory, there is a tendency that low risk parties will not bother with insurance and the insurance companies would certainly know about it.Group insurance policies (e.g. life insurance) are usually considerably cheaper than individual policies for that reason.
Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 30 Aug 12:12
My observations of US Insurance carriers is that when something is mandated or required then the prices go up because they have a captive audience. So now it has to be regulated so the insurance companies dont go overboard and screw everyone to the poor house. (By the way this is what happened/happening in the US for example Obama Care) Now the insurance carriers have to spend money massaging the legislature to make laws favorable to them which increases their costs so they have to increase their premiums. Dont think for a second they will not pass along the costs. You get the picture? Its not as simple as larger pool so the premiums will go down because the safe or healthy people exclude themselves from the insurance pool are now giving premium $ which they will likely not use.
Eugene, this is about the only English language pilot forum in the world where there is no strong majority of dyed-in-the-wool NRA Republicans 
A lot of us appreciate Obama Care and believe it is actually still only a fraction of what the government should provide… On the US forums, I always feel like the only communist
