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

The state cops could file all kinds of charges -- no plate, no
inspection sticker, blocking traffic, the list goes on and on. All
charges are of course optional.

The real issue is, what actions will the FAA take. If the fuel
exhaustion was an unforced error on the part of the PIC, it should be
worth a few square inches of his hide, or his wallet.

Is there some rule against stupidity, or do we depend on Darwin to
take care of that?

"Tina" wrote in message
...
The state cops could file all kinds of charges -- no plate, no
inspection sticker, blocking traffic, the list goes on and on. All
charges are of course optional.

The real issue is, what actions will the FAA take. If the fuel
exhaustion was an unforced error on the part of the PIC, it should be
worth a few square inches of his hide, or his wallet.

Is there some rule against stupidity, or do we depend on Darwin to
take care of that?


If he ran out of fuel on his first solo, I would think the FAA would be
looking for his CFI.

Tina wrote:
The state cops could file all kinds of charges -- no plate, no
inspection sticker, blocking traffic, the list goes on and on. All
charges are of course optional.

The Virginia State Police do have a four page "Commonwealth of Virginia
Aviation Accident" report. Of course, most cops have no clue as to what
aviation is. I spent 20 minutes helping the trouper fill out the
report on my engine failure (and I didn't even land on the highway).

If he ran out of fuel on his first solo, I would think the FAA would be
looking for his CFI.

Agree with that. But the student was still pilot in command.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
If he ran out of fuel on his first solo, I would think the FAA would be
looking for his CFI.

Agree with that. But the student was still pilot in command.


Indeed. I just had this picture of a CFI jumping out after a couple hour of
T&Gs and saying "Ok, it's all yours this time, let's see three good
landings". Only to look up a couple minutes later and say "OOOOPPPS".

Ron Lee wrote:
If he ran out of fuel on his first solo, I would think the FAA would be
looking for his CFI.

Agree with that. But the student was still pilot in command.

Ron Lee


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.

On any first solo, there is, as an integral part of that scenario, a
TRANSITION of power as relates to pilot in command.
It is incumbent on ANY flight instructor, when making the decision to
initiate this transition of control to pass from the instructor to the
student, to take all the steps necessary to insure the safety of the
student. This includes a complete checking of the condition of the
aircraft to insure it is safe and ready to turn over to the student for
solo.

It might satisfy the FAR's and the law to throw down on this student for
running out of fuel on a first solo, but in my opinion, I hope every
instructor reading this post will stop for a second and think about
professional responsibility and how that relates to an instructor
signing off a student for solo and allowing him to do so with inadequate
fuel in the tanks to complete the flight.

Good instructors NEVER stop thinking about the safety of the student,
and in this case, the instructor in my opinion failed miserably to back
up and cross check the student's airplane prior to turning the student
loose.
The bottom line on this incident is that although the FAR's might define
PIC, the FAR's fall way short of defining what constitutes
professionalism in a flight instructor.


--
Dudley Henriques

Tina wrote:
The state cops could file all kinds of charges -- no plate, no
inspection sticker, blocking traffic, the list goes on and on. All
charges are of course optional.

It's not a ground vehicle so such laws wouldn't appear to apply. And for
the cops to cite for blocking traffic might be considered inimical to
safety, as it would not be wise to put another decision burden on pilots in
future emergency situations.

The real issue is, what actions will the FAA take. If the fuel
exhaustion was an unforced error on the part of the PIC, it should be
worth a few square inches of his hide, or his wallet.

For an idea of some actual cases of penalties applied for fuel exahustion,
go to this web site and enter "fuel exhaustion" (but without the quotes) in
the "Words & Phrases" search field (and make sure "Aviation Orders" is
checked):

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/query.asp

I get 10 hits. Penalties appear generally to be suspension of certificate
for several months. (The web site appears to only return cases that were
appealed.)

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?

Just because something bad happens to a student, doesn't mean with
100% certainty that it's the instructor's fault.

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.

Just because something bad happens to a student, doesn't mean with
100% certainty that it's the instructor's fault.

This is a statement that generally can be said to be true, but if
presented pertaining to a specific incident or accident involving the
instructor/student interface, where harm came to a student, the general
assumption might very well have to be withdrawn.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Apr 3, 9:56*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
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.

You are assuming the instructor did nothing to ensure the plane had
enough fuel. Nobody knows if this is true or not. For all we know, the
fuel starvation could have been caused by a fuel leak. Or maybe the
student didn't lean the mixture. Maybe the student decided to do a
little sight seeing instead of getting right back. There are all sorts
of explanations for this kind of thing happening.

I once had a student who did a precautionary landing at an airport
underlying Class C airspace on his third solo. He heard the engine
sputter, and freaked out I guess. Apparently he called the CTAF for
the airport he landed at, but not the approach controllers at the
bigger airport. He knew he had to call them, he just didn't. Before I
let any of my students solo, I give them a written test that covers
all the stuff solo students are supposed to know according to that
long list in part 61. If the FAA wants to blame me for this incident,
I'll just show them the page on his test where he got that particular
question right. Theres nothing more I could have done.