More on Fuel Management - and an Ethical Dilemma

[Greg Farris]

In the June AOPA Pilot "State of General Aviation" issue, Bruce
Landsberg gives a gold star to Cessna, for their new production singles,
which, according to the article, have not suffered a single fuel
mismanagement accident. Well, I know of one near-miss, which could have
broken that record, and presents an ethical dilemma as well.

It involves a flying club and an ATP rated pilot - in fact, a 767
Captain for a major. He took out a new C-182S on a personal trip, and
returned "uneventfully" under IFR, in IMC at night, with two passengers.
When the plane was refueled in the morning, it took 90GAL of 100LL -
useable fuel for that model is 88GAL, with total 92GAL. It is quite
possible that a missed approach that night would have resulted in three
fatalities.

When confronted discreetly about it, the pilot was nonchalant. He has
a career ahead of him, and a family, with two young children. Because of
his poor judgment, and even more because of his flippant attitude, some
people who know about this want to make a full-blown incident out of it.
Others feel it would damage or destroy his career - and we "hope" he has
learned his lesson.

[Mark Hansen]

On 7/15/2005 04:22, Greg Farris wrote:

> In the June AOPA Pilot "State of General Aviation" issue, Bruce
> Landsberg gives a gold star to Cessna, for their new production singles,
> which, according to the article, have not suffered a single fuel
> mismanagement accident. Well, I know of one near-miss, which could have
> broken that record, and presents an ethical dilemma as well.
>
> It involves a flying club and an ATP rated pilot - in fact, a 767
> Captain for a major. He took out a new C-182S on a personal trip, and
> returned "uneventfully" under IFR, in IMC at night, with two passengers.
> When the plane was refueled in the morning, it took 90GAL of 100LL -
> useable fuel for that model is 88GAL, with total 92GAL. It is quite
> possible that a missed approach that night would have resulted in three
> fatalities.
>
> When confronted discreetly about it, the pilot was nonchalant. He has
> a career ahead of him, and a family, with two young children. Because of
> his poor judgment, and even more because of his flippant attitude, some
> people who know about this want to make a full-blown incident out of it.
> Others feel it would damage or destroy his career - and we "hope" he has
> learned his lesson.
>

I don't know whether you should take any official action, but in my
opinion, if the pilot is not all together clear about the seriousness
of the incident, then anyone that flies with him will be taking a
potentially unacceptable risk.

In that case, it doesn't seem like it would be much of a flying career...

As far as I understand it, the FARs don't say you need to land with
your fuel reserve. I certainly would never want to cut my fuel that
close ... and I sure would not want to fly in a plane with a pilot
that did so.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Peter Duniho]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> It involves a flying club and an ATP rated pilot - in fact, a 767
> Captain for a major. He took out a new C-182S on a personal trip, and
> returned "uneventfully" under IFR, in IMC at night, with two passengers.
> When the plane was refueled in the morning, it took 90GAL of 100LL -
> useable fuel for that model is 88GAL, with total 92GAL. It is quite
> possible that a missed approach that night would have resulted in three
> fatalities.

Has anyone actually looked why he landed with so little fuel on board? Does
the expected fuel consumption based on the recorded flight hours match the
apparent fuel consumption? If not, can you determine why not? Was it a
leaning error? Or some sort of fault with the airplane? Is it possible
that overnight someone actually removed the fuel from the airplane? Even in
the friendly environment of an airport, theft is not unheard of and fuel
prices have been very high for some time now.

If the fuel consumption is consistent with the flight hours, was the pilot
at least aware that he landed with so little fuel? It seems to me that a
pilot who admits (or claims) to not knowing how much fuel was on board at
the end of the flight needs *at a minimum* some sort of remedial training
and oversight. This would include some probation period during which
someone is monitoring his flights and ensuring that he not only knows how
much fuel he has left at the end of a flight, but that that amount of fuel
is consistent with safe operation.

You say the pilot was "nonchalant", but that doesn't really tell us what his
reaction was. Does that mean that he acknowledged landing with practically
zero fuel, but wasn't concerned? Or does it mean that the person
confronting him got a reaction other than the one they expected and/or would
have been satisfied with. If that person was not considering the issue from
all possibilities, it's entirely possible they misinterpreted the pilot's
reaction, and you haven't given us enough details to know one possible
scenario from another.

I do feel that if it can be established without a doubt that the pilot
knowingly landed with so little fuel, that there is cause for concern. If
he did so in a way that was predictable, and could have been avoided with
proper preflight planning, that is cause for even more concern. Career or
no career, he cannot be allowed to continue to fly with that attitude
(assuming he has "that attitude", of course). Either the attitude needs to
change, or the flying needs to stop.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> As far as I understand it, the FARs don't say you need to land with
> your fuel reserve. I certainly would never want to cut my fuel that
> close ... and I sure would not want to fly in a plane with a pilot
> that did so.

That's correct. The FARs require departing with a particular reserve,
depending on the nature of the flight, but there is no requirement that you
not use that reserve.

However, any pilot who DOES use that reserve had better a) at least know
that they are doing so, and b) have a good reason for doing so, and for not
terminating the flight early to take on more fuel.

There is, of course, the additional question of whether the FAA-mandated
reserves are sufficient for truly safe operation, but that's up to each
pilot to determine for each flight.

Pete

[J. Severyn]

Fuel theft. I've put 25 gal in a 24.5 gal usable 152. Should have been at
least 10 gal in the tanks. It happens.
John Severyn
KLVK

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In the June AOPA Pilot "State of General Aviation" issue, Bruce
> Landsberg gives a gold star to Cessna, for their new production singles,
> which, according to the article, have not suffered a single fuel
> mismanagement accident. Well, I know of one near-miss, which could have
> broken that record, and presents an ethical dilemma as well.
>
> It involves a flying club and an ATP rated pilot - in fact, a 767
> Captain for a major. He took out a new C-182S on a personal trip, and
> returned "uneventfully" under IFR, in IMC at night, with two passengers.
> When the plane was refueled in the morning, it took 90GAL of 100LL -
> useable fuel for that model is 88GAL, with total 92GAL. It is quite
> possible that a missed approach that night would have resulted in three
> fatalities.
>
> When confronted discreetly about it, the pilot was nonchalant. He has
> a career ahead of him, and a family, with two young children. Because of
> his poor judgment, and even more because of his flippant attitude, some
> people who know about this want to make a full-blown incident out of it.
> Others feel it would damage or destroy his career - and we "hope" he has
> learned his lesson.
>

[xyzzy]

Greg Farris wrote:

> In the June AOPA Pilot "State of General Aviation" issue, Bruce
> Landsberg gives a gold star to Cessna, for their new production singles,
> which, according to the article, have not suffered a single fuel
> mismanagement accident. Well, I know of one near-miss, which could have
> broken that record, and presents an ethical dilemma as well.
>
> It involves a flying club and an ATP rated pilot - in fact, a 767
> Captain for a major. He took out a new C-182S on a personal trip, and
> returned "uneventfully" under IFR, in IMC at night, with two passengers.
> When the plane was refueled in the morning, it took 90GAL of 100LL -
> useable fuel for that model is 88GAL, with total 92GAL. It is quite
> possible that a missed approach that night would have resulted in three
> fatalities.

I have to wonder if, as an airline captain, he's used to having the
dispatch department or whoever deal with fuel, so he just doesn't think
about it. Even in his position that seems like a bad attitude, since
the airlines are into this "smart fueling" deal where they try to load
just the right amount of fuel so if he has to hold or divert he'd have
to calculate. But that's just a thought.

> When confronted discreetly about it, the pilot was nonchalant. He has
> a career ahead of him, and a family, with two young children. Because of
> his poor judgment, and even more because of his flippant attitude, some
> people who know about this want to make a full-blown incident out of it.
> Others feel it would damage or destroy his career - and we "hope" he has
> learned his lesson.

When something similar (but not that extreme) happened in my flying
club, the offending pilot's flying privileges were revoked until he took
remedial training in fuel planning with a club instructor.

[Darrel Toepfer]

Greg Farris wrote:

> When confronted discreetly about it, the pilot was nonchalant. He has
> a career ahead of him, and a family, with two young children. Because of
> his poor judgment, and even more because of his flippant attitude, some
> people who know about this want to make a full-blown incident out of it.
> Others feel it would damage or destroy his career - and we "hope" he has
> learned his lesson.

"Someone stole the fuel out of it"

[Matt Whiting]

Greg Farris wrote:

> In the June AOPA Pilot "State of General Aviation" issue, Bruce
> Landsberg gives a gold star to Cessna, for their new production singles,
> which, according to the article, have not suffered a single fuel
> mismanagement accident. Well, I know of one near-miss, which could have
> broken that record, and presents an ethical dilemma as well.
>
> It involves a flying club and an ATP rated pilot - in fact, a 767
> Captain for a major. He took out a new C-182S on a personal trip, and
> returned "uneventfully" under IFR, in IMC at night, with two passengers.
> When the plane was refueled in the morning, it took 90GAL of 100LL -
> useable fuel for that model is 88GAL, with total 92GAL. It is quite
> possible that a missed approach that night would have resulted in three
> fatalities.
>
> When confronted discreetly about it, the pilot was nonchalant. He has
> a career ahead of him, and a family, with two young children. Because of
> his poor judgment, and even more because of his flippant attitude, some
> people who know about this want to make a full-blown incident out of it.
> Others feel it would damage or destroy his career - and we "hope" he has
> learned his lesson.
>

You've got to do what suits your conscience, but pilot's with an
attitude like that seldom learn from their experiences.

Matt

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>You say the pilot was "nonchalant", but that doesn't really tell us what his
>reaction was. Does that mean that he acknowledged landing with practically
>zero fuel, but wasn't concerned? Or does it mean that the person
>confronting him got a reaction other than the one they expected and/or would
>have been satisfied with.

Fair enough. I don't really know what he said, except that, as you say, the
person confronting him was disappointed by his reply, which he felt showed a
lack of concern. Maybe he was just using some 'macho' to cover up - I
don't know. Most people in the flying club do not know about this incident - I
only know because the chief pilot is a friend of mine, and talked to me about
it.

Fuel was not stolen form the plane - it did not overnight anywhere - he flew
it out and back. I don't know if it was full when he departed, or what
measures he took to satisfy himself with the adequacy of his fuel on board. I
mentioned the AOPA article about the late model Cessnas though because of the
fuel management system and low fuel warnings they have built into these
planes. The thing must have been blaring at him for a good half an hour on his
return flight!

As you've guessed, I was of the opinion that no good would come of making an
incident that would damage his career - at the same time, I have to admit
that I would not want to fly with him, in any type of aircraft or any mission
profile. I'm a bit stunned by the disregard he showed for the lives of his two
passengers that night.

[Peter Duniho]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Fuel was not stolen form the plane - it did not overnight anywhere - he
> flew
> it out and back.

How do you know that fuel was not stolen from the airplane? Just because
the airplane spent the night at your club rather than elsewhere, that
doesn't prove there was no theft. If the airplane is hangared, theft is
much less likely, but again not proveably impossible (especially since the
theft could be an "inside job", as they say).

> I don't know if it was full when he departed, or what
> measures he took to satisfy himself with the adequacy of his fuel on
> board. I
> mentioned the AOPA article about the late model Cessnas though because of
> the
> fuel management system and low fuel warnings they have built into these
> planes. The thing must have been blaring at him for a good half an hour on
> his
> return flight!

Again, did he actually admit to landing with low fuel? Has anyone talked to
the passengers to see if they noted a low fuel warning?

It's one thing if he's actually admitted the transgression and seems
unapologetic about it. But it's another entirely if there is an allegation
that has been so far unproven. Certainly the pilot should be given the
benefit of the doubt unless it can be established without question that he
arrived with practically empty tanks.

As I've mentioned, so far you haven't communicated to this newsgroup any
incontrovertible reason to believe that the pilot did in fact do what you
are suggesting he did. Your post takes as a foregone conclusion that he did
(or at least appears to), but the written record here doesn't demonstrate
that conclusion.

> As you've guessed, I was of the opinion that no good would come of making
> an
> incident that would damage his career - at the same time, I have to
> admit
> that I would not want to fly with him, in any type of aircraft or any
> mission
> profile. I'm a bit stunned by the disregard he showed for the lives of his
> two
> passengers that night.

You keep writing things that make it seems as though you are certain he did
what you say he did. But what evidence do you have that he did? Did he
actually admit to doing so? Did the passengers verify the theory that he
did? Did someone check the fuel level immediately after his landing? I'm
talking about *proof*, not circumstantial evidence.

He may very well have done exactly what you say he did, even if there is not
proof of it. But it does the aviation community no good at all to make
unproven accusations, and especially to act on them. That's exactly the
kind of behavior we find so abhorrent from the TSA and the rest of our
government; it would be hypocritical to act that way at all, never mind to
our own.

Pete

[Bob Moore]

Greg Farris > wrote
> As you've guessed, I was of the opinion that no good would come of
> making an incident that would damage his career -

What could anyone have possibly done to "damage his career"?
He is a 767 PIC for a major airline and in all probability a
member of their pilot union. There was no accident, no
incident, and no way to prove that he violated any FAR.
In the airline industry, we've had B-747s full of passengers
land with no fuel and with no serious damage to the pilot's
career.

Bob Moore
PanAm (retired)

[Andrew Sarangan]

I don't see the ethical dilemma. This guy almost ran out of fuel. It is one
of the most negligent mistakes a pilot can make. There is no ifs or buts
about it. If I were a member of that club, I would not want him to continue
flying my airplane.



Greg Farris > wrote in news:db86di$2puc$1
@biggoron.nerim.net:

> In the June AOPA Pilot "State of General Aviation" issue, Bruce
> Landsberg gives a gold star to Cessna, for their new production singles,
> which, according to the article, have not suffered a single fuel
> mismanagement accident. Well, I know of one near-miss, which could have
> broken that record, and presents an ethical dilemma as well.
>
> It involves a flying club and an ATP rated pilot - in fact, a 767
> Captain for a major. He took out a new C-182S on a personal trip, and
> returned "uneventfully" under IFR, in IMC at night, with two passengers.
> When the plane was refueled in the morning, it took 90GAL of 100LL -
> useable fuel for that model is 88GAL, with total 92GAL. It is quite
> possible that a missed approach that night would have resulted in three
> fatalities.
>
> When confronted discreetly about it, the pilot was nonchalant. He has
> a career ahead of him, and a family, with two young children. Because of
> his poor judgment, and even more because of his flippant attitude, some
> people who know about this want to make a full-blown incident out of it.
> Others feel it would damage or destroy his career - and we "hope" he has
> learned his lesson.
>

[Big John]

Has the fueling system been checked? I've know outfits to adjust the
pump to show more than was actually pumped to make more money.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:01:26 -0700, "J. Severyn"
> wrote:

>Fuel theft. I've put 25 gal in a 24.5 gal usable 152. Should have been at
>least 10 gal in the tanks. It happens.
>John Severyn
>KLVK
>
>"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>> In the June AOPA Pilot "State of General Aviation" issue, Bruce
>> Landsberg gives a gold star to Cessna, for their new production singles,
>> which, according to the article, have not suffered a single fuel
>> mismanagement accident. Well, I know of one near-miss, which could have
>> broken that record, and presents an ethical dilemma as well.
>>
>> It involves a flying club and an ATP rated pilot - in fact, a 767
>> Captain for a major. He took out a new C-182S on a personal trip, and
>> returned "uneventfully" under IFR, in IMC at night, with two passengers.
>> When the plane was refueled in the morning, it took 90GAL of 100LL -
>> useable fuel for that model is 88GAL, with total 92GAL. It is quite
>> possible that a missed approach that night would have resulted in three
>> fatalities.
>>
>> When confronted discreetly about it, the pilot was nonchalant. He has
>> a career ahead of him, and a family, with two young children. Because of
>> his poor judgment, and even more because of his flippant attitude, some
>> people who know about this want to make a full-blown incident out of it.
>> Others feel it would damage or destroy his career - and we "hope" he has
>> learned his lesson.
>>
>

[Greg Farris]

You're beating a dead horse, Pete.
Or else I really wasn't clear about it. The facts of the matter are not in
dispute. The pilot, so far as I know, does not deny that he basically ran the
plane dry. In IMC at night, with two passengers. No one involved seriously
entertains any other scenario.

The only question worthy of an "ethical dilemma" is what action should be
taken. What would be the correct response? The guy is young - as captains go -
and destroying his career is not something any pilot would gleefully (or
self-rightously) leap to do.

Greg

[Doug]

These sorts of things are best handled at "lunch".

[Denny]

Greg, ol buddy; My best advice to you is to drop it immediately... If
you choose to keep running this guy down you are likely to find out
what any competent lawyer can do to your assumptions, what you call
'facts not in dispute'.. To hell they aren't! And in the end you get
slapped with a slander, libel, and defamation of character suit - and
the FAA cannot shield you from that...

denny

[Matt Whiting]

Greg Farris wrote:

> You're beating a dead horse, Pete.
> Or else I really wasn't clear about it. The facts of the matter are not in
> dispute. The pilot, so far as I know, does not deny that he basically ran the
> plane dry. In IMC at night, with two passengers. No one involved seriously
> entertains any other scenario.
>
> The only question worthy of an "ethical dilemma" is what action should be
> taken. What would be the correct response? The guy is young - as captains go -
> and destroying his career is not something any pilot would gleefully (or
> self-rightously) leap to do.

It is better to let him kill himself and some pax than risk his career?
I guess my ethics differ from yours.


Matt

[Peter Clark]

On 15 Jul 2005 20:06:45 -0500, Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:

>I don't see the ethical dilemma. This guy almost ran out of fuel. It is one
>of the most negligent mistakes a pilot can make. There is no ifs or buts
>about it. If I were a member of that club, I would not want him to continue
>flying my airplane.

Which, as the club likely has in their agreement, is their primary
recourse. "Thanks for being a member, but we have some concerns and
are thus terminating your membership. Take care." Beyond that, it's
not their concern where no specific reg (except maybe the catch-all
careless and reckless, and even that one subjective) was shown to be
violated.

Where I'm based the rule is plan to have 1hr reserve upon landing. If
you're found with significantly less, the chief pilot will give you a
call and ask about it. Show him your plan was good but due to (ATC,
weather diversion, whatever) the fuel was lower, end of problem.

[[email protected]]

Greg Farris wrote:

> In the June AOPA Pilot "State of General Aviation" issue, Bruce
> Landsberg gives a gold star to Cessna, for their new production singles,
> which, according to the article, have not suffered a single fuel
> mismanagement accident. Well, I know of one near-miss, which could have
> broken that record, and presents an ethical dilemma as well.
>
> It involves a flying club and an ATP rated pilot - in fact, a 767
> Captain for a major. He took out a new C-182S on a personal trip, and
> returned "uneventfully" under IFR, in IMC at night, with two passengers.
> When the plane was refueled in the morning, it took 90GAL of 100LL -
> useable fuel for that model is 88GAL, with total 92GAL. It is quite
> possible that a missed approach that night would have resulted in three
> fatalities.
>
> When confronted discreetly about it, the pilot was nonchalant. He has
> a career ahead of him, and a family, with two young children. Because of
> his poor judgment, and even more because of his flippant attitude, some
> people who know about this want to make a full-blown incident out of it.
> Others feel it would damage or destroy his career - and we "hope" he has
> learned his lesson.

If the flying club doesn't know how to deal with this, then they don't have
a very good charter and will sooner or later have other problems with pilots
who get out of line.

A well-organized flying club would document the facts, the board would meet
to assess the facts then, if the board deemed it warranted, they would serve
notice and require the member to appear and defend his actions. The result
could be anything from no action to suspension from the club.

None of that would affect his airline career but it would get he, and his
attitude, out of "Dodge" so to speak.

[Jose]

> The facts of the matter are not in
> dispute. The pilot, so far as I know, does not deny that he basically ran the
> plane dry. In IMC at night, with two passengers. No one involved seriously
> entertains any other scenario.

But your issue is with the pilot's reaction of nonchalance. You fail to
convince me that his outward reaction matches his inward reaction. I
find it quite likely (though not foregone) that inwardly he cringes
while outwardly he shrugs it off. The danger (even here) is that having
gotten away with it once, it may induce him to feel that this part of
the envelope is ok.

I would reccomend talking to him or having somebody (non-official) talk
to him about the incident in order to ensure that this doesn't become
the case. The more you get away with something dangerous, the less
dangerous it seems, until it bites you. However, "sheesh that was close
- I'll never do that again" is a possible and desired outcome, even if
shielded by some external bravado to save face.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> You're beating a dead horse, Pete.
> Or else I really wasn't clear about it.

You were not clear at all. Nowhere did you state anything close to:

> The facts of the matter are not in
> dispute. The pilot, so far as I know, does not deny that he basically ran
> the
> plane dry.

It took you this many posts to actually come right out and specify what the
pilot actually said (and frankly, "does not deny" is still not unequivocably
the same as "admits"). You have been beating around the bush this whole
thread.

> [...]
> The only question worthy of an "ethical dilemma" is what action should be
> taken. What would be the correct response? The guy is young - as captains
> go -
> and destroying his career is not something any pilot would gleefully (or
> self-rightously) leap to do.

As Bob says, it's unlikely anything you guys do at the club would affect his
career as an airline pilot. You might affect his career as a club member.
That's all.

As far as what the ethical thing to do is, I did state very clearly how I
think the issue should be handled, assuming the pilot has admitted to the
deed he's accused of.

Pete

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Greg Farris wrote:
>
> > You're beating a dead horse, Pete.
> > Or else I really wasn't clear about it. The facts of the matter are not
in
> > dispute. The pilot, so far as I know, does not deny that he basically
ran the
> > plane dry. In IMC at night, with two passengers. No one involved
seriously
> > entertains any other scenario.
> >
> > The only question worthy of an "ethical dilemma" is what action should
be
> > taken. What would be the correct response? The guy is young - as
captains go -
> > and destroying his career is not something any pilot would gleefully (or
> > self-rightously) leap to do.
>
> It is better to let him kill himself and some pax than risk his career?
> I guess my ethics differ from yours.
>
> Matt

Exactly....had a hangar neighbor who was an ex military pilot, flying for a
major. He thought rules were for others. Ended up taking out three
relatives (two young kids and their dad as I remember) by hitting high
tension lines 20 miles from the airport. He left a wife and two young kids.
Better he was grounded for life and had his career ruined then what he ended
up doing. Only good part was at least he didn't dork an airliner full of
people. He was known around the airport as a "matter of timer." A number
of people had a chance to put a stop to his death wish but took no action.
They will live with that the rest of their lives and are reminded every time
they see his widow and kids who still live at the airport.

[Dave Stadt]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> Greg Farris > wrote
> > As you've guessed, I was of the opinion that no good would come of
> > making an incident that would damage his career -
>
> What could anyone have possibly done to "damage his career"?
> He is a 767 PIC for a major airline and in all probability a
> member of their pilot union. There was no accident, no
> incident, and no way to prove that he violated any FAR.
> In the airline industry, we've had B-747s full of passengers
> land with no fuel and with no serious damage to the pilot's
> career.
>
> Bob Moore
> PanAm (retired)

Now we know why PanAm is no longer around.

[Dave Stadt]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
...
> Greg Farris wrote:
>
> > When confronted discreetly about it, the pilot was nonchalant. He has
> > a career ahead of him, and a family, with two young children. Because of
> > his poor judgment, and even more because of his flippant attitude, some
> > people who know about this want to make a full-blown incident out of it.
> > Others feel it would damage or destroy his career - and we "hope" he has
> > learned his lesson.
>
> "Someone stole the fuel out of it"

Doesn't matter. He is PIC and responsible for making sure he has enought
plus reserves.

[Bob Moore]

"Dave Stadt" wrote
> Now we know why PanAm is no longer around.

And what makes you an expert on that subject?

That B-747 was in complete compliance with the
applicable regulations pertaining to alternate
and reserve fuel. It was just that FARs and the
Dispatcher and PIC didn't understand that ATC's
routing from a missed approach at JFK to a landing
at NWK (22 mi) would be a tour of NY, CT, and NJ
for a distance of 150+ mi. That incident resulted
in a change to the operating specs for all Part 121
Air Carriers.

Now if you want to discuss Deregulation as being the
straw that broke PanAm's back, we can talk about that
for quite some time.

Bob Moore

[Wizard of Draws]

On 7/17/05 6:19 PM, in article ,
"Dave Stadt" > spewed:

>
> "Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Greg Farris wrote:
>>
>>> When confronted discreetly about it, the pilot was nonchalant. He has
>>> a career ahead of him, and a family, with two young children. Because of
>>> his poor judgment, and even more because of his flippant attitude, some
>>> people who know about this want to make a full-blown incident out of it.
>>> Others feel it would damage or destroy his career - and we "hope" he has
>>> learned his lesson.
>>
>> "Someone stole the fuel out of it"
>
> Doesn't matter. He is PIC and responsible for making sure he has enought
> plus reserves.
>
>
I believe he meant the fuel was stolen during the night, *after* he landed.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Darrel Toepfer]

Dave Stadt wrote:

>>"Someone stole the fuel out of it"
>
> Doesn't matter. He is PIC and responsible for making sure he has enought
> plus reserves.

"After the plane landed and was parked."

[Tony]

I'd like to know how many tach hours the guy put on the airplane, if it
was topped off when he took it, and if he refueled it.

My own fuel management routine is simple: take off on the tank I did
the run-up on, burn half of that away (in a M20J there are 33 gallons
on each side), switch to the other tank and burn most of that away,
come back to the starting tank and land for fuel. I can lean to get
less than 10 gal an hour, so the airplane has long legs. I never have
landed with less than one tank half full, and that includes very long
cross country flights like CA to MA. Unless the PIC in the OP had a
really solid excuse, I wouldn't let him fly me unless I managed the
fuel.

Here's the thing. There's probably an increased chance of this guy
being PIC and making a bad flight decision. If it happens, the hand
wringers who are concerned about damaging his career will feel badly
for their inaction. Send a note to the chief pilot of his airlane
outlining the facts as you understand them. You'll have at least
offered a decision maker a head's up. The chief pilot may choose to
investigate or not, but that is not your problem.

[Darrel Toepfer]

Wizard of Draws wrote:

>>>"Someone stole the fuel out of it"
>>
>>Doesn't matter. He is PIC and responsible for making sure he has enought
>>plus reserves.
>
> I believe he meant the fuel was stolen during the night, *after* he landed.

Shhh, don't confuse the mouse in the wheel...

[Thomas Borchert]

Tony,

> (in a M20J there are 33 gallons
> on each side)
>

Only if the tanks are full. If small airplanes are used with a little
more than single-seat-occupancy, they can't always be. So fuel
management isn't quite as simple.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[David Cartwright]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> Has anyone actually looked why he landed with so little fuel on board?
> Does the expected fuel consumption based on the recorded flight hours
> match the apparent fuel consumption? If not, can you determine why not?
> Was it a leaning error? Or some sort of fault with the airplane? Is it
> possible that overnight someone actually removed the fuel from the
> airplane?

You forgot one which a lateral-thinking air accident investigator would
hopefully spot: was the calibration of the pump from which the fuel was
dispensed up-to-date and accurate?

D.

[David Cartwright]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> When confronted discreetly about it, the pilot was nonchalant. He has
> a career ahead of him, and a family, with two young children. Because of
> his poor judgment, and even more because of his flippant attitude, some
> people who know about this want to make a full-blown incident out of it.
> Others feel it would damage or destroy his career - and we "hope" he has
> learned his lesson.

In the UK we have the Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting
Programme (http://www.chirp.co.uk/new/default.htm). Do you have the same in
your part of the world? This is an excellent service which allows incidents
such as this to be reported in a way which is confidential but which will
promote awareness of the issue through the publication, in anonymous form,
of the details of the incident.

D.

[Jim Baker]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Greg Farris wrote:
>
>> In the June AOPA Pilot "State of General Aviation" issue, Bruce
>> Landsberg gives a gold star to Cessna, for their new production singles,
>> which, according to the article, have not suffered a single fuel
>> mismanagement accident. Well, I know of one near-miss, which could have
>> broken that record, and presents an ethical dilemma as well.
>>
>> It involves a flying club and an ATP rated pilot - in fact, a 767
>> Captain for a major. He took out a new C-182S on a personal trip, and
>> returned "uneventfully" under IFR, in IMC at night, with two passengers.
>> When the plane was refueled in the morning, it took 90GAL of 100LL -
>> useable fuel for that model is 88GAL, with total 92GAL. It is quite
>> possible that a missed approach that night would have resulted in three
>> fatalities.
>>
>> When confronted discreetly about it, the pilot was nonchalant. He has
>> a career ahead of him, and a family, with two young children. Because of
>> his poor judgment, and even more because of his flippant attitude, some
>> people who know about this want to make a full-blown incident out of it.
>> Others feel it would damage or destroy his career - and we "hope" he has
>> learned his lesson.
>
> If the flying club doesn't know how to deal with this, then they don't
> have
> a very good charter and will sooner or later have other problems with
> pilots
> who get out of line.
>
> A well-organized flying club would document the facts, the board would
> meet
> to assess the facts then, if the board deemed it warranted, they would
> serve
> notice and require the member to appear and defend his actions. The
> result
> could be anything from no action to suspension from the club.
>
> None of that would affect his airline career but it would get he, and his
> attitude, out of "Dodge" so to speak.

Exactly. Nothing will come of this re his airline career, but it will allow
the club to rid itself of this guy, IF THE FACTS WARRANT. That the Chief
Pilot of the club is in such a tizzy over what to do doesn't speak very well
for his decision making or the procedures he's to follow when he suspects a
club rules violation has occurred. And that's all that occurred since no
civil regs appear to have been violated. If things are as the original
poster stipulated, then the attitude alone would warrant a Chief Pilot
investigation and presentation to the board. Where's the ethical dilema?

JB

>

[RST Engineering]

I can't believe that you all are wasting your time on this "incident" which,
at worst is an excellent troll, at at best is a "he said that she said that
he said" third hand story from a person with no direct knowledge of the
incident.

Jim



>
> Exactly. Nothing will come of this re his airline career, but it will
> allow the club to rid itself of this guy, IF THE FACTS WARRANT.

[Matt Barrow]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> I can't believe that you all are wasting your time on this "incident"
which,
> at worst is an excellent troll, at at best is a "he said that she said
that
> he said" third hand story from a person with no direct knowledge of the
> incident.
>

Propensity for run-on sentences, have ya?

[RST Engineering]

I get paid for my writing, Matt, do you? There are times for long
sentences. There are times for short sentences. And then there are times
for sentences that can ramble on with the best of them. You get paid
knowing which one fits where.

Jim



"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> Propensity for run-on sentences, have ya?
>
>
>
>

[Jim Baker]

I've made one reply to the "troll' as you call this OP. This makes two. I
see that you've made two. I can't believe you're wasting time writing about
how I'm using my time, and then have the gall to say you get paid for
writing wasted time replies. LOL at RST.

JB

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>I can't believe that you all are wasting your time on this "incident"
>which, at worst is an excellent troll, at at best is a "he said that she
>said that he said" third hand story from a person with no direct knowledge
>of the incident.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>>
>> Exactly. Nothing will come of this re his airline career, but it will
>> allow the club to rid itself of this guy, IF THE FACTS WARRANT.
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> I get paid for my writing, Matt, do you?

Evidently logic isn't your chosen career, nor is rhetoric.

You are DAMN good at inflating your ego in instances that are completely
inconsequential.

>There are times for long
> sentences. There are times for short sentences. And then there are times
> for sentences that can ramble on with the best of them. You get paid
> knowing which one fits where.

And there are people who spout BS and call it a career. Tell me one rule of
writing that says a sentence of 65 words is appropriate.

Oh, and I think we can all name several professionals that are totally inept
at what they do.

Sorry to ding that limp, little inflated ego of yours.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
> I've made one reply to the "troll' as you call this OP. This makes two.
I
> see that you've made two. I can't believe you're wasting time writing
about
> how I'm using my time, and then have the gall to say you get paid for
> writing wasted time replies. LOL at RST.

Right on the mark, Jim. He's got an vastly over-inflated ego and a pomposity
to boot.

[Peter Duniho]

"David Cartwright" > wrote in message
...
> You forgot one which a lateral-thinking air accident investigator would
> hopefully spot: was the calibration of the pump from which the fuel was
> dispensed up-to-date and accurate?

Yes, true. It wasn't my intent to provide a canonical list of all possible
reasons for the apparent situation. Just to illustrate that it's far from
clear what actually happened.

[Michael]

> The facts of the matter are not in
> dispute. The pilot, so far as I know, does not deny that he basically ran the
> plane dry.

There is a difference between not denying and admitting. In this case,
possibly a big difference.

> No one involved seriously entertains any other scenario.

Then let me entertain one for you. There is some perfectly logical
explanation (meaning that something really unexpected happened, or
there was something the pilot didn't know about) and this situation is
a far cry from stupidly running the plane almost dry - but the pilot
has no wish to discuss it with someone he sees as not being his peer.

It's not an unusual situation. I know several airline captains - and I
can't think of a single one who would discuss such a thing with some
random member of the flying club. I don't know who the chief
instructor is, but it's entirely likely he doesn't meet with the
captain's seal of approval either. I've known quite a few club chief
instructors who got (and deserved) nothing but contempt from airline
captains.

In other words, you may be dealing with a situation that is not nearly
so cut-and-dried as you think it is, and with a pilot who believes you
have no right or standing to question him. In fact, I think this is
the most likely situation. If what he did was actually against a
specific, written club rule, you might be able to have him thrownout of
the club. If not, it might be far more difficult. You can send a
letter to his chief pilot, but unless someone can sign it with an ATP,
it will certainly be ignored.

Michael

[Maule Driver]

That's a bull**** attitude. Sounds like, "you are not worthy of
discussing a possible mistake on my part".

The running of the airline cockpit has had a reputation of something
closer to an old sailing ship than a well led team operation (a much
improved reputation over the last 20 years)

At the same time, the military seems to have it in their DNA that open,
objective review of safety and accident activity is the key to safety
and performance improvement.

An airline pilot who thinks he doesn't have any peers in the club where
he's flying a Skylane is a danger to all involved.

Sounds like the hack surgeon hiding behind his professional armor when
questioned by another injured patient (i.e. mere patient). All
professions have the armor but they need to drop them when outside the
office. Flying the club Skylane is not their workplace.

Flak suit on!

Michael wrote:
>>The facts of the matter are not in
>>dispute. The pilot, so far as I know, does not deny that he basically ran the
>>plane dry.
>
>
> There is a difference between not denying and admitting. In this case,
> possibly a big difference.
>
>
>>No one involved seriously entertains any other scenario.
>
>
> Then let me entertain one for you. There is some perfectly logical
> explanation (meaning that something really unexpected happened, or
> there was something the pilot didn't know about) and this situation is
> a far cry from stupidly running the plane almost dry - but the pilot
> has no wish to discuss it with someone he sees as not being his peer.
>
> It's not an unusual situation. I know several airline captains - and I
> can't think of a single one who would discuss such a thing with some
> random member of the flying club. I don't know who the chief
> instructor is, but it's entirely likely he doesn't meet with the
> captain's seal of approval either. I've known quite a few club chief
> instructors who got (and deserved) nothing but contempt from airline
> captains.
>
> In other words, you may be dealing with a situation that is not nearly
> so cut-and-dried as you think it is, and with a pilot who believes you
> have no right or standing to question him. In fact, I think this is
> the most likely situation. If what he did was actually against a
> specific, written club rule, you might be able to have him thrownout of
> the club. If not, it might be far more difficult. You can send a
> letter to his chief pilot, but unless someone can sign it with an ATP,
> it will certainly be ignored.
>
> Michael
>

[Michael]

> That's a bull**** attitude.

Maybe. But it's real, and it doesn't spring ex-nihilo.

>Sounds like, "you are not worthy of discussing a possible mistake on my part".

More or less the attitude I was trying to describe. If nothing else, I
seem to be communicating it correctly.

With lots of experience there naturally comes a certain reluctance to
try to explain/justify one's actions and decisions to a low time pilot
who lacks the depth of experience to understand the operation. A few
run-ins with some low time pilots who think they can be as safe as an
airline captain because of their great safety attitude, and who presume
to tell airline captains how to fly and believe they are entitled to an
explanation, only makes it worse.

> An airline pilot who thinks he doesn't have any peers in the club where
> he's flying a Skylane is a danger to all involved.

That's where I'm going to disagree with you. It is quite likely that
he has no peers in that club - no pilots qualified to critcize his
flying. It doesn't help that this was a night IFR operation. I have,
from time to time, provided IFR recurrent training in GA aircraft to
highly experienced pilots who were military and/or airline trained.
They really don't have any peers in the typical flying club.

Few of them will admit it, but they tend to see the ATP as the MINIMUM
standard of instrument pilot proficiency. To them, there are ATP's,
there are those who don't yet have the hours to get the ATP but are
working towards that goal and will breeze through the checkride when
the time comes, and there are the weekend warriors who aren't really
serious about their instrument flying and certainly are not entitled to
an opinion about how a night-IFR operation should be conducted. This
attitude is, in some part, responsible for me getting an ATP. I may
well be the only person who got an ATP because of peer pressure...

I've seen some highly experienced pilots do some fascinating stuff -
and was fortunate enough to learn from them. Often it required a
certain suspension of judgment - because what I was being taught was so
far beyond me, I had no real basis for evaluating it. Almost every
time, looking back with the benefit of hindsight and a couple thousand
hours of experience, what seemed nuts to me at the time actually made
sense. There were exceptions. Sometimes it really was a bad idea.

By the time someone has made captain at the majors, he has probably
(used to be certainly, but times have changed) had plenty of
opportunity to bust his ass. If he hasn't, it MIGHT be because he's
lucky even though he is stupid or reckless - but that's not the way to
bet. It's far more likely that he actually does know what he is doing,
and if it doesn't seem that way to you, the cause is your inexperience,
not his stupidity or recklessness. It's not certain, but that's the
way to bet.

Michael

[Morgans]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > That's a bull**** attitude.
>
> Maybe. But it's real, and it doesn't spring ex-nihilo.
>
> >Sounds like, "you are not worthy of discussing a possible mistake on my
part".
>
> More or less the attitude I was trying to describe. If nothing else, I
> seem to be communicating it correctly.

It's too bad, that some people have such large egos. They really get in the
way, and can kill.

I would also say that one doesn't have to be a world class "sprinter", to
realize that just "walking" off a cliff can kill you, if you are walking
with your eyes closed. One doesn't have to be a sprinter to tell the
sprinter that fact.

I do know that removing the offender _should_ be done, if only on the
grounds of reckless endangerment.
--
Jim in NC

[Greg Farris]

I've seen lots of airline pilots in flying clubs flying Skyhawks and Skylanes
- besides using them for personal transportation, they also use them to
maintain proficiency. I am not used to seeing them holding themselves above
other users - and particularly the instructors, who check them out just like
everyone else.

In this particular club, both the chief pilot and the second pilot are ATP
rated, and have flown everything - In addition they fly six hours a day in
small aircraft, IFR and VFR, which gives them a proficiency level much
greater than almost any airline pilot, who does not have the time to do this
much recurrent training.

I believe this particular pilot was brazen about it because he knew he had
something to cover up, and as a previous contributor pointed out, he probably
used some bravado to bluff his way through something that he knew inside was
not very cool. Many people feel that's probably good enough, and he has
probably done the work already of correcting this judgement error. Others
feel the opposite - "if he did it once, he'll do it again". Some of these
people want to go for the jugular, file complaints, write to his airline crew
chief, basically cause him as much harm as they can, because they feel he
should not be flying. I don't agree - but then my opinion does not enter
into it.

This thread has generated more discussion than I imagined, some of it
bordering on hostility, which is far from what was intended. I also didn't
intend to invite far-flung speculation about what "might" have happened -
even if it's not proven to Johnny Cochran's standards, it is pretty much
assumed that this pilot made a serious fuel management error, and endangered
the lives of his passengers. The "ethical dilemma" was whether this incident
should be used, as some feel, to try to get the guy out of the left seat
forever (which may or may not be possible) or whether to deal with it "over
lunch" as suggested here, and based on his reaction, hope something has been
learned.

G Faris

[Michael]

> It's too bad, that some people have such large egos. They really get in the
> way, and can kill.

But it's important to remember that this pilot probably had lots of
opportunities to get himself killed, and didn't. That means something
too.

Michael

[xyzzy]

This would hold more water with me if I didn't read the Aftermath and On
The Record columns in Flying magazine religiously every month and see a
lot of accidents with 10,000 hour ATP pilots doing stupid things in
piston singles.

It's also possible that the ATP, since he's all high and mighty flying
big iron, doesn't properly respect the task of driving a little spam can
around for personal use and so lets his guard and judgement down.

Also remember that a captain for a major airline probably has a dispatch
department that does the scut work of calculating loads, fuel, etc. for
him. Plus he has computers on board to help with those tasks. He also
has a co-pilot in his cockpit to help out and spot mistakes and back him
up. The airliners he flies have a much higher level of equipment and
automation than the skylane. Given all that, I just can't accept the
premise that an ATP heavy-iron driver is automatically peerless flying
Skylanes. That's like saying a long-haul truck driver's skills transfer
seemlessly to the task of being a safe and proficient bicyclist.



Michael wrote:

>
> That's where I'm going to disagree with you. It is quite likely that
> he has no peers in that club - no pilots qualified to critcize his
> flying. It doesn't help that this was a night IFR operation. I have,
> from time to time, provided IFR recurrent training in GA aircraft to
> highly experienced pilots who were military and/or airline trained.
> They really don't have any peers in the typical flying club.
>
> Few of them will admit it, but they tend to see the ATP as the MINIMUM
> standard of instrument pilot proficiency. To them, there are ATP's,
> there are those who don't yet have the hours to get the ATP but are
> working towards that goal and will breeze through the checkride when
> the time comes, and there are the weekend warriors who aren't really
> serious about their instrument flying and certainly are not entitled to
> an opinion about how a night-IFR operation should be conducted. This
> attitude is, in some part, responsible for me getting an ATP. I may
> well be the only person who got an ATP because of peer pressure...
>
> I've seen some highly experienced pilots do some fascinating stuff -
> and was fortunate enough to learn from them. Often it required a
> certain suspension of judgment - because what I was being taught was so
> far beyond me, I had no real basis for evaluating it. Almost every
> time, looking back with the benefit of hindsight and a couple thousand
> hours of experience, what seemed nuts to me at the time actually made
> sense. There were exceptions. Sometimes it really was a bad idea.
>
> By the time someone has made captain at the majors, he has probably
> (used to be certainly, but times have changed) had plenty of
> opportunity to bust his ass. If he hasn't, it MIGHT be because he's
> lucky even though he is stupid or reckless - but that's not the way to
> bet. It's far more likely that he actually does know what he is doing,
> and if it doesn't seem that way to you, the cause is your inexperience,
> not his stupidity or recklessness. It's not certain, but that's the
> way to bet.
>
> Michael
>

[Peter R.]

Michael > wrote:

> To them, there are ATP's,
> there are those who don't yet have the hours to get the ATP but are
> working towards that goal and will breeze through the checkride when
> the time comes, and there are the weekend warriors who aren't really
> serious about their instrument flying and certainly are not entitled to
> an opinion about how a night-IFR operation should be conducted.

<snip>

> It's far more likely that he actually does know what he is doing,
> and if it doesn't seem that way to you, the cause is your inexperience,
> not his stupidity or recklessness.

All this discussion of elite ATPs and fuel starvation makes the timing of
this AOPA article rather coincidental:

Selecting your fate: fuel starvation
http://www.aopa.org/asf/epilot_acc/dfw05ca087.html

Pertinent quotes from the article:

----------------- start quote ---------------------

On March 12, 2005, a 24,611-hour ATP made a forced landing in an open field
after a total loss of engine power while on a visual approach to Runway 13
at Lancaster Airport in Lancaster, Texas. He and the one passenger were not
injured. The pilot did not visually check the fuel tanks prior to takeoff
and could not recall what the fuel gauges indicated during the flight. He
thought both auxiliary fuel tanks were full, and both main fuel tanks were
almost full. While descending for the approach, the pilot moved the fuel
selector valve from the left main tank to the right main tank. Very shortly
after, the engine quit. The pilot unsuccessfully attempted to restart the
engine by switching the fuel selector valve back to the left tank and
cycling the throttle.

<snip>

The NTSB determined that the probable cause of this accident was the
pilot's mismanagement of the available fuel supply, which resulted in a
total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.

------------------- end quote ---------------------------------



--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----