Idiot Pilot Runs Out of Gas - Lands Cessna on I-81 - CAN'T BECHARGED!!

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:22:08 -0500, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net
wrote:

Just makes a better story "spin" it a bit.


Do you know a reporter that knows the difference between "first solo"
and "first solo cross-country"? I don't!

On a side note...

Dana, My plane has been grounded since Jan. 20, due to a bad jump
start by my co-owner... Airworthy soon!

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:22:08 -0500, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net
wrote:

Just makes a better story "spin" it a bit.


Do you know a reporter that knows the difference between "first solo"
and "first solo cross-country"? I don't!


No, I don't either. That would be a real small omission compared to some we
have seen.

All things considered, that is probably, more like than not, what happened
this time.

gatt wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:


The student was in command, and the lawyers would I'm sure argue that
reading to the letter of the law, but make no mistake; there was an
instructor failure here, a serious instructor failure.

Seems that, fuel issues notwithstanding, making an interstate landing on
a solo flight and walking away from it, the student did a pretty good
job keeping his head together and handling the emergency.
If this was the scenario, I would tend to agree with you.
There are of course several possibilities involving this "story".
Assuming the initial post was relating accurate information, I see it as
a mixed bag. It's hard to envision a student not sharp enough to notice
his fuel state vs his intended flight; then have that same student have
the cool to dead stick his bird on the interstate without dinging it in
the process

Sort of an "Oh ****" "Atta Boy" scenario all in the same sentence :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

On 2008-04-03 20:56:48 -0700, Dudley Henriques said:

buttman wrote:
On Apr 3, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

The student was in command, and the lawyers would I'm sure argue that
reading to the letter of the law, but make no mistake; there was an
instructor failure here, a serious instructor failure.


There is not enough evidence here to accuse the instructor. How do you
know the instructor didn't do what is required to ensure safety?

The fact that the student ran out of fuel after being released for solo
by the instructor is the obvious answer to this question for those
believing that the instructor had a responsibility to ascertain the
aircraft was suitably fueled for the intended solo.
There are of course those who might not consider that checking the fuel
as adequate for the student was within the professional responsibility
of the instructor.
Each instructor must form their own opinion on what exactly defines
professionalism for them personally. In my opinion, this instructor
failed to meet my own definition for professionalism. You of course are
free to define the instructor's role in this incident as you see fit.

I personally believe the instructor should have checked the fuel. Of
course, if the student was supposed to re-fuel en route and failed to
do so, deliberately ignoring what the instructor told him to do, then
that is another matter.

I have a hard time with calling a pilot who ran out of fuel an idiot.
If history has taught us anything, it is that no pilot is immune to
mistakes, and there is no mistake that even the best pilot will not
make under some circumstances. I think believing that only idiots make
mistakes like running out of fuel leads to complacency. I consider
teaching pilots that they are never smart enough or experienced enough
to never make what appear to be stupid mistakes is an important
responsibility of the flight instructor. This is not to fill the pilot
with self-doubt -- but to give him the confidence he needs to maintain
vigilance.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"Gene Seibel" wrote:

This forum should be a good place to share experiences, but
with the tendency to pile on people that make mistakes, I've
been hesitant to share my recent fuel exhaustion experience.
Well, I'll go ahead and be the group's "Idiot".

People who think they are immune to screwing the pooch like that are under a
dangerous illusion, IMO.

Thanks for sharing, Gene.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2008-04-03 20:56:48 -0700, Dudley Henriques said:

buttman wrote:
On Apr 3, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

The student was in command, and the lawyers would I'm sure argue that
reading to the letter of the law, but make no mistake; there was an
instructor failure here, a serious instructor failure.


There is not enough evidence here to accuse the instructor. How do you
know the instructor didn't do what is required to ensure safety?

The fact that the student ran out of fuel after being released for
solo by the instructor is the obvious answer to this question for
those believing that the instructor had a responsibility to ascertain
the aircraft was suitably fueled for the intended solo.
There are of course those who might not consider that checking the
fuel as adequate for the student was within the professional
responsibility of the instructor.
Each instructor must form their own opinion on what exactly defines
professionalism for them personally. In my opinion, this instructor
failed to meet my own definition for professionalism. You of course
are free to define the instructor's role in this incident as you see fit.

I personally believe the instructor should have checked the fuel. Of
course, if the student was supposed to re-fuel en route and failed to do
so, deliberately ignoring what the instructor told him to do, then that
is another matter.

I have a hard time with calling a pilot who ran out of fuel an idiot. If
history has taught us anything, it is that no pilot is immune to
mistakes, and there is no mistake that even the best pilot will not make
under some circumstances. I think believing that only idiots make
mistakes like running out of fuel leads to complacency. I consider
teaching pilots that they are never smart enough or experienced enough
to never make what appear to be stupid mistakes is an important
responsibility of the flight instructor. This is not to fill the pilot
with self-doubt -- but to give him the confidence he needs to maintain
vigilance.


This is a subject of great interest to me personally. I belong to a work
group of professional display pilots dealing with human factors in this
scenario. One might say that the entire premise for our work is to
address a single question; "What causes a pilot trained not to make a
specific critical mistake to make that exact critical mistake?"

If it's any consolation, we have some of the finest pilots in the world
working directly on issues like these. With us, we have internationally
know and respected psychologists and doctors.

Basically, we're dealing with what's commonly referred to as a "brain
fart" for lack of a better term.

We've been on it for a long time.
We're still on it!

On the general aviation side of this question as relates to flight
instructor responsibility, it's also difficult to define. To me, as an
instructor, concerning the issue we're discussing here on this thread,
if his incident involved an initial solo, (and I'm assuming this
considering the given information and lacking additional information) I
would find the instructor responsible on two levels;
1. The instructor should have checked the remaining fuel before
releasing the aircraft to the student for an initial solo. This is obvious.
2. This second factor is a bit more subtle and involves the student. The
STUDENT should have checked the remaining fuel before accepting the
airplane as a direct result of the training the student had received
from the instructor. This is a two pronged failure with the finger again
pointing to the instructor.

What remains is a question involving the basic premise for the
discussion being accurate; that being the incident involved an initial
solo flight. If it did NOT involve a solo, but rather a cross country as
has been suggested, one is presented with the following question as an
instructor;

Consider the following;

Someone walks into the flight office and informs you as a flight
instructor that the student you just signed off for a first cross
country didn't refuel the airplane at his turn around airport and ran
out of fuel on the way home making a forced landing on a highway necessary.

Interesting isn't it....when something like this is presented to an
instructor? Poses some interesting questions on instructor
responsibility. Is the instructor responsible for the student not
fueling the airplane? Was the student prepared properly? Can any
instructor insure the student will perform properly after being
released? Is it fair to point the finger of responsibility at an
instructor when a student performs in this manner?

The legalities and FAR's might be clear on these issues, but the REAL
answer lies much deeper than that.

No matter how good an instructor is, there is only so much that can be
done to prepare a student.

So the eternal search to find the ultimate answer for issues like these
will go on. Pilots like myself and others will spend our lives trying to
find the answer.....when in reality there might be no ultimate answer,
and students will sometimes forget to check their fuel, and the greatest
and best pilots on the face of the planet will have brain farts, pulling
through their display top gate altitudes too low, too fast, or both,
ending up in flaming wrecks at the bottom.

But the job goes on.........at least we're working on it!!!!


--
Dudley Henriques

On Apr 5, 10:40 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Consider the following;

Someone walks into the flight office and informs you as a flight
instructor that the student you just signed off for a first cross
country didn't refuel the airplane at his turn around airport and ran
out of fuel on the way home making a forced landing on a highway necessary.

Dudley,

In these days of cell phone it wouldn't it make sense for the CFI to
add to the "conditions of flight" in the endorsement "Call CFI prior
to take off from each selected airport"?

During this call the CFI can run through a checklist and ensure the
student confirms all those basic items -- fuel checked, winds, weather
en route, etc....


Dan Mc

wrote:
On Apr 5, 10:40 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Consider the following;

Someone walks into the flight office and informs you as a flight
instructor that the student you just signed off for a first cross
country didn't refuel the airplane at his turn around airport and ran
out of fuel on the way home making a forced landing on a highway necessary.

Dudley,

In these days of cell phone it wouldn't it make sense for the CFI to
add to the "conditions of flight" in the endorsement "Call CFI prior
to take off from each selected airport"?

During this call the CFI can run through a checklist and ensure the
student confirms all those basic items -- fuel checked, winds, weather
en route, etc....


Dan Mc



I wouldn't be a fan of this.

The question always remains concerning the exact point of transfer for
responsibility of the flight from the instructor to the student. There
is always some point where the instructor has to rely on the student to
do as trained to do. In my opinion that decision point for the
instructor must be up front, BEFORE the release takes place.
Extending the "conditions for the flight" to a cell phone call with the
student at a remote location to insure conditions have been met simply
extends the final release of this responsibility while at the same time
poses the question that if such a call is necessary at all, the student
wasn't prepared properly for the flight initially.

The bottom line is up front with the instructor. The instructor has to
decide up front whether or not the student will perform properly on all
levels before the sign off. This is a responsibility not to be taken
lightly.
It's right here in coming to grips with this decision process and all it
entails where you come head to head with the AWESOME responsibility
associated with the CFI certificate.

Some CFI's get this and understand it.......some never will.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Apr 4, 1:55*pm, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
wrote:
Gene Seibel wrote:
This forum should be a good place to share experiences, but with the
tendency to pile on people that make mistakes, I've been hesitant to
share my recent fuel exhaustion experience. Well, I'll go ahead and be
the group's "Idiot".

There's those who have and those that will. *Folks want to stay in the latter
group as long as possible. *To those who insist they could never make that same
mistake, I just shake my head. *Usually it's a number of circumstances that come
together for that Perfect Storm to blow in your direction. *And yes, I am in the
former group.... having run a C-210 out of gas after a 45 minute flight with an
hour and a half's worth of fuel on board. *Or at least I thought I had.


My experience was certainly a classic example of a chain of events
that combined to create a potential disaster. I allowed too many
"little" things to add up. Each factor on their own wouldn't have
caused the incident.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

On Apr 5, 11:27 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

The question always remains concerning the exact point of transfer for
responsibility of the flight from the instructor to the student. There
is always some point where the instructor has to rely on the student to
do as trained to do. In my opinion that decision point for the
instructor must be up front, BEFORE the release takes place.
Extending the "conditions for the flight" to a cell phone call with the
student at a remote location to insure conditions have been met simply
extends the final release of this responsibility while at the same time
poses the question that if such a call is necessary at all, the student
wasn't prepared properly for the flight initially.

The bottom line is up front with the instructor. The instructor has to
decide up front whether or not the student will perform properly on all
levels before the sign off. This is a responsibility not to be taken
lightly.

Dudley Henriques

Makes sense -- I've always assumed the CFI need to be absolutely
certain the student will adhere to the rules/checklists/etc prior to
launch for the long XC.

But the endorsement has restrictions - does that imply a division of
responsibility?

These days of litigation makes me wonder...


Dan Mc