"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:jVSKg.6851$SZ3.5261@dukeread04...
That is true, but the engine did finally quit and it did not
appear that there was any water ingestion to drown the
engine.

The video is not of high enough quality to know whether there was any water
ingestion, especially since the engine doesn't shut down until the airplane
has turned so that the engine is on the far side of the airplane from the
camera.

Once a jet is running, it takes shutting down the
fuel supply to kill it,

There are plenty of ways for a jet engine to stop running other than simply
cutting off its fuel supply. Heck, you already mentioned one (water
ingestion). And for that matter, there are ways for the fuel supply to be
cut off other than actually exhausting the fuel supply.

there was no one on the airplane.
Since it was filmed, non-fatal and only minor injuries, it
is possible that it was just left out of the report.

I agree it's possible. But not nearly as likely as the engine shut down for
a reason other than fuel exhaustion. Accident investigators are generally
pretty thorough, to the point of including whether a pilot had filed a
flight plan or not, even when there's almost never any relevance to that
question.

Clearly the PIC failed to calculate properly, to know his
airport restrictions, but he sure did provide a great bit of
video.

Eh. The video was okay, IMHO. Obviously in a situation like this, it's
unreasonable to expect a professional production value, but even simple
things like having image stabilization (clearly not in use here) and
deinterlacing the video for computer display (something that would have been
done in post-processing) would have gone a long way toward making the video
more watchable.

I found it interesting enough to not feel I completely wasted the ten
minutes it took to watch it, but I wouldn't call it "great".

Pete