A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Both X-FEED on Seneca II



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #20  
Old February 12th 05, 02:49 AM
Capt.Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott D. wrote in message In the statement made by the pilot, he
stated...

Would you incriminate yourself? The costs of cleaning up the lead left from
the fuel on the highway and surrounding soil and sewer to EPA standards was
huge. The interstate was closed for most of the day which brought
repercussions from the DOT. Not to mention the airplane was totalled. What
is the incentive to admit liability?

There is no other facts supporting the notion that he had taken off with
both on crossfeed.
Now you could make the assumption that the pilot was lying, but
because there was no other evidence to show that he was, you can not
say that this was the cause of the accident. The FAA sure didn't feel
comfortable saying it, because it wasn't even mentioned as a
possibility.


In a court of law, the evidence presented is weak. However, can you explain
why the aircraft failed to remain airborne? It wasn't an overweight issue. I
have flown Senecas, I through IV. The fuel selectors are not too hard to
manage effectively. One just has to remember to manage them.

If fatalities are not involved, the NTSB sometimes chooses to find an easy
way to finish the paperwork. I know this firsthand as do a select few others
in this group. Read between the lines of the report and you will know the
cause. Talk to a Piper engineer off the record and you will know the cause.
Ask the same engineer the same question in a courtroom and a different
answer will be elicited, something akin to the answer received by Mr.
Mecucci.

I am curious as well as why. I fly for a company part time that has a
Seneca II and I have also taught many students in a Seneca II and not
once has that question been poised to me nor have I really thought
about it. But it does make for an interesting question.


Here's some more interesting questions. Why do some single-engine Cessnas
equipped with bladder tanks run out of gas prematurely? Why do some Mooneys'
electric landing gears retract during the roll-out? The AFMs don't tell you.
Here's one for you to ponder- Why do Senecas have a preponderence for
nosegear failures? Piper won't tell you that they do, but they will sell you
a reinforced drag link bolt.

D.
D.

D.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Seneca V vs. Navajo operating costs Jarema Owning 1 February 12th 05 10:30 PM
Insuring a C310 vs. Piper Seneca Dave Owning 17 October 27th 04 03:29 PM
Want to purchase PA34-200 Seneca Grasshopper General Aviation 11 July 7th 04 05:09 PM
Seneca V question DeltaDeltaDelta Piloting 5 January 17th 04 02:44 PM
I am going to do it again! A Piper Seneca? Michelle P Owning 5 August 20th 03 01:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.