More on Fuel Management - and an Ethical Dilemma

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.

On 7/15/2005 04:22, 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.


I don't know whether you should take any official action, but in my
opinion, if the pilot is not all together clear about the seriousness
of the incident, then anyone that flies with him will be taking a
potentially unacceptable risk.

In that case, it doesn't seem like it would be much of a flying career...

As far as I understand it, the FARs don't say you need to land with
your fuel reserve. I certainly would never want to cut my fuel that
close ... and I sure would not want to fly in a plane with a pilot
that did so.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
[...]
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.

Has anyone actually looked why he landed with so little fuel on board? Does
the expected fuel consumption based on the recorded flight hours match the
apparent fuel consumption? If not, can you determine why not? Was it a
leaning error? Or some sort of fault with the airplane? Is it possible
that overnight someone actually removed the fuel from the airplane? Even in
the friendly environment of an airport, theft is not unheard of and fuel
prices have been very high for some time now.

If the fuel consumption is consistent with the flight hours, was the pilot
at least aware that he landed with so little fuel? It seems to me that a
pilot who admits (or claims) to not knowing how much fuel was on board at
the end of the flight needs *at a minimum* some sort of remedial training
and oversight. This would include some probation period during which
someone is monitoring his flights and ensuring that he not only knows how
much fuel he has left at the end of a flight, but that that amount of fuel
is consistent with safe operation.

You say the pilot was "nonchalant", but that doesn't really tell us what his
reaction was. Does that mean that he acknowledged landing with practically
zero fuel, but wasn't concerned? Or does it mean that the person
confronting him got a reaction other than the one they expected and/or would
have been satisfied with. If that person was not considering the issue from
all possibilities, it's entirely possible they misinterpreted the pilot's
reaction, and you haven't given us enough details to know one possible
scenario from another.

I do feel that if it can be established without a doubt that the pilot
knowingly landed with so little fuel, that there is cause for concern. If
he did so in a way that was predictable, and could have been avoided with
proper preflight planning, that is cause for even more concern. Career or
no career, he cannot be allowed to continue to fly with that attitude
(assuming he has "that attitude", of course). Either the attitude needs to
change, or the flying needs to stop.

Pete

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
[...]
As far as I understand it, the FARs don't say you need to land with
your fuel reserve. I certainly would never want to cut my fuel that
close ... and I sure would not want to fly in a plane with a pilot
that did so.

That's correct. The FARs require departing with a particular reserve,
depending on the nature of the flight, but there is no requirement that you
not use that reserve.

However, any pilot who DOES use that reserve had better a) at least know
that they are doing so, and b) have a good reason for doing so, and for not
terminating the flight early to take on more fuel.

There is, of course, the additional question of whether the FAA-mandated
reserves are sufficient for truly safe operation, but that's up to each
pilot to determine for each flight.

Pete

Fuel theft. I've put 25 gal in a 24.5 gal usable 152. Should have been at
least 10 gal in the tanks. It happens.
John Severyn
KLVK

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

I have to wonder if, as an airline captain, he's used to having the
dispatch department or whoever deal with fuel, so he just doesn't think
about it. Even in his position that seems like a bad attitude, since
the airlines are into this "smart fueling" deal where they try to load
just the right amount of fuel so if he has to hold or divert he'd have
to calculate. But that's just a thought.

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.

When something similar (but not that extreme) happened in my flying
club, the offending pilot's flying privileges were revoked until he took
remedial training in fuel planning with a club instructor.

Greg Farris wrote:

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.

"Someone stole the fuel out of it"

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.


You've got to do what suits your conscience, but pilot's with an
attitude like that seldom learn from their experiences.

Matt

In article ,
says...


You say the pilot was "nonchalant", but that doesn't really tell us what his
reaction was. Does that mean that he acknowledged landing with practically
zero fuel, but wasn't concerned? Or does it mean that the person
confronting him got a reaction other than the one they expected and/or would
have been satisfied with.

Fair enough. I don't really know what he said, except that, as you say, the
person confronting him was disappointed by his reply, which he felt showed a
lack of concern. Maybe he was just using some 'macho' to cover up - I
don't know. Most people in the flying club do not know about this incident - I
only know because the chief pilot is a friend of mine, and talked to me about
it.

Fuel was not stolen form the plane - it did not overnight anywhere - he flew
it out and back. 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!

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.

"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