"Out of fuel, out of hope: 'Help, I'm in the water'"

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Do you have evidence that the aircraft didn't suffer from a fuel leak?


Does that make a difference? The pilot chose a route that was intolerant of
either.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:49:07 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
t::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:00:17 -0700, "Matt Barrow" wrote in :

1) Poor fuel planning and continuing on with low fuel from Michigan side.

Do you have evidence that the aircraft didn't suffer from a fuel leak?


Does that make a difference?

A difference? It points out that erroneous conclusions are possible,
and that speculation as to the cause of aircraft mishaps is risky.

The pilot chose a route that was intolerant of either.

Perhaps.

I'm sure you have traversed hostile terrain in your Champ at one time
or another.

Larry wrote:

A difference? It points out that erroneous conclusions are possible,

and that speculation as to the cause of aircraft mishaps is risky.

What's the risk of speculating the cause of an accident in a Usenet
discussion group? If one makes an ass out of one self, a simple change
of the moniker wipes the slate clean.

Seriously, though, you know that past NTSB statistics are slanted
towards the scenario of a pilot failing to ensure adequete fuel before
a flight. Additionally, the fact that the pilot told ATC he was out
of fuel is illuminating (source: LiveATC's archive of the one-sided
transmissions). How would an inexperienced, solo pilot flying at night
correctly and quickly diagnose a fuel leak while still in the descent?


--
Peter

On 28 Apr 2005 12:08:01 -0700, "Peter R."
wrote in . com::

Larry wrote:

A difference? It points out that erroneous conclusions are possible,
and that speculation as to the cause of aircraft mishaps is risky.

What's the risk of speculating the cause of an accident in a Usenet
discussion group? If one makes an ass out of one self, a simple change
of the moniker wipes the slate clean.

That's why I have considerably more respect for those Usenet posters
who provide accurate personal identification information, and shun
those who post anonymously through a mail-to-news gateway.
Accountability fosters respect.

Seriously, though, you know that past NTSB statistics are slanted
towards the scenario of a pilot failing to ensure adequete fuel before
a flight.

No. I didn't know that. Are you able to cite any evidence of that
sort of NTSB bias?

I know the NTSB has found the cause of a military-civil MAC to be the
fault of the glider pilot who had the right-of-way at the time, so
it's possible.*

Additionally, the fact that the pilot told ATC he was out
of fuel is illuminating (source: LiveATC's archive of the one-sided
transmissions).

How is that illuminating?

How would an inexperienced, solo pilot flying at night
correctly and quickly diagnose a fuel leak while still in the descent?

If his actual fuel burn exceeded his planned fuel burn, it would
indicate fuel leaking via one route or another.




* http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1
NTSB Identification: LAX86MA186A. The docket is stored on NTSB
microfiche number 31421.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, April 20, 1986 in WARNER SPRINGS, CA
Aircraft: LTV AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES A7E, registration: USN
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

A ROLLADEN-SCHNEIDER LS-4 GLIDER AND AN LTV A7E JET COLLIDED OVER HOT
SPRINGS MTN, NEAR WARNER SPRINGS, CA. THE A7E WAS ATTEMPTING A RAPID
PULL UP AND THE GLIDER WAS ATTEMPTING A NOSE DOWN, 30 DEG RIGHT TURN
WHEN THEY COLLIDED. BOTH AIRCRAFT WERE OPERATING UNDER VISUAL FLT
RULES AND LANDED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. NEITHER PILOT WAS INJURED.
THE GLIDER LEFT WING OUTBD 3 FT SECTION WAS SEVERED. THE A7E NOSE
COWLING WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED AND THE ENGINE INGESTED EXTENSIVE
FIBERGLASS MATERIAL. THE COLLISION OCCURRED AS THE A7E WAS EXECUTING A
SOUTHBOUND TURN ON VR 1257 AND WAS WITHIN THE ROUTE WIDTH (4 NM); THE
GLIDER WAS ATTEMPTING TO GAIN LIFT ON THE WEST SIDE OF HOT SPRINGS MTN
AND WAS WITHIN VR 1257 ROUTE STRUCTURE. THE A7E PLT HAD INFORMED THE
NECESSARY FLT SERV STATIONS THAT THE ROUTE WAS ACTIVE; THE GLIDER PLT
HAD NOT CONTACTED THE FLT SERV STATIONS TO DETERMINE IF THE ROUTE WAS
ACTIVE.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
PREFLIGHT PLANNING/PREPARATION..IMPROPER..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
IN-FLIGHT PLANNING/DECISION..IMPROPER..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
CHECKLIST..POOR..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT


Contributing Factors

TERRAIN CONDITION..MOUNTAINOUS/HILLY

Index for Apr1986 | Index of months

If his actual fuel burn exceeded his planned fuel burn, it would
indicate fuel leaking via one route or another.

Or incorrect leaning, whether pilot error or malfunction.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

If his actual fuel burn exceeded his planned fuel burn, it would
indicate fuel leaking via one route or another.


Not necessarily. It could indicate he was weak on flight planning or proper
use of the mixture control.

Larry Dighera wrote:

That's why I have considerably more respect for those Usenet posters
who provide accurate personal identification information, and shun
those who post anonymously through a mail-to-news gateway.
Accountability fosters respect.

I am not sure if you are making a general comment or are specifically
directing that at me. If the latter, let me assure you that I only post
through Google while I am at my "non-home daytime location." Newsgroup
ports are blocked at that location, yet I still have to get my aviation
newsgroup fix.

Additionally, I stopped posting my last name in the news reader FROM field
years ago after I was on the receiving end of a rather personal attack by a
newsgroup troll. Regulars here know my last name because it is posted in
Jay's Rogue's Gallery. My contributions to this group, which aren't all
that spectacular, do not need a last name attached and if you don't respect
that, then too bad.

Seriously, though, you know that past NTSB statistics are slanted
towards the scenario of a pilot failing to ensure adequete fuel before
a flight.

No. I didn't know that. Are you able to cite any evidence of that
sort of NTSB bias?

OK, first off, let me apologize for using the word "slanted." I didn't
mean to imply any NTSB wrong-doing. I simply meant that looking over the
accident reports, one can clearly see that there are many, many more GA
aircraft accidents due to improper fuel planning than there are due to a
mechanical fuel loss.

Search the accident archives for "Fuel Exhaustion" and choose those cases
that have a probable cause.

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

I queried the last 10 years, then started pulling up every report in the
resulting set to read the probable cause. I hope you can accept 10 years
worth of the NTSB's 35 or so years of online history as a valid statistical
sample. The news media certainly accepts a far lower percentage for their
political polls.

Within the last 10 years, there were 950 probable cause accident reports
returned with those key words in them. A few reports were not at all
related to fuel exhaustion despite being returned, so I subtracted those
out, leaving about 946.

In the reports I read, there were basically three types of fuel exhaustion:
Pilot's failure to properly determine fuel usage for flight, pilot failing
to switch tanks, and mechanical cause. Since we are basically disagreeing
on mechanical versus pilot error, I lumped fuel mismanagement with improper
fuel planning, seeing that these two are pilot error and not mechanical.

After a bit over an hour I counted about 600 or so that listed the pilot's
improper fuel planning (or similar words to that affect). I stopped
counting at that point, seeing that I reached almost 2/3s of all fuel
exhaustion accidents were attributed to a pilot's improper fuel planning.

I encourage you to conduct the same research.

How is that illuminating?

It is illuminating to me that a low-time pilot was able to communicate to
ATC that he was out of fuel while still in the descent.

In listening to the ATC recording of this accident, the pilot seemed to be
pretty certain that there was no remaining fuel on board. I do not see how
a GA pilot who is confident in his fuel supply (which would be any pilot
who properly planned consumption, fueled the aircraft, then monitored fuel
usage en route) could conclude with enough confidence to broadcast to ATC
that the engine stopped due to fuel exhaustion. There are many other
reasons an engine can stop besides fuel exhaustion.

Look, I am not saying with certainty that this pilot failed to properly
plan fuel consumption. The NTSB will determine the cause. I am merely
stating that the fact that the pilot knew he was out of fuel was
interesting to me and the NTSB accident archives support the probability
that a fuel exhaustion accident is caused by improper planning, not an
unexpected fuel loss.


If his actual fuel burn exceeded his planned fuel burn, it would
indicate fuel leaking via one route or another.

Hmmm... that's not what I learned during the cross country phase of my
initial training. I was taught that actual fuel burn exceeding planned
fuel burn is attributed to improper leaning or stronger-than-forecasted
headwinds.

--
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 =----

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

A difference? It points out that erroneous conclusions are possible,
and that speculation as to the cause of aircraft mishaps is risky.


Whether he was short of fuel due to poor planning or due to a fuel leak is
irrelevant, the end result of fuel starvation over the lake is death.



I'm sure you have traversed hostile terrain in your Champ at one time
or another.


I've never crossed terrain where loss of power meant my death.

In article t, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Whether he was short of fuel due to poor planning or due to a fuel leak is
irrelevant, the end result of fuel starvation over the lake is death.

No it's not - with proper survival gear, a ditching is eminently
survivable. Crossing the lake WITHOUT it means the result is death.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...

No it's not - with proper survival gear, a ditching is eminently
survivable. Crossing the lake WITHOUT it means the result is death.


Yes, but we know he did not have proper survival gear. You have an odd way
of expressing agreement.