More on Fuel Management - and an Ethical Dilemma

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
[...]
Fuel was not stolen form the plane - it did not overnight anywhere - he
flew
it out and back.

How do you know that fuel was not stolen from the airplane? Just because
the airplane spent the night at your club rather than elsewhere, that
doesn't prove there was no theft. If the airplane is hangared, theft is
much less likely, but again not proveably impossible (especially since the
theft could be an "inside job", as they say).

I don't know if it was full when he departed, or what
measures he took to satisfy himself with the adequacy of his fuel on
board. I
mentioned the AOPA article about the late model Cessnas though because of
the
fuel management system and low fuel warnings they have built into these
planes. The thing must have been blaring at him for a good half an hour on
his
return flight!

Again, did he actually admit to landing with low fuel? Has anyone talked to
the passengers to see if they noted a low fuel warning?

It's one thing if he's actually admitted the transgression and seems
unapologetic about it. But it's another entirely if there is an allegation
that has been so far unproven. Certainly the pilot should be given the
benefit of the doubt unless it can be established without question that he
arrived with practically empty tanks.

As I've mentioned, so far you haven't communicated to this newsgroup any
incontrovertible reason to believe that the pilot did in fact do what you
are suggesting he did. Your post takes as a foregone conclusion that he did
(or at least appears to), but the written record here doesn't demonstrate
that conclusion.

As you've guessed, I was of the opinion that no good would come of making
an
incident that would damage his career - at the same time, I have to
admit
that I would not want to fly with him, in any type of aircraft or any
mission
profile. I'm a bit stunned by the disregard he showed for the lives of his
two
passengers that night.

You keep writing things that make it seems as though you are certain he did
what you say he did. But what evidence do you have that he did? Did he
actually admit to doing so? Did the passengers verify the theory that he
did? Did someone check the fuel level immediately after his landing? I'm
talking about *proof*, not circumstantial evidence.

He may very well have done exactly what you say he did, even if there is not
proof of it. But it does the aviation community no good at all to make
unproven accusations, and especially to act on them. That's exactly the
kind of behavior we find so abhorrent from the TSA and the rest of our
government; it would be hypocritical to act that way at all, never mind to
our own.

Pete

You're beating a dead horse, Pete.
Or else I really wasn't clear about it. 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. In IMC at night, with two passengers. No one involved seriously
entertains any other scenario.

The only question worthy of an "ethical dilemma" is what action should be
taken. What would be the correct response? The guy is young - as captains go -
and destroying his career is not something any pilot would gleefully (or
self-rightously) leap to do.

Greg

Greg, ol buddy; My best advice to you is to drop it immediately... If
you choose to keep running this guy down you are likely to find out
what any competent lawyer can do to your assumptions, what you call
'facts not in dispute'.. To hell they aren't! And in the end you get
slapped with a slander, libel, and defamation of character suit - and
the FAA cannot shield you from that...

denny

Greg Farris wrote:

You're beating a dead horse, Pete.
Or else I really wasn't clear about it. 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. In IMC at night, with two passengers. No one involved seriously
entertains any other scenario.

The only question worthy of an "ethical dilemma" is what action should be
taken. What would be the correct response? The guy is young - as captains go -
and destroying his career is not something any pilot would gleefully (or
self-rightously) leap to do.

It is better to let him kill himself and some pax than risk his career?
I guess my ethics differ from yours.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Greg Farris wrote:

You're beating a dead horse, Pete.
Or else I really wasn't clear about it. 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. In IMC at night, with two passengers. No one involved
seriously
entertains any other scenario.

The only question worthy of an "ethical dilemma" is what action should
be
taken. What would be the correct response? The guy is young - as
captains go -
and destroying his career is not something any pilot would gleefully (or
self-rightously) leap to do.

It is better to let him kill himself and some pax than risk his career?
I guess my ethics differ from yours.

Matt

Exactly....had a hangar neighbor who was an ex military pilot, flying for a
major. He thought rules were for others. Ended up taking out three
relatives (two young kids and their dad as I remember) by hitting high
tension lines 20 miles from the airport. He left a wife and two young kids.
Better he was grounded for life and had his career ruined then what he ended
up doing. Only good part was at least he didn't dork an airliner full of
people. He was known around the airport as a "matter of timer." A number
of people had a chance to put a stop to his death wish but took no action.
They will live with that the rest of their lives and are reminded every time
they see his widow and kids who still live at the airport.

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. In IMC at night, with two passengers. No one involved seriously
entertains any other scenario.

But your issue is with the pilot's reaction of nonchalance. You fail to
convince me that his outward reaction matches his inward reaction. I
find it quite likely (though not foregone) that inwardly he cringes
while outwardly he shrugs it off. The danger (even here) is that having
gotten away with it once, it may induce him to feel that this part of
the envelope is ok.

I would reccomend talking to him or having somebody (non-official) talk
to him about the incident in order to ensure that this doesn't become
the case. The more you get away with something dangerous, the less
dangerous it seems, until it bites you. However, "sheesh that was close
- I'll never do that again" is a possible and desired outcome, even if
shielded by some external bravado to save face.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
You're beating a dead horse, Pete.
Or else I really wasn't clear about it.

You were not clear at all. Nowhere did you state anything close to:

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.

It took you this many posts to actually come right out and specify what the
pilot actually said (and frankly, "does not deny" is still not unequivocably
the same as "admits"). You have been beating around the bush this whole
thread.

[...]
The only question worthy of an "ethical dilemma" is what action should be
taken. What would be the correct response? The guy is young - as captains
go -
and destroying his career is not something any pilot would gleefully (or
self-rightously) leap to do.

As Bob says, it's unlikely anything you guys do at the club would affect his
career as an airline pilot. You might affect his career as a club member.
That's all.

As far as what the ethical thing to do is, I did state very clearly how I
think the issue should be handled, assuming the pilot has admitted to the
deed he's accused of.

Pete

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