usmc-sgt

If you are speeding and get in an accident with no injuries you get a fine. If in that same accident your passenger dies as a result of your carelessness you could be facing permanent revocation and possibly man slaughter charges. Why would it be different in an airplane?

SenecaII

While I disagree that this is what this is about, I cannot argue the validity in your point. I still argue that poor ADM is the same regardless of the result or outcome. I think some people that would be quick to crucify another pilot in a situation that involved a fatality should remember that they got away with the dumb things they have survived with luck and it could easily have been the other result.

Yazzoo

Let's revoke the certificate of every pilot who has failed a checkride while we're at it, see how many are left Where do you stop when you start down that road....

ImTumbleweed

Try doing that in a military aircraft (jet, helo, heavy, you name it).

You'd never touch a stick again.

Just sayin....

Comet

talk about perseverance
he didn't kill his son the first time, so he had to go at it again...

ok that was dark...

FlighTimeBarbie

Interesting how the news media has avoided details of the 2003 accident in their reporting:

From the NTSB:

The airplane impacted a utility pole and the terrain following a loss of engine power while being vectored for an ILS approach. The pilot diverted to an airport that had an ILS approach during the flight because of deteriorated weather. The pilot stated that during the approach the airplane did not seem to be descending so he disconnected the autopilot and subsequently executed a missed approach. The pilot reported that upon reaching 2,600 feet msl during the missed approach, he leaned the engine using turbo inlet temperature. The pilot reported the engine began to sputter so he pushed the mixture to rich, adjusted the throttle, and switched the boost pump to LOW, but the engine continued to sputter. He switched the boost pump to HI and the sputtering stopped momentarily before starting again. The pilot informed ATC that he was having a fuel problem and he needed to land "ASAP." The approach controller issued a vector to turn N8018J onto the approach. The pilot stated he switched the fuel selector to the left tank position and he attempted to restart the engine to no avail. The pilot reported that during the emergency descent all of the airplane lights went out except for the GPS and EFIS which had independent lighting systems. The airplane impacted the utility pole and slid across a county road before coming to rest. A post impact fire and explosion ensued.

Usable fuel capacity for the airplane is 102 gallons. The fuel tanks were last topped off on August 1, 2003, and there was an addition total of 151.7 gallons added since that time. This resulted in the airplane having had 253.7 gallons of usable fuel on board since August 1, 2003. The airplane was flown 12.1 hours with 8 takeoffs since it was topped off. The pilot stated the fuel burn ranged from 12 to 30 gallons per hour with an average of 18 to 19 gallons per hour. According to Beechcraft, an additional 4 gallons of fuel would be used for each taxi, takeoff, and climb sequence. A fuel burn of 18 gallons per hour, would have resulted in the airplane using 249.8 gallons (217.8 gallons plus 32 gallons) of fuel during the 12.1 hours of flight time. A fuel burn of 19 gallons per hour would have resulted in 261.9 gallons (229.9 gallons plus 32 gallons) being used.

Inspection of the engine revealed only residual fuel was present in the fuel manifold and in the fuel metering unit. There was no fuel present in any of the fuel lines or in the fuel pump.

Regulation 49 CFR Part 91.167 states no person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel to complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing, fly from that airport to the alternate airport, and
fly thereafter for 45 minutes at normal cruise.

FINDINGS:

1. (C) PREFLIGHT PLANNING/PREPARATION - INACCURATE - PILOT IN COMMAND
2. (C) FLUID,FUEL - EXHAUSTION
3. (C) FUEL SUPPLY - INADEQUATE - PILOT IN COMMAND

PROBABLE CAUSE:The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows.
The pilot's inaccurate preflight planning which resulted in an inadequate fuel supply and subsequent fuel exhaustion. Factors associated
with the accident were the low ceiling, dark night conditions, and the utility pole which the airplane contacted during the forced
landing.

http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...2011120000.pdf

It appears the doctor also had a controlling interest in his local airport FBO.

STLaviator

I'm searching like mad to find the news rticle I was reading over the weekend, but this article stated that the pilot claimed the engine failed for reasons other than fuel exhaustion. His rationale was that if there was no fuel on board, how could there be such a horrific explosion and fire afterwards? I know aircraft don't necessarily always need fuel on board for a fire to break out, but you'd think there would need to be a large amount of something combustible for an explosion that large. If I find that article, I'll be sure to post the link here as soon as I do.

threeighteen

Oxygen on board by any chance?

t207

STL,
The fumes from any residual fuel in the tanks could potentaly explode and cause more damage than if the tanks had fuel and just burned. this is due to less room in the fuel tank for fumes as fuel wont burn unless it is atomized or in vapor form.

LeftWing

If this thread referenced a news clip that said something like; Doctor is Still Flying after Fatal Accident in 2003 due to his Fuel Mismanagement, this thread would have generated little interest and I don't think that those of you holier-than-thou folks would be thumping your chests. Hindsight is indeed 20/20, now isn't it?