![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |