In article m,
says...



Who knows? No one here knows any more about it than anyone else. We do not
even know if they stopped to refuel along the way. You don't know when the
oil was last changed, what kind of weather briefing he got, when the last
annual was, the condition of the electrical system, or anything else. So it
seems to be going out on a limb to be immediately suspecting fuel exhaustion.

Pilots in general have a pretty good idea of how far they can fly on a full
tank and they do not intentionally stretch it. Most of the guys who get in
trouble with fuel exhaustion seem to be people who encounter unexpected
headwinds, had to divert to another airport for some reason, or who did not
find fuel where they expected it.

So, I would not assume fuel exhaustion right off the bat. In fact, from the
facts given, I would not assume anything.

One thing I do know -- these people had family and friends, some of whom
might read these news groups.


I agree with your post.
I do not agree with those who regularly post that it is unacceptable to
speculate or even to discuss possible causes until all the factual information
has been processed. I think it is useful, interesting and natural - but I
agree with you that early speculation must be respectful of what is a tragedy
for a circle of individuals.

The information given here is indeed very sparse. My initial question was the
same - did they stop to refuel? We don't know anything about their fuel
management scenario. Perhaps they started "nearly full" with the intention to
refuel somewhere, and that didn't work out. Perhaps there's no fuel management
question at all. Won't take much on the factual side to confirm or reject this
possible cause. The initial post is a compelling theory until the factual
information does that.

As for witness accounts - how many KingAir accidents have witness accounts of
the engine "missing"? Impressive events are something like dreams - we
remember sketchy things and "fill-in" the details.

GF