Larry Dighera wrote:

That's why I have considerably more respect for those Usenet posters
who provide accurate personal identification information, and shun
those who post anonymously through a mail-to-news gateway.
Accountability fosters respect.

I am not sure if you are making a general comment or are specifically
directing that at me. If the latter, let me assure you that I only post
through Google while I am at my "non-home daytime location." Newsgroup
ports are blocked at that location, yet I still have to get my aviation
newsgroup fix.

Additionally, I stopped posting my last name in the news reader FROM field
years ago after I was on the receiving end of a rather personal attack by a
newsgroup troll. Regulars here know my last name because it is posted in
Jay's Rogue's Gallery. My contributions to this group, which aren't all
that spectacular, do not need a last name attached and if you don't respect
that, then too bad.

Seriously, though, you know that past NTSB statistics are slanted
towards the scenario of a pilot failing to ensure adequete fuel before
a flight.

No. I didn't know that. Are you able to cite any evidence of that
sort of NTSB bias?

OK, first off, let me apologize for using the word "slanted." I didn't
mean to imply any NTSB wrong-doing. I simply meant that looking over the
accident reports, one can clearly see that there are many, many more GA
aircraft accidents due to improper fuel planning than there are due to a
mechanical fuel loss.

Search the accident archives for "Fuel Exhaustion" and choose those cases
that have a probable cause.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

I queried the last 10 years, then started pulling up every report in the
resulting set to read the probable cause. I hope you can accept 10 years
worth of the NTSB's 35 or so years of online history as a valid statistical
sample. The news media certainly accepts a far lower percentage for their
political polls.

Within the last 10 years, there were 950 probable cause accident reports
returned with those key words in them. A few reports were not at all
related to fuel exhaustion despite being returned, so I subtracted those
out, leaving about 946.

In the reports I read, there were basically three types of fuel exhaustion:
Pilot's failure to properly determine fuel usage for flight, pilot failing
to switch tanks, and mechanical cause. Since we are basically disagreeing
on mechanical versus pilot error, I lumped fuel mismanagement with improper
fuel planning, seeing that these two are pilot error and not mechanical.

After a bit over an hour I counted about 600 or so that listed the pilot's
improper fuel planning (or similar words to that affect). I stopped
counting at that point, seeing that I reached almost 2/3s of all fuel
exhaustion accidents were attributed to a pilot's improper fuel planning.

I encourage you to conduct the same research.

How is that illuminating?

It is illuminating to me that a low-time pilot was able to communicate to
ATC that he was out of fuel while still in the descent.

In listening to the ATC recording of this accident, the pilot seemed to be
pretty certain that there was no remaining fuel on board. I do not see how
a GA pilot who is confident in his fuel supply (which would be any pilot
who properly planned consumption, fueled the aircraft, then monitored fuel
usage en route) could conclude with enough confidence to broadcast to ATC
that the engine stopped due to fuel exhaustion. There are many other
reasons an engine can stop besides fuel exhaustion.

Look, I am not saying with certainty that this pilot failed to properly
plan fuel consumption. The NTSB will determine the cause. I am merely
stating that the fact that the pilot knew he was out of fuel was
interesting to me and the NTSB accident archives support the probability
that a fuel exhaustion accident is caused by improper planning, not an
unexpected fuel loss.


If his actual fuel burn exceeded his planned fuel burn, it would
indicate fuel leaking via one route or another.

Hmmm... that's not what I learned during the cross country phase of my
initial training. I was taught that actual fuel burn exceeding planned
fuel burn is attributed to improper leaning or stronger-than-forecasted
headwinds.

--
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 =----