More on Fuel Management - and an Ethical Dilemma

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

That's a bull**** attitude. Sounds like, "you are not worthy of
discussing a possible mistake on my part".

The running of the airline cockpit has had a reputation of something
closer to an old sailing ship than a well led team operation (a much
improved reputation over the last 20 years)

At the same time, the military seems to have it in their DNA that open,
objective review of safety and accident activity is the key to safety
and performance improvement.

An airline pilot who thinks he doesn't have any peers in the club where
he's flying a Skylane is a danger to all involved.

Sounds like the hack surgeon hiding behind his professional armor when
questioned by another injured patient (i.e. mere patient). All
professions have the armor but they need to drop them when outside the
office. Flying the club Skylane is not their workplace.

Flak suit on!

Michael wrote:
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

That's a bull**** attitude.

Maybe. But it's real, and it doesn't spring ex-nihilo.

Sounds like, "you are not worthy of discussing a possible mistake on my part".

More or less the attitude I was trying to describe. If nothing else, I
seem to be communicating it correctly.

With lots of experience there naturally comes a certain reluctance to
try to explain/justify one's actions and decisions to a low time pilot
who lacks the depth of experience to understand the operation. A few
run-ins with some low time pilots who think they can be as safe as an
airline captain because of their great safety attitude, and who presume
to tell airline captains how to fly and believe they are entitled to an
explanation, only makes it worse.

An airline pilot who thinks he doesn't have any peers in the club where
he's flying a Skylane is a danger to all involved.

That's where I'm going to disagree with you. It is quite likely that
he has no peers in that club - no pilots qualified to critcize his
flying. It doesn't help that this was a night IFR operation. I have,
from time to time, provided IFR recurrent training in GA aircraft to
highly experienced pilots who were military and/or airline trained.
They really don't have any peers in the typical flying club.

Few of them will admit it, but they tend to see the ATP as the MINIMUM
standard of instrument pilot proficiency. To them, there are ATP's,
there are those who don't yet have the hours to get the ATP but are
working towards that goal and will breeze through the checkride when
the time comes, and there are the weekend warriors who aren't really
serious about their instrument flying and certainly are not entitled to
an opinion about how a night-IFR operation should be conducted. This
attitude is, in some part, responsible for me getting an ATP. I may
well be the only person who got an ATP because of peer pressure...

I've seen some highly experienced pilots do some fascinating stuff -
and was fortunate enough to learn from them. Often it required a
certain suspension of judgment - because what I was being taught was so
far beyond me, I had no real basis for evaluating it. Almost every
time, looking back with the benefit of hindsight and a couple thousand
hours of experience, what seemed nuts to me at the time actually made
sense. There were exceptions. Sometimes it really was a bad idea.

By the time someone has made captain at the majors, he has probably
(used to be certainly, but times have changed) had plenty of
opportunity to bust his ass. If he hasn't, it MIGHT be because he's
lucky even though he is stupid or reckless - but that's not the way to
bet. It's far more likely that he actually does know what he is doing,
and if it doesn't seem that way to you, the cause is your inexperience,
not his stupidity or recklessness. It's not certain, but that's the
way to bet.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
That's a bull**** attitude.

Maybe. But it's real, and it doesn't spring ex-nihilo.

Sounds like, "you are not worthy of discussing a possible mistake on my
part".

More or less the attitude I was trying to describe. If nothing else, I
seem to be communicating it correctly.

It's too bad, that some people have such large egos. They really get in the
way, and can kill.

I would also say that one doesn't have to be a world class "sprinter", to
realize that just "walking" off a cliff can kill you, if you are walking
with your eyes closed. One doesn't have to be a sprinter to tell the
sprinter that fact.

I do know that removing the offender _should_ be done, if only on the
grounds of reckless endangerment.
--
Jim in NC

I've seen lots of airline pilots in flying clubs flying Skyhawks and Skylanes
- besides using them for personal transportation, they also use them to
maintain proficiency. I am not used to seeing them holding themselves above
other users - and particularly the instructors, who check them out just like
everyone else.

In this particular club, both the chief pilot and the second pilot are ATP
rated, and have flown everything - In addition they fly six hours a day in
small aircraft, IFR and VFR, which gives them a proficiency level much
greater than almost any airline pilot, who does not have the time to do this
much recurrent training.

I believe this particular pilot was brazen about it because he knew he had
something to cover up, and as a previous contributor pointed out, he probably
used some bravado to bluff his way through something that he knew inside was
not very cool. Many people feel that's probably good enough, and he has
probably done the work already of correcting this judgement error. Others
feel the opposite - "if he did it once, he'll do it again". Some of these
people want to go for the jugular, file complaints, write to his airline crew
chief, basically cause him as much harm as they can, because they feel he
should not be flying. I don't agree - but then my opinion does not enter
into it.

This thread has generated more discussion than I imagined, some of it
bordering on hostility, which is far from what was intended. I also didn't
intend to invite far-flung speculation about what "might" have happened -
even if it's not proven to Johnny Cochran's standards, it is pretty much
assumed that this pilot made a serious fuel management error, and endangered
the lives of his passengers. The "ethical dilemma" was whether this incident
should be used, as some feel, to try to get the guy out of the left seat
forever (which may or may not be possible) or whether to deal with it "over
lunch" as suggested here, and based on his reaction, hope something has been
learned.

G Faris

It's too bad, that some people have such large egos. They really get in the
way, and can kill.

But it's important to remember that this pilot probably had lots of
opportunities to get himself killed, and didn't. That means something
too.

Michael

This would hold more water with me if I didn't read the Aftermath and On
The Record columns in Flying magazine religiously every month and see a
lot of accidents with 10,000 hour ATP pilots doing stupid things in
piston singles.

It's also possible that the ATP, since he's all high and mighty flying
big iron, doesn't properly respect the task of driving a little spam can
around for personal use and so lets his guard and judgement down.

Also remember that a captain for a major airline probably has a dispatch
department that does the scut work of calculating loads, fuel, etc. for
him. Plus he has computers on board to help with those tasks. He also
has a co-pilot in his cockpit to help out and spot mistakes and back him
up. The airliners he flies have a much higher level of equipment and
automation than the skylane. Given all that, I just can't accept the
premise that an ATP heavy-iron driver is automatically peerless flying
Skylanes. That's like saying a long-haul truck driver's skills transfer
seemlessly to the task of being a safe and proficient bicyclist.



Michael wrote:


That's where I'm going to disagree with you. It is quite likely that
he has no peers in that club - no pilots qualified to critcize his
flying. It doesn't help that this was a night IFR operation. I have,
from time to time, provided IFR recurrent training in GA aircraft to
highly experienced pilots who were military and/or airline trained.
They really don't have any peers in the typical flying club.

Few of them will admit it, but they tend to see the ATP as the MINIMUM
standard of instrument pilot proficiency. To them, there are ATP's,
there are those who don't yet have the hours to get the ATP but are
working towards that goal and will breeze through the checkride when
the time comes, and there are the weekend warriors who aren't really
serious about their instrument flying and certainly are not entitled to
an opinion about how a night-IFR operation should be conducted. This
attitude is, in some part, responsible for me getting an ATP. I may
well be the only person who got an ATP because of peer pressure...

I've seen some highly experienced pilots do some fascinating stuff -
and was fortunate enough to learn from them. Often it required a
certain suspension of judgment - because what I was being taught was so
far beyond me, I had no real basis for evaluating it. Almost every
time, looking back with the benefit of hindsight and a couple thousand
hours of experience, what seemed nuts to me at the time actually made
sense. There were exceptions. Sometimes it really was a bad idea.

By the time someone has made captain at the majors, he has probably
(used to be certainly, but times have changed) had plenty of
opportunity to bust his ass. If he hasn't, it MIGHT be because he's
lucky even though he is stupid or reckless - but that's not the way to
bet. It's far more likely that he actually does know what he is doing,
and if it doesn't seem that way to you, the cause is your inexperience,
not his stupidity or recklessness. It's not certain, but that's the
way to bet.

Michael

Michael wrote:

To them, there are ATP's,
there are those who don't yet have the hours to get the ATP but are
working towards that goal and will breeze through the checkride when
the time comes, and there are the weekend warriors who aren't really
serious about their instrument flying and certainly are not entitled to
an opinion about how a night-IFR operation should be conducted.

snip

It's far more likely that he actually does know what he is doing,
and if it doesn't seem that way to you, the cause is your inexperience,
not his stupidity or recklessness.

All this discussion of elite ATPs and fuel starvation makes the timing of
this AOPA article rather coincidental:

Selecting your fate: fuel starvation
http://www.aopa.org/asf/epilot_acc/dfw05ca087.html

Pertinent quotes from the article:

----------------- start quote ---------------------

On March 12, 2005, a 24,611-hour ATP made a forced landing in an open field
after a total loss of engine power while on a visual approach to Runway 13
at Lancaster Airport in Lancaster, Texas. He and the one passenger were not
injured. The pilot did not visually check the fuel tanks prior to takeoff
and could not recall what the fuel gauges indicated during the flight. He
thought both auxiliary fuel tanks were full, and both main fuel tanks were
almost full. While descending for the approach, the pilot moved the fuel
selector valve from the left main tank to the right main tank. Very shortly
after, the engine quit. The pilot unsuccessfully attempted to restart the
engine by switching the fuel selector valve back to the left tank and
cycling the throttle.

snip

The NTSB determined that the probable cause of this accident was the
pilot's mismanagement of the available fuel supply, which resulted in a
total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.

------------------- end quote ---------------------------------



--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----