Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:19:40 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
:

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:21:49 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
:

He probably wouldn't have been able to fix the problem en
route.

As the fix was to burn fuel from the wing tanks before switching to
the aux tank, it seems possible to have done it en route.

IIRC, that procedure was opposite the instructions for the use of
the aux tank. As he wasn't able to get out and take a look at what
was happening en route, that would not have been a viable option
because if the instructions were correct (which he found out after
the fact that they weren't), it would have killed him.

My point it, that if the fuel gages were operational, and the pilot
observed anomalous fuel venting from the wing tanks while crossing the
Atlantic Ocean, he may have reasoned, that drawing fuel from the wing
tanks might have been preferable to jettisoning it overboard despite
the erroneous aux-tank operating instructions.

I understand your point, but that's a pretty big "if", IMO. First, the
pilot would have to "observe anomalous fuel venting". Is this possible?
Next, the pilot would have to reason why the fuel was venting, and I don't
see how that would have been possible. It would seem as likely that the
conclusion would be that there was some problem with the main tanks, and
thus more reliance on the aux tank, aggravating the problem, etc. After
all, why would it be reasonable to suspect that fuel would be venting from
tanks that were shut off, supposedly taking them out of the system, and
that the "fix" would be to disregard the specific instructions on the use
of the aux tank? I think Mr. Rhine's analysis of his circumstances and
choice of action were right on, as the relevant information was only
obtained after-the-fact.

Neil