More on Fuel Management - and an Ethical Dilemma

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
When confronted discreetly about it, the pilot was nonchalant. He has
a career ahead of him, and a family, with two young children. Because of
his poor judgment, and even more because of his flippant attitude, some
people who know about this want to make a full-blown incident out of it.
Others feel it would damage or destroy his career - and we "hope" he has
learned his lesson.

In the UK we have the Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting
Programme (http://www.chirp.co.uk/new/default.htm). Do you have the same in
your part of the world? This is an excellent service which allows incidents
such as this to be reported in a way which is confidential but which will
promote awareness of the issue through the publication, in anonymous form,
of the details of the incident.

D.

wrote in message ...


Greg Farris wrote:

In the June AOPA Pilot "State of General Aviation" issue, Bruce
Landsberg gives a gold star to Cessna, for their new production singles,
which, according to the article, have not suffered a single fuel
mismanagement accident. Well, I know of one near-miss, which could have
broken that record, and presents an ethical dilemma as well.

It involves a flying club and an ATP rated pilot - in fact, a 767
Captain for a major. He took out a new C-182S on a personal trip, and
returned "uneventfully" under IFR, in IMC at night, with two passengers.
When the plane was refueled in the morning, it took 90GAL of 100LL -
useable fuel for that model is 88GAL, with total 92GAL. It is quite
possible that a missed approach that night would have resulted in three
fatalities.

When confronted discreetly about it, the pilot was nonchalant. He has
a career ahead of him, and a family, with two young children. Because of
his poor judgment, and even more because of his flippant attitude, some
people who know about this want to make a full-blown incident out of it.
Others feel it would damage or destroy his career - and we "hope" he has
learned his lesson.

If the flying club doesn't know how to deal with this, then they don't
have
a very good charter and will sooner or later have other problems with
pilots
who get out of line.

A well-organized flying club would document the facts, the board would
meet
to assess the facts then, if the board deemed it warranted, they would
serve
notice and require the member to appear and defend his actions. The
result
could be anything from no action to suspension from the club.

None of that would affect his airline career but it would get he, and his
attitude, out of "Dodge" so to speak.

Exactly. Nothing will come of this re his airline career, but it will allow
the club to rid itself of this guy, IF THE FACTS WARRANT. That the Chief
Pilot of the club is in such a tizzy over what to do doesn't speak very well
for his decision making or the procedures he's to follow when he suspects a
club rules violation has occurred. And that's all that occurred since no
civil regs appear to have been violated. If things are as the original
poster stipulated, then the attitude alone would warrant a Chief Pilot
investigation and presentation to the board. Where's the ethical dilema?

JB

I can't believe that you all are wasting your time on this "incident" which,
at worst is an excellent troll, at at best is a "he said that she said that
he said" third hand story from a person with no direct knowledge of the
incident.

Jim




Exactly. Nothing will come of this re his airline career, but it will
allow the club to rid itself of this guy, IF THE FACTS WARRANT.

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
I can't believe that you all are wasting your time on this "incident"
which,
at worst is an excellent troll, at at best is a "he said that she said
that
he said" third hand story from a person with no direct knowledge of the
incident.


Propensity for run-on sentences, have ya?

I get paid for my writing, Matt, do you? There are times for long
sentences. There are times for short sentences. And then there are times
for sentences that can ramble on with the best of them. You get paid
knowing which one fits where.

Jim



"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


Propensity for run-on sentences, have ya?

I've made one reply to the "troll' as you call this OP. This makes two. I
see that you've made two. I can't believe you're wasting time writing about
how I'm using my time, and then have the gall to say you get paid for
writing wasted time replies. LOL at RST.

JB

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
I can't believe that you all are wasting your time on this "incident"
which, at worst is an excellent troll, at at best is a "he said that she
said that he said" third hand story from a person with no direct knowledge
of the incident.

Jim




Exactly. Nothing will come of this re his airline career, but it will
allow the club to rid itself of this guy, IF THE FACTS WARRANT.

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
I get paid for my writing, Matt, do you?

Evidently logic isn't your chosen career, nor is rhetoric.

You are DAMN good at inflating your ego in instances that are completely
inconsequential.

There are times for long
sentences. There are times for short sentences. And then there are times
for sentences that can ramble on with the best of them. You get paid
knowing which one fits where.

And there are people who spout BS and call it a career. Tell me one rule of
writing that says a sentence of 65 words is appropriate.

Oh, and I think we can all name several professionals that are totally inept
at what they do.

Sorry to ding that limp, little inflated ego of yours.

"Jim Baker" wrote in message
news
I've made one reply to the "troll' as you call this OP. This makes two.
I
see that you've made two. I can't believe you're wasting time writing
about
how I'm using my time, and then have the gall to say you get paid for
writing wasted time replies. LOL at RST.

Right on the mark, Jim. He's got an vastly over-inflated ego and a pomposity
to boot.

"David Cartwright" wrote in message
...
You forgot one which a lateral-thinking air accident investigator would
hopefully spot: was the calibration of the pump from which the fuel was
dispensed up-to-date and accurate?

Yes, true. It wasn't my intent to provide a canonical list of all possible
reasons for the apparent situation. Just to illustrate that it's far from
clear what actually happened.

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