Idiot Pilot Runs Out of Gas - Lands Cessna on I-81 - CAN'T BECHARGED!!

buttman wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:56 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
buttman wrote:
On Apr 3, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
The student was in command, and the lawyers would I'm sure argue that
reading to the letter of the law, but make no mistake; there was an
instructor failure here, a serious instructor failure.
There is not enough evidence here to accuse the instructor. How do you
know the instructor didn't do what is required to ensure safety?
The fact that the student ran out of fuel after being released for solo
by the instructor is the obvious answer to this question for those
believing that the instructor had a responsibility to ascertain the
aircraft was suitably fueled for the intended solo.

You are assuming the instructor did nothing to ensure the plane had
enough fuel. Nobody knows if this is true or not. For all we know, the
fuel starvation could have been caused by a fuel leak. Or maybe the
student didn't lean the mixture. Maybe the student decided to do a
little sight seeing instead of getting right back. There are all sorts
of explanations for this kind of thing happening.

I once had a student who did a precautionary landing at an airport
underlying Class C airspace on his third solo. He heard the engine
sputter, and freaked out I guess. Apparently he called the CTAF for
the airport he landed at, but not the approach controllers at the
bigger airport. He knew he had to call them, he just didn't. Before I
let any of my students solo, I give them a written test that covers
all the stuff solo students are supposed to know according to that
long list in part 61. If the FAA wants to blame me for this incident,
I'll just show them the page on his test where he got that particular
question right. Theres nothing more I could have done.

I'm sorry you feel this way about flight instruction. I see you and I
simply approach the subject from different directions. I'm not faulting
you. I simply approach the subject differently than you do.

Please feel free to research the incident we have been discussing here
and follow up on the forum with any updated information.

If it turns out that the student involved here"had a fuel leak" that
drained his tanks dry or caused the incident by his"improper leaning" to
the point where he had the engine quit on him, please report back to the
forum addressing me personally with your post and I'll be more than
happy to retract my opinion of the instructor involved.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Apr 3, 8:40*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:

For an idea of some actual cases of penalties applied for fuel exahustion,
go to this web site and enter "fuel exhaustion" (but without the quotes) in
the "Words & Phrases" search field (and make sure "Aviation Orders" is
checked):

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/query.asp

I get 10 hits. Penalties appear generally to be suspension of certificate
for several months. (The web site appears to only return cases that were
appealed.)

This forum should be a good place to share experiences, but with the
tendency to pile on people that make mistakes, I've been hesitant to
share my recent fuel exhaustion experience. Well, I'll go ahead and be
the group's "Idiot".

Took off on a night flight in the Cherokee last November. I
incorrectly remembered how much fuel I'd used on the previous flight
by 20 minutes. I planned for what I believed to be a 45 minute
reserve. Headwinds increased sooner along my path than I expected. By
the time I reached my destination, the reserve had dwindled to what I
believed was 30 minutes. I clicked my mic 5 times to turn on runway
lights and they did not come on. Turns out this airport took 7 clicks
to turn on. I'd heard of taking 7 for a certain intensity, but in my
30 years had never run into one that took 7 clicks to turn on. Had I
stayed in the area, I'd have probably tried that next, but I knew
there was another airport 12 minutes away whose lights stayed on, so I
headed for it. Unfortunately the 30 minutes of fuel I thought I had
was only 10.

Believe me, you don't want a stopped engine on a dark, dark, dark
night over Missouri. Nothing but lakes and trees. Fortunately, we just
barely made it to a rural highway, where traffic was all going in one
direction. Made a perfect landing and coasted under a power line
across the highway. Looking at satellite pics later, we saw that 30
seconds earlier we'd have been in trees and a minute earlier in a
lake. By the grace of God we walked away with no injuries or damage.
The state police were extremely helpful in taking us 3 miles to the
airport for fuel, checking a mile of highway for obstructions and
blocking it off for us to take off.

The FAA alleged:
91.103 PIC not familiar with all available info
91.13a Careless operation
91.151a2 Began flight without meeting fuel requirements

I filed NASA form. I was very cooperative with the FAA, writing out a
very detailed report on exactly what happened. Had several very
cordial discussions with them. They talked about possible actions
including suspension. After letting me sweat for a few weeks, they
went with a warning letter that will be in my file for 2 years and
then expunged if I get in no more trouble. Obviously, the fact that
there was no injury or damage and that it didn't make the news were in
my favor.

On the other hand, I know a person who made a daytime landing on a
highway. FAA guy saw him putting in fuel on the evening news. They
were going to warn him, but he told them, "F-- you, there's no law
against being stupid", and he got a 90 day suspension.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

Dudley Henriques wrote:


The student was in command, and the lawyers would I'm sure argue that
reading to the letter of the law, but make no mistake; there was an
instructor failure here, a serious instructor failure.

Seems that, fuel issues notwithstanding, making an interstate landing on
a solo flight and walking away from it, the student did a pretty good
job keeping his head together and handling the emergency.

Gene Seibel wrote:

Took off on a night flight in the Cherokee last November. I
incorrectly remembered how much fuel I'd used on the previous flight
by 20 minutes. I planned for what I believed to be a 45 minute
reserve. Headwinds increased sooner along my path than I expected.

[Snipped for brevity.]

THANK YOU for sharing your experience, Gene.

-chris/Portland

Gene Seibel wrote:
This forum should be a good place to share experiences, but with the
tendency to pile on people that make mistakes, I've been hesitant to
share my recent fuel exhaustion experience. Well, I'll go ahead and be
the group's "Idiot".


There's those who have and those that will. Folks want to stay in the latter
group as long as possible. To those who insist they could never make that same
mistake, I just shake my head. Usually it's a number of circumstances that come
together for that Perfect Storm to blow in your direction. And yes, I am in the
former group.... having run a C-210 out of gas after a 45 minute flight with an
hour and a half's worth of fuel on board. Or at least I thought I had.


I filed NASA form. I was very cooperative with the FAA, writing out a
very detailed report on exactly what happened. Had several very
cordial discussions with them. They talked about possible actions
including suspension. After letting me sweat for a few weeks, they
went with a warning letter that will be in my file for 2 years and
then expunged if I get in no more trouble. Obviously, the fact that
there was no injury or damage and that it didn't make the news were in
my favor.

On the other hand, I know a person who made a daytime landing on a
highway. FAA guy saw him putting in fuel on the evening news. They
were going to warn him, but he told them, "F-- you, there's no law
against being stupid", and he got a 90 day suspension.


There's a lot to be said for good manners and not tugging on Superman's cape.
Like you, I was very polite and apologetic. Like you, they made all kinds of
ominous rumblings about suspensions, etc. Like you, I got off with a warning.

And as the other fellow found out, there *is* a law against being stupid. Good
manners never go out of fashion: not in front of cops; not in front of the FAA.
They have what you want: forgiveness. Best not to be an ass about things.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote in message
...

And as the other fellow found out, there *is* a law against being stupid.
Good manners never go out of fashion: not in front of cops; not in front
of the FAA. They have what you want: forgiveness. Best not to be an ass
about things.


Excellent advice Mort.

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:40:46 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Tina wrote:
The state cops could file all kinds of charges -- no plate, no
inspection sticker, blocking traffic, the list goes on and on. All
charges are of course optional.

It's not a ground vehicle so such laws wouldn't appear to apply. And for
the cops to cite for blocking traffic might be considered inimical to
safety, as it would not be wise to put another decision burden on pilots in
future emergency situations.

It happens, though, and it's not unusual. Back when I lived in NJ a
pilot made an emergency landing on the Garden State Parkway. I don't
remember all the circumstances, nor what action (if any) the FAA took
against the pilot, but the state police issued him a ticket for
"entering the highway improperly" (i.e. not from an official on ramp)
and "failure to pay a toll."

I've heard of other similar incidents, though the details escape me.

In the air, of course, the FAA has sole jurisdiction, but once the
aircraft touches the ground state and local laws apply. Again in NJ,
for example, it's illegal to operate an aircraft, except in an
emergency, from anything other than a "state approved" airport. I
once made a legitimate emergency landing (a "precautionary forced
landing", actually) on a NJ pier, which was fine (and legal). I had
no end of hassle with the NJ aviation authorities when I flew it out
the next day after fixing the trouble (the emergency was over, so the
takeoff was illegal). It's a long story which has been told here
before... suffice to say that they dropped the matter as long as I
promised never to land there again.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Why is it that New Jersey got all the toxic waste dumps and California got all the lawyers?
A: New Jersey had first choice.

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:41:23 -0500, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net
wrote:

If he ran out of fuel on his first solo, I would think the FAA would be
looking for his CFI.

The news report said "first solo", but it also said he was returning
from another city. Reporters usually get it wrong on aviation
matters... more likely it was his first solo cross country, which is a
very different thing.

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Why is it that New Jersey got all the toxic waste dumps and California got all the lawyers?
A: New Jersey had first choice.

On Apr 4, 10:53*am, Gene Seibel wrote:
Took off on a night flight in the Cherokee last November. I
incorrectly remembered how much fuel I'd used on the previous flight
by 20 minutes. I planned for what I believed to be a 45 minute
reserve. Headwinds increased sooner along my path than I expected. By
the time I reached my destination, the reserve had dwindled to what I
believed was 30 minutes. I clicked my mic 5 times to turn on runway
lights and they did not come on. Turns out this airport took 7 clicks
to turn on. I'd heard of taking 7 for a certain intensity, but in my
30 years had never run into one that took 7 clicks to turn on. Had I
stayed in the area, I'd have probably tried that next, but I knew
there was another airport 12 minutes away whose lights stayed on, so I
headed for it. Unfortunately the 30 minutes of fuel I thought I had
was only 10.


You were very lucky. Thanks for sharing.

...Snipped some.


On the other hand, I know a person who made a daytime landing on a
highway. FAA guy saw him putting in fuel on the evening news. They
were going to warn him, but he told them, "F-- you, there's no law
against being stupid", and he got a 90 day suspension.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes -http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

In ded it is more expensive to be stupid.

Wil

"Dana M. Hague" d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:41:23 -0500, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net
wrote:

If he ran out of fuel on his first solo, I would think the FAA would be
looking for his CFI.

The news report said "first solo", but it also said he was returning
from another city. Reporters usually get it wrong on aviation
matters... more likely it was his first solo cross country, which is a
very different thing.


Yeah, I was thinking that too. He might also have said first solo cross
country, and the reporter dropped the modifier. It's really anyone's guess.

Just makes a better story "spin" it a bit.