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

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.

There is a difference between not denying and admitting. In this case,
possibly a big difference.

No one involved seriously entertains any other scenario.

Then let me entertain one for you. There is some perfectly logical
explanation (meaning that something really unexpected happened, or
there was something the pilot didn't know about) and this situation is
a far cry from stupidly running the plane almost dry - but the pilot
has no wish to discuss it with someone he sees as not being his peer.

It's not an unusual situation. I know several airline captains - and I
can't think of a single one who would discuss such a thing with some
random member of the flying club. I don't know who the chief
instructor is, but it's entirely likely he doesn't meet with the
captain's seal of approval either. I've known quite a few club chief
instructors who got (and deserved) nothing but contempt from airline
captains.

In other words, you may be dealing with a situation that is not nearly
so cut-and-dried as you think it is, and with a pilot who believes you
have no right or standing to question him. In fact, I think this is
the most likely situation. If what he did was actually against a
specific, written club rule, you might be able to have him thrownout of
the club. If not, it might be far more difficult. You can send a
letter to his chief pilot, but unless someone can sign it with an ATP,
it will certainly be ignored.

Michael

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)

"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.

"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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
Has anyone actually looked why he landed with so little fuel on board?
Does the expected fuel consumption based on the recorded flight hours
match the apparent fuel consumption? If not, can you determine why not?
Was it a leaning error? Or some sort of fault with the airplane? Is it
possible that overnight someone actually removed the fuel from the
airplane?

You forgot one which a lateral-thinking air accident investigator would
hopefully spot: was the calibration of the pump from which the fuel was
dispensed up-to-date and accurate?

D.

"David Cartwright" wrote in message
...
You forgot one which a lateral-thinking air accident investigator would
hopefully spot: was the calibration of the pump from which the fuel was
dispensed up-to-date and accurate?

Yes, true. It wasn't my intent to provide a canonical list of all possible
reasons for the apparent situation. Just to illustrate that it's far from
clear what actually happened.

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.

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.

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.

I have to wonder if, as an airline captain, he's used to having the
dispatch department or whoever deal with fuel, so he just doesn't think
about it. Even in his position that seems like a bad attitude, since
the airlines are into this "smart fueling" deal where they try to load
just the right amount of fuel so if he has to hold or divert he'd have
to calculate. But that's just a thought.

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.

When something similar (but not that extreme) happened in my flying
club, the offending pilot's flying privileges were revoked until he took
remedial training in fuel planning with a club instructor.