More on Fuel Management - and an Ethical Dilemma

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
You're beating a dead horse, Pete.
Or else I really wasn't clear about it.

You were not clear at all. Nowhere did you state anything close to:

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.

It took you this many posts to actually come right out and specify what the
pilot actually said (and frankly, "does not deny" is still not unequivocably
the same as "admits"). You have been beating around the bush this whole
thread.

[...]
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.

As Bob says, it's unlikely anything you guys do at the club would affect his
career as an airline pilot. You might affect his career as a club member.
That's all.

As far as what the ethical thing to do is, I did state very clearly how I
think the issue should be handled, assuming the pilot has admitted to the
deed he's accused of.

Pete

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
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

Exactly....had a hangar neighbor who was an ex military pilot, flying for a
major. He thought rules were for others. Ended up taking out three
relatives (two young kids and their dad as I remember) by hitting high
tension lines 20 miles from the airport. He left a wife and two young kids.
Better he was grounded for life and had his career ruined then what he ended
up doing. Only good part was at least he didn't dork an airliner full of
people. He was known around the airport as a "matter of timer." A number
of people had a chance to put a stop to his death wish but took no action.
They will live with that the rest of their lives and are reminded every time
they see his widow and kids who still live at the airport.

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 121...
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)

Now we know why PanAm is no longer around.

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote in message
...
Greg Farris wrote:

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.

"Someone stole the fuel out of it"

Doesn't matter. He is PIC and responsible for making sure he has enought
plus reserves.

"Dave Stadt" wrote
Now we know why PanAm is no longer around.

And what makes you an expert on that subject?

That B-747 was in complete compliance with the
applicable regulations pertaining to alternate
and reserve fuel. It was just that FARs and the
Dispatcher and PIC didn't understand that ATC's
routing from a missed approach at JFK to a landing
at NWK (22 mi) would be a tour of NY, CT, and NJ
for a distance of 150+ mi. That incident resulted
in a change to the operating specs for all Part 121
Air Carriers.

Now if you want to discuss Deregulation as being the
straw that broke PanAm's back, we can talk about that
for quite some time.

Bob Moore

On 7/17/05 6:19 PM, in article ,
"Dave Stadt" spewed:


"Darrel Toepfer" wrote in message
...
Greg Farris wrote:

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.

"Someone stole the fuel out of it"

Doesn't matter. He is PIC and responsible for making sure he has enought
plus reserves.


I believe he meant the fuel was stolen during the night, *after* he landed.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

Dave Stadt wrote:

"Someone stole the fuel out of it"

Doesn't matter. He is PIC and responsible for making sure he has enought
plus reserves.

"After the plane landed and was parked."

I'd like to know how many tach hours the guy put on the airplane, if it
was topped off when he took it, and if he refueled it.

My own fuel management routine is simple: take off on the tank I did
the run-up on, burn half of that away (in a M20J there are 33 gallons
on each side), switch to the other tank and burn most of that away,
come back to the starting tank and land for fuel. I can lean to get
less than 10 gal an hour, so the airplane has long legs. I never have
landed with less than one tank half full, and that includes very long
cross country flights like CA to MA. Unless the PIC in the OP had a
really solid excuse, I wouldn't let him fly me unless I managed the
fuel.

Here's the thing. There's probably an increased chance of this guy
being PIC and making a bad flight decision. If it happens, the hand
wringers who are concerned about damaging his career will feel badly
for their inaction. Send a note to the chief pilot of his airlane
outlining the facts as you understand them. You'll have at least
offered a decision maker a head's up. The chief pilot may choose to
investigate or not, but that is not your problem.

Wizard of Draws wrote:

"Someone stole the fuel out of it"

Doesn't matter. He is PIC and responsible for making sure he has enought
plus reserves.

I believe he meant the fuel was stolen during the night, *after* he landed.

Shhh, don't confuse the mouse in the wheel...

Tony,

(in a M20J there are 33 gallons
on each side)


Only if the tanks are full. If small airplanes are used with a little
more than single-seat-occupancy, they can't always be. So fuel
management isn't quite as simple.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)