Beech V35 crashes in S.C.

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

That particular pilot never thought to change
tanks because the fuel gauges still ran full. The mistake killed him.

I don't have any time in Bonanzas... could this have happened here?

The V35B I fly has a left, right, and off fuel selector. The two Beech
fuel gauges do indicate full fuel, but the left tank gauge is slow to
indicate any level less than full.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Dudley Henriques wrote:
The press on the other hand, for reasons of their own, in many cases
involving our last moments as pilots, choose to emphasize the romance and
completely neglect the realities.

You are of course ignoring the fact that it wasn't "the press" who said
he avoided a swimming pool at the end. It was the public - eyewitnesses.
That big, bad "press" simply reported what the eyewitnesses said.
Strangely enough, that's exactly what they're supposed to do.

Certainly eyewitnesses get things wrong at times. But what would you
have the reporter do - balance what the eyewitnesses reported with the
speculation of a few Usenet pilots who weren't there?

I think an unbiased reader can determine who is more responsible here -
the journalist reporting objectively what witnesses said, or a Usenet
poster (Mr. Schnerd) making an uninformed and potentially libelous
accusation such as the pilot "was circling his father's house when he
ran dry." Not that you find many unbiased readers in Usenet...

Dudley Henriques wrote:

There's always been a fairly large crevasse between the natural romance of
flight and the reality involved with flight. In most cases, those of us who
remain as pilots for some length of time learn to appreciate the difference
and deal with it.
The press on the other hand, for reasons of their own, in many cases
involving our last moments as pilots, choose to emphasize the romance and
completely neglect the realities.

What harm does it cause if the press and general public believe that
pilots are trying to avoid schools, crowds, etc.? Even if their motive
isn't pure (trying to create a story), I'm not sure that the outcome is
all that bad for pilots. I'd rather have this than reporters saying
that pilots just look for any open spot and don't care if it is a
playground.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:

There's always been a fairly large crevasse between the natural romance
of flight and the reality involved with flight. In most cases, those of
us who remain as pilots for some length of time learn to appreciate the
difference and deal with it.
The press on the other hand, for reasons of their own, in many cases
involving our last moments as pilots, choose to emphasize the romance and
completely neglect the realities.

What harm does it cause if the press and general public believe that
pilots are trying to avoid schools, crowds, etc.? Even if their motive
isn't pure (trying to create a story), I'm not sure that the outcome is
all that bad for pilots. I'd rather have this than reporters saying that
pilots just look for any open spot and don't care if it is a playground.

Nobody said anything about 'not caring'. You are one bridge too far.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm not even referring to this specific accident.
I'm basing my comments about the media on years and years of reading what
these idiots write. I made no reference to this specific incident at all.
DH
"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:
The press on the other hand, for reasons of their own, in many cases
involving our last moments as pilots, choose to emphasize the romance and
completely neglect the realities.

You are of course ignoring the fact that it wasn't "the press" who said he
avoided a swimming pool at the end. It was the public - eyewitnesses. That
big, bad "press" simply reported what the eyewitnesses said. Strangely
enough, that's exactly what they're supposed to do.

Certainly eyewitnesses get things wrong at times. But what would you have
the reporter do - balance what the eyewitnesses reported with the
speculation of a few Usenet pilots who weren't there?

I think an unbiased reader can determine who is more responsible here -
the journalist reporting objectively what witnesses said, or a Usenet
poster (Mr. Schnerd) making an uninformed and potentially libelous
accusation such as the pilot "was circling his father's house when he ran
dry." Not that you find many unbiased readers in Usenet...

Dudley Henriques wrote:

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm not even referring to this specific
accident. I'm basing my comments about the media on years and years
of reading what these idiots write. I made no reference to this
specific incident at all.

Under the subject line "Beech V35 crashes in S.C." Context matters, and
that makes it pretty specific...

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm not even referring to this specific
accident. I'm basing my comments about the media on years and years of
reading what these idiots write. I made no reference to this specific
incident at all.

Under the subject line "Beech V35 crashes in S.C." Context matters, and
that makes it pretty specific...

Although dealing with the subject line is indeed an option for a responding
post, it is also quite common to address issues brought up within the
subject body, which in this case is exactly what my response did.
If you read both the initial post and my response to it, you will
immediately see that the initial poster addressed a side issue directly
related to his line of thinking that deals with general media projection
after a great many crashes.
It was this I was addressing and nothing else. That was made quite plain in
my post, since I deliberately avoided mentioning the specific crash being
discussed.
Of course, if it's your thing that only the main topic be addressed in all
responding posts, I'll take that as your critique on Usenet protocol. Other
than that, I think it's quite obvious what my responding post was meant to
convey and I'll leave it at that unless you wish to continue this path with
me.
DH

Rich Ahrens wrote:
I think an unbiased reader can determine who is more responsible here -
the journalist reporting objectively what witnesses said, or a Usenet
poster (Mr. Schnerd) making an uninformed and potentially libelous
accusation such as the pilot "was circling his father's house when he
ran dry." Not that you find many unbiased readers in Usenet...


You have taken my statement out of context. I never framed it as anything other
than conjecture; I suggested that he may have run out of fuel or "his engine may
have taken a powder".

As for libelous statements, since when is circling your father's house a crime?
Nobody said he was buzzing; least of all me. The original newspaper articles
quoted somebody as having said he must have been circling looking for a place to
land. With the Rock Hill Airport less than a mile away, I find that unlikely.
What better place to land?

I'm not busting this guy's balls. All I'm saying is that the media and the
public's view of pilots in general is a little cloudy.

Which of us is more uninformed here? Which one of us lives in the area? Which
of us flies out of that airport and has since the late 1970s? Which of us has
had to deadstick a sick airplane to a disasterous landing? Which of us has had
his motivations misinterpreted in the same way the poor dead guy was in trying
to land in a clear spot? I think I have something to offer here... even if the
facts aren't all in. My conjecture comes from a certain level of specific
experience I doubt you can match. And I do call it conjecture.

If I end up being totally off-base I've still made some valid points about the
media and the public's perceptions of these events.

"A journalist reporting objectively"? How do you know the reporter was
objective? Perhaps the quotes that didn't fit the leanings of the article were
discarded. Do you really doubt that happens?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
...

I don't have any time in Bonanzas... could this have happened here?

If I remember right, the plane did have tip tanks. Not sure about the guage
arrangement.

To confuse things further, the TV last night said the NTSB was looking
into a
different cause for the accident other than fuel. That opens quite a can
of
worms.

Maybe a pump failure. You mentioned weather. What about carb icing?

Mike W. wrote:
To confuse things further, the TV last night said the NTSB was looking into a
different cause for the accident other than fuel. That opens quite a can of
worms.

Maybe a pump failure. You mentioned weather. What about carb icing?


It was hot and humid... a possibility I suppose. I thought the Bonanza was
injected.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN