Xmnushal8y:
It doesn't matter how much AOPA tries to educate, there's a huge portion
of the general public they would never reach. I don't blame the witness
for speculating, I blame the reporter for irresponsibly including that
SPECULATION in the article (although 8 gallons in 2 tanks isn't much
fuel). That's the NTSB's job, and at least *the reporter* should know
that.

(Michael Houghton) wrote:
The article says that the NTSB won't be investigating. It was a
simple off-airport landing with no injuries or damage. Of course, I'd
expect the owner to be interested in what caused the engine to quit,
but that's a maintenance and repair issue.

You're absolutely right, I forgot about it not being an "accident".
Still, the reporter should know better than to quote a witness's
speculation/implication that the pilot should have ponied up some $ for
gas.

Overall, the article avoided gratuitous sensationalism. Yeah, the
eyewitnesses were not a clueful about what they were seeing, but that's
not a big surprise. I'm wondering when Mulcahy is going to go off about
how dangerous the situation was, but he's a loon.

:-)
Eyewitnesses to small plane incidents/accidents are not always
knowledgeable, but again, the reporter should have at least *some* clue
as to which information is factual and which is speculation and edit
accordingly. Maybe life's too short, but if I were the pilot and knew it
was a MX/repair issue and not fuel exhaustion or pilot error, after
being extremely grateful that I made it back safely, I think I might be
a little annoyed that it was implied in the report that I could have
prevented it by spending $10 on gas.