More on Fuel Management - and an Ethical Dilemma

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.