 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / April 2008Idiot Pilot Runs Out of Gas - Lands Cessna on I-81 - WON'T BE CHARGED!!
http://www.nbc4.com/news/15781391/detail.html Plane Lands On I-81 POSTED: 9:20 am EDT April 3, 2008 Plenty of vehicles run out of gas on Interstate 81, but not many airplanes. Virginia State Police said a student pilot on his first solo flight was heading back to Virginia Highlands Airport from Knoxville, Tenn., Wednesday afternoon when the plane ran out of fuel. The pilot, Matthew Edward Scott, 27, of Blountville, Tenn., made an emergency landing on I-81 within sight of the airport in Abingdon. Sgt. Danny Glick commended the pilot for landing with the traffic flow so no vehicles were hit during the landing. He said Scott was not injured and will not face charges. Airport staff brought fuel to the disabled Cessna and troopers briefly shut down southbound I-81 while the plane taxied to the airport. -------------------- This nut could have easily killed a lot of people due to his own negligence. This is a lot worse than drunk driving but the cops pat him on the back and say forget it!!! SFB spewed: << snip article >> >This nut could have easily killed a lot of people due to his own >negligence. This is a lot worse than drunk driving but the cops pat him on >the back and say forget it!!! So, what did you want the pilot to do? crash his cessna into a school? BTW, why didn't you cross post your drivel to an aviation group? You afraid of pilots? f.ck you, american (sic). -- Loco Laura Bush murdered her boyfrined (a.k.a S&DDAM) finally admits to what we have known all along: ">You're an idiot. >Graham Coming from you that's a compliment. " Ref: http://tinyurl.com/qa5wx Message ID: 0d3da2hgigdhgl9ck484tj0p8jtlhlsb20@4ax.com On Apr 3, 12:05 pm, necromancer > SFB spewed: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So, what did you want the pilot to do? crash his cessna into a school? He oughta be charged with a crime and do a couple years in the can and never be allowed to fly again. Stop being a criminal coddler, you hatefilled loonball. In article <8a19bac6-f11a-450b-a65a-d13ad132455f@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Apr 3, 12:05 pm, necromancer > > SFB spewed: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > never be allowed to fly again. Stop being a criminal coddler, you > hatefilled loonball. What crime did he commit? Show us a statute that applies to this situation. > In article > <8a19bac6-f11a-450b-a65a-d13ad1324...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > What crime did he commit? Show us a statute that applies to this > situation. Illegal parking? That's what I suggested someone be charged with when they drove into my house with a pickup. Fortunately, DUI seemed to work better in that case. Matt In article <723ba866-4b68-48d1-932e-3dff62aabc42@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > In article > > <8a19bac6-f11a-450b-a65a-d13ad1324...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Illegal parking? Even if that applied, you don't do "a couple years in the can" for it, would you? > In article > <723ba866-4b68-48d1-932e-3dff62aab...@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Even if that applied, you don't do "a couple years in the can" for it, > would you? Gee, I hope not. Imagine all those poor New Yorkers... Matt > In article > <723ba866-4b68-48d1-932e-3dff62aabc42@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Even if that applied, you don't do "a couple years in the can" for it, > would you? You can be convicted of stealing twenty cars and not do that much time.  Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" > In article > <8a19bac6-f11a-450b-a65a-d13ad132455f@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > What crime did he commit? Show us a statute that applies to this > situation. Operating an aircraft in an unsafe manner? Operating an unregistered vehicle on a highway? Not having a 5 MPH bumper on a passenger vehicle? Seriously, the person who landed the plane is not at fault. While he should have been aware of the fuel situation, it was the instructor that sent a student pilot out on a first solo without making sure that the aircraft was ready for that flight that is the real fault here. I think the FAA should take a look at this flight instructor. -john- Signature====================================================================== John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ====================================================================== > In article <x-499464.14343603042...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > that the aircraft was ready for that flight that is the real fault > here. I think the FAA should take a look at this flight instructor. It's almost assured that the FAA will be taking some kind of action in this case. The rules are pretty strict about sanctions when you screw up. E.P. > > In article <x-499464.14343603042...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > this case. The rules are pretty strict about sanctions when you screw > up. I think they should give the kid a pass on this one mainly because it is pissing off the original poster so much. Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" > >> In article [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > absolutely Signature"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." --- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992 > > In article <x-499464.14343603042...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > absolutely Nah - unless the instructor somehow forgot to instruct the idiot pilot on pre-flight, in-flight and pre-landing checklists (all of which include an instruction to check your fuel state is sufficient..) Still, well done to the lad in question for getting it down in one piece without hurting anyone. I bet he won't make the same mistake again. >> In article >> <8a19bac6-f11a-450b-a65a-d13ad132455f@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >-john- Not really. Part of your training is to understand just how far you can go with the fuel that you have. Not to push your luck and risk an incident like this. The fuel gauge may have not been working properly. Distance between nashville and abingdon is only about 250 air miles. Since he was returning, I can only assume that he had stopped in nashville. As part of his training. Did he refuel there? Probably not. He probably figured he had the fuel to get back. Then did not account for the fuel used on the taxi and takeoff. Ergo, he runs out of fuel. Not enough to matter Al >>> In article >>> <8a19bac6-f11a-450b-a65a-d13ad132455f@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > He probably figured he had the fuel to get back. Then did not account > for the fuel used on the taxi and takeoff. Ergo, he runs out of fuel. Richard, you need to get a real life. Quit being so much of a nanny boy. Quit whining like a little old granny who can't get laid, and stop thinking that your opinion matters to anyone. Dumb a.s. And get the clock on your second-hand store computer set. Idiot. > Richard, you need to get a real life. Quit being so much of a nanny boy. > Quit whining like a little old granny who can't get laid, and stop > thinking that your opinion matters to anyone. Dumb a.s. >>> In article >>> <8a19bac6-f11a-450b-a65a-d13ad132455f@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Not really. Part of your training is to understand just how far you > can go with the fuel that you have. Richard, every, and I do mean EVERY, time you start going on about this, you are always proven wrong. Never mind the fact that you've held countless trucking jobs and yet at the same time probably have about as many hours of training as a rookie. >Not to push your luck and risk an > incident like this. The fuel gauge may have not been working properly. > Distance between nashville and abingdon is only about 250 air miles. What do you know about air miles when you can't even find your way home without causing a wreck? > Since he was returning, I can only assume that he had stopped in > nashville. As part of his training. Did he refuel there? Probably not. > He probably figured he had the fuel to get back. Then did not account > for the fuel used on the taxi and takeoff. Ergo, he runs out of fuel. Ergo, you're a dumbass. On 4 Apr, 05:47, "Orson Wells as CitizenCain" <noem...@here.invalid> wrote: > >>In article <x-499464.14343603042...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > trucking jobs and yet at the same time probably have about as many hours of > training as a rookie. Actually, he's right here. pre-flight, in-flight and per-landing checklists ALL require that the pilot checks they have sufficient fuel.. > >Not to push your luck and risk an > > incident like this. The fuel gauge may have not been working properly. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ergo, you're a dumbass. On Apr 5, 5:26 am, parri...@yahoo.com wrote: > Actually, he's right here. > pre-flight, in-flight and per-landing checklists ALL require that the > pilot checks they have sufficient fuel.. Well, not quite. Flight *planning* certainly takes into account fuel for the flight, and reserves as required or recommended. Now he knows how much he needs. Pre-flight checklists have the pilot verify fuel in the tanks. Now he knows how much he has. During flight, the pilot should be checking that he is making the progress over land that he expected. If not, he may need to land early. Note that the fuel gauges may not be accurate, except at "E". His fuel consumption estimates are based on time and power. Pre-landing checklists only have the pilot verify that the fuel selector valve/switch is in the recommended position. There is no verification for sufficient fuel at this point, since he is landing. What's he going to do if he hasn't enough fuel--stay in the air???? Besides, the only way to verify the actual fuel in the tank is to use a dipstick, which is difficult while in the air. > On Apr 5, 5:26 am, parri...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Besides, the only way to verify the actual fuel in the tank is to use > a dipstick, which is difficult while in the air. Perhaps he could strap the original poster to a wing. Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" On 7 Apr, 01:32, websu...@cox.net wrote: > On Apr 5, 5:26 am, parri...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Pre-flight checklists have the pilot verify fuel in the tanks. Now he > knows how much he has. Fair enough, there isn't an item on the pre-flight to check the amount of fuel you have versus the amount of fuel your flight plan calls for. I suppose that would come under the ever-elusive "common sense". > During flight, the pilot should be checking that he is making the > progress over land that he expected. If not, he may need to land > early. Note that the fuel gauges may not be accurate, except at "E". Yet, my instructors still drummed the mnemonic F.R.E.D.A. into us... > His fuel consumption estimates are based on time and power. Yes. But if it wasn't checked against fuel remaining, how woudl a pilot e.g. notice a fuel leak? > Pre-landing checklists only have the pilot verify that the fuel > selector valve/switch is in the recommended position. Well no. I have my PA 28 checklist in front of me and it tells me to set fuel pump to ON and check fuel is sufficient for a go-around in addition. > There is no verification for sufficient fuel at this point, since he is landing. You don't think it might be an idea to check if you have enough for a couple of go arounds and a diversion, as you planned for in your flight plan? Just in case there's a cow on the runway or anything? > What's he going to do if he hasn't enough fuel--stay in the air???? > Besides, the only way to verify the actual fuel in the tank is to use > a dipstick, which is difficult while in the air. You might as well say the only way to measure a car's fuel level is with a dipstick. Gauges might not be 100% accurate but they're an excellent indicator. And my point still stands - the P.I.C is responsible for a f.ck-up of this nature.. On Apr 7, 1:03 am, parri...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Pre-flight checklists have the pilot verify fuel in the tanks. Now he > > knows how much he has. > > Fair enough, there isn't an item on the pre-flight to check the amount > of fuel you have versus the amount of fuel your flight plan calls for. > I suppose that would come under the ever-elusive "common sense". Well, there wouldn't be much point to calculating the fuel requirements and reserves prior to the flight, if you then didn't dip the tank to ensure that you had the required amount. > > During flight, the pilot should be checking that he is making the > > progress over land that he expected. If not, he may need to land [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yes. But if it wasn't checked against fuel remaining, how woudl a > pilot e.g. notice a fuel leak? He can, if it's a gross leak, and it's a good idea. But he can only do that accurately at the END of the flight, when he can once again dip the tank. (The exception would be tanks that have a visible gauge tube, such as I have seen on Cubs, etc. ) A gross leak could be detectable if the fuel gauges dropped way more than expected. Though he can't tell the difference between a bad gauge and a leak, it'd be a good idea to assume the worst case presented. If the pilot was familiar with that particular aircraft by flying it a fair amount, that would provide information about the gauge characteristics, etc. > > Pre-landing checklists only have the pilot verify that the fuel > > selector valve/switch is in the recommended position. > > Well no. I have my PA 28 checklist in front of me and it tells me to > set fuel pump to ON and check fuel is sufficient for a go-around in > addition. I've only flown Cessnas, and the ones I am in use gravity as a fuel pump. Anyway, it won't help with quantity. Check fuel sufficient for a go-around? That'd take what, a gallon or so of useable fuel? How are you going to check that? If you are that low, you aren't going to risk a go-round unless there is a dang-gum good reason. In which case you'd have to risk it anyway, unless you were able to determine an alternate such as a taxiway or grass or whatever. > > There is no verification for sufficient fuel at this point, since he is landing. > > You don't think it might be an idea to check if you have enough for a > couple of go arounds and a diversion, as you planned for in your > flight plan? Just in case there's a cow on the runway or anything? He's landing!! If he's planning go-rounds or an alternate, he shouldn't be landing. If he hasn't enough fuel for go-rounds or alternates, too bad. He's landing anyway, since he's outta gas. > > What's he going to do if he hasn't enough fuel--stay in the air???? > > Besides, the only way to verify the actual fuel in the tank is to use [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with a dipstick. Gauges might not be 100% accurate but they're an > excellent indicator. It is the only accurate way, if it were possible (filler tube is bent). I still don't know how big my truck tank really is, since I've never run it out! Still, it is accurate enough, especially on the low side. I think.... > And my point still stands - the P.I.C is responsible for a f.ck-up of > this nature.. Generally correct, if inelegantly put. My only response was that if he is LANDING, there isn't much point in checking the fuel, and I've not seen that on a checklist (just the selector). The guy is landing, and how much fuel on board isn't much of an issue. He's not going to willingly do a go-round. On 9 Apr, 04:22, websu...@cox.net wrote: > On Apr 7, 1:03 am, parri...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > requirements and reserves prior to the flight, if you then didn't dip > the tank to ensure that you had the required amount. ..which is part of the pre-flight check. Well, I wouldn't dip it, I'd open the filler cap and see how far off tans we were. In any case, we now agree that the pre-flight checklist includes ensuring one has sufficient fuel, as I claimed a couple of posts back. > > > During flight, the pilot should be checking that he is making the > > > progress over land that he expected. If not, he may need to land [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > He can, if it's a gross leak, and it's a good idea. ..and it is recommended in (at least) the PA38 checklist I have in front of me. > But he can only > do that accurately at the END of the flight, when he can once again [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > flying it a fair amount, that would provide information about the > gauge characteristics, etc. So, we now agree taht the inflight checks (e.g. "FREDA") ALSO included checking one has sufficient fuel, or at least that one is burning fuel as one expects, which amounts to the same thing. As I said a couple of posts back.. > > > Pre-landing checklists only have the pilot verify that the fuel > > > selector valve/switch is in the recommended position. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I've only flown Cessnas, and the ones I am in use gravity as a fuel > pump. Anyway, it won't help with quantity. Your claim was that the "Pre-landing checklists only have the pilot verify that the fuel selector valve/switch is in the recommended position" I pointed out that was inaccurate, as the PA 38 and 28 checklists also tell the pilot to switch on teh fuel pump (below 1000 feet) and to check fuel quantity Perhaps, when you were making your assertions, you only meant "in your experience"? > Check fuel sufficient for a go-around? That'd take what, a gallon or > so of useable fuel? How are you going to check that? If the gauge indicates lots of fuel, then clearly you have enough for a go-around. > If you are that low, you aren't going to risk a go-round unless there > is a dang-gum good reason. In which case you'd have to risk it > anyway, unless you were able to determine an alternate such as a > taxiway or grass or whatever. ..hence the need to check how much fuel one has every 10 minutes or so AND before landing. As you point out, it's abit late if you're on short final, with no fuel for a divert or go around, and the plane in front of does a wheels-up landing and blocks the runway for an hour. You should have noticed your marginal fuel state MUCH earlier if you are a competent pilot - and you woudl be in a position to do something about it;which is why the checklist tells you to check for sufficent fuel pre-flight, in flight (repeatedly) and pre-landing. As I said a couple of posts ago. > > > There is no verification for sufficient fuel at this point, since he is landing. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > He's landing!! If he's planning go-rounds or an alternate, he > shouldn't be landing. Flaring too high and bouncing could cause an *unplanned* go around Nasty crosswinds on approach could cause an *unplanned* go around A cow wandering on to the runway would cause an *unplanned* go around The aircraft in front of him crashing and blocking the runway could result in an *unplanned* go around, a few minutes in the pattern or a divert. Tell me, when you do a flight plan, do you allow only enough fuel to get you to your destination assuming e.g. weather conditions stay the same? > If he hasn't enough fuel for go-rounds or alternates, too bad. He's > landing anyway, since he's outta gas. And he's an irresponsible, incompetent arsehole who shouldn't be flying if he ended up in that condition. > > > What's he going to do if he hasn't enough fuel--stay in the air???? > > > Besides, the only way to verify the actual fuel in the tank is to use [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > never run it out! > Still, it is accurate enough, especially on the low side. I think.... Bingo... > > And my point still stands - the P.I.C is responsible for a f.ck-up of > > this nature.. > > Generally correct, if inelegantly put ..and why is he responsible...? > My only response was that if he is LANDING, there isn't much point in > checking the fuel, and I've not seen that on a checklist (just the > selector). That you have not seen it, does not mean it doesn't exist. I refer you once again to the PA 38 (Tomahawk) and PA 28 (Cherokee Warrior) checklists. > The guy is landing, and how much fuel on board isn't much of an > issue. He's not going to willingly do a go-round. Have you never done an "unwilling" go around? On Apr 10, 12:49 am, parri...@yahoo.com wrote: > In any case, we now agree that the pre-flight checklist includes > ensuring one has sufficient fuel, as I claimed a couple of posts back. We never disagreed, since we all know that fuel management is a critical and highly-emphasized part of the pre-flight planning and checks. As shown in my first post. > > > Yet, my instructors still drummed the mnemonic F.R.E.D.A. into us... While my instructors ( the good ones, anyway) drummed fuel management and planning, I've never heard of FREDA. What's that one mean? > ..and it is recommended in (at least) the PA38 checklist I have in > front of me. Clearly, the checklists differ. The Cessna 172 has you check the fuel level as part of the pre-flight, gives you plenty of information elsewhere to plan the fuel burn, and reminds you in the landing checklist to verify the tank selector. Training and competency keep you from running out in nearly all circumstances. > So, we now agree taht the inflight checks (e.g. "FREDA") ALSO included > checking one has sufficient fuel, or at least that one is burning fuel > as one expects, which amounts to the same thing. Mine has you check power, mixture, and trim, for landing. It can't tell you everything. The cruise checklists never mention fuel burn; they only have you check the mixture. It doesn't tell you to navigate and watch for traffic either. > Your claim was that the "Pre-landing checklists only have the pilot > verify that the fuel [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Perhaps, when you were making your assertions, you only meant "in your > experience"? Of course, as you were when you stated: "> > Actually, he's right here. > > pre-flight, in-flight and per-landing checklists ALL require that the > > pilot checks they have sufficient fuel.. My several checklists don't do that. I guess we were both right and both wrong in those particular statements. > > Check fuel sufficient for a go-around? That'd take what, a gallon or > > so of useable fuel? How are you going to check that? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ..hence the need to check how much fuel one has every 10 minutes or so > AND before landing. Yep. At least as far as the gauge accuracy will allow. > As you point out, it's abit late if you're on > short final, with no fuel for a divert or go around, and the plane in > front of does a wheels-up landing and blocks the runway for an hour. That was my *only* point, actually. > You should have noticed your marginal fuel state MUCH earlier if you > are a competent pilot - and you woudl be in a position to do something > about it;which is why the checklist tells you to check for sufficent > fuel pre-flight, in flight (repeatedly) and pre-landing. As I said a > couple of posts ago. Agreed, except that in the pre-landing situation it's pointless--you already know it things are tight or not. Nothing is gained by looking again at an inaccurate gauge. > > > You don't think it might be an idea to check if you have enough for a > > > couple of go arounds and a diversion, as you planned for in your > > > flight plan? Just in case there's a cow on the runway or anything? I'd have done that long before landing. At least, so far anyway. I've always had at LEAST a quarter fuel left when landing. Once I'm doing the descent and landing checklists, I'm already preparing to actually land. There's not much to do about fuel one way or the other. If you have lots, you can do all the gorounds you want. If it's tight, you'd better plan on making things stick; if they don't, things just got that much worse. But your goround won't be voluntary. > > He's landing!! If he's planning go-rounds or an alternate, he > > shouldn't be landing. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > result in an *unplanned* go around, a few minutes in the pattern or a > divert. I stated that poorly; it was late. Never mind. > Tell me, when you do a flight plan, do you allow only enough fuel to > get you to your destination assuming e.g. weather conditions stay the > same? Heh. I usually have enough to go back and start all over! > > If he hasn't enough fuel for go-rounds or alternates, too bad. He's > > landing anyway, since he's outta gas. > > And he's an irresponsible, incompetent arsehole who shouldn't be > flying if he ended up in that condition. Generally true perhaps, although there are unusual circumstances from time to time. > > > You might as well say the only way to measure a car's fuel level is > > > with a dipstick. Gauges might not be 100% accurate but they're an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bingo... But I check the gauge frequently while on the road, not while I'm pulling exiting the freeway and see the station. > > > And my point still stands - the P.I.C is responsible for a f.ck-up of > > > this nature.. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > once again to the PA 38 (Tomahawk) and PA 28 (Cherokee Warrior) > checklists. And that you have seen it doesn't mean it is always there. > > The guy is landing, and how much fuel on board isn't much of an > > issue. He's not going to willingly do a go-round. > > Have you never done an "unwilling" go around? Not yet anyway. I perceive that we are nearly always in agreement in much of the foregoing. My only "not quite" referred to the portion about a "pre-landing checklist" requiring a check for fuel. Since we generally know what our fuel situation is (we should be landing before it's critical, if possible), and we are already in preparation for landing (which is only a couple minutes away when doing the pre-landing checklist), I don't see much point in that late stage of looking at the fuel gauge again(which is the most you can do at that point anyway). One way or the other, it's too late to do anything, except, well, LAND! It's somewhat like looking at the car speedometer when you are already approaching a stop sign. It's too late, and at that point useless. You are already stopping. You should be able to do it in a normal fashion (analogy: land normally). If something develops, you may yet have to stomp on the brakes (analogy: go around) On 11 Apr, 05:24, websu...@cox.net wrote: > On Apr 10, 12:49 am, parri...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > critical and highly-emphasized part of the pre-flight planning and > checks. As shown in my first post. Fair enough. > > > > Yet, my instructors still drummed the mnemonic F.R.E.D.A. into us... > > While my instructors ( the good ones, anyway) drummed fuel management > and planning, I've never heard of FREDA. What's that one mean? Fuel (check quantity, switch tanks if necessary, fuel pump off above 1000) Radios (check correct frequency set) Engine (T's & P's all looking good) Direction (reset HSI to wet compass, check I'm going the right way) Altimeter (QNH set correctly etc) > > ..and it is recommended in (at least) the PA38 checklist I have in > > front of me. > > Clearly, the checklists differ. Of course! > The Cessna 172 has you check the fuel > level as part of the pre-flight, gives you plenty of information [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I guess we were both right and both wrong in those particular > statements. Again, fair enough. > > > Check fuel sufficient for a go-around? That'd take what, a gallon or > > > so of useable fuel? How are you going to check that? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > already know it things are tight or not. Nothing is gained by looking > again at an inaccurate gauge. Hmm.. I suppose it depends on how you want to define "pre-landing". When you join the circuit? When you turn base? THinking about it, I would probably be FREDA-ing on downwind but it seems to get awfully busy awfully quickly once one turns base, and I wouldn't be looking at the fuel guage from then on. > > > > You don't think it might be an idea to check if you have enough for a > > > > couple of go arounds and a diversion, as you planned for in your > > > > flight plan? Just in case there's a cow on the runway or anything? > > I'd have done that long before landing. At least, so far anyway. See above. > I've always had at LEAST a quarter fuel left when landing. > Once I'm doing the descent and landing checklists, I'm already > preparing to actually land. OK. Terminology confusion. We clearly agree more than we disagree. > There's not much to do about fuel one way > or the other. If you have lots, you can do all the gorounds you [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Heh. I usually have enough to go back and start all over! :-) Same here.. > > > If he hasn't enough fuel for go-rounds or alternates, too bad. He's > > > landing anyway, since he's outta gas. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > And that you have seen it doesn't mean it is always there. True. > > > The guy is landing, and how much fuel on board isn't much of an > > > issue. He's not going to willingly do a go-round. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - > Seriously, the person who landed the plane is not at fault. ?????????????????? Just how stupid are you???????????????????? > In article > <8a19bac6-f11a-450b-a65a-d13ad132455f@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > situation. > Run out of fuel on a long bridge or in a tunnel. In addition to a stiff towing fee, you will get a fine. But I suppose if an incompetent pilot crushes a few cars and kills a few babies, that's alright with you? Signature"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." --- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992 > But I suppose if an incompetent pilot crushes a few cars Oh, give me a f.cking break! The plane in question, a cessna 150 (ref: http://tinyurl.com/2aucho) has an empty weight about 1/3 of that of a garden vareity car (appx. 968#) and a max take off weight of 1500# (about 1/2 the weight of a car). Ref: http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=138 It ain't going to be crushing any cars anytime soon. >and kills a few babies, that's alright with you? SO, what would you have rather that the pilot do? Crash into a school? Somebody's house? -- "I always heard that primitave hoo-mans lacked intelligence, but I never thought they'd be this stupid." --Quark > >> But I suppose if an incompetent pilot crushes a few cars [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > --Quark > I'd rather the pilot act as responsibly as the rest of us are expected to do. Running out of fuel and endangering possibly hundreds of people is inexcusable. When a truck runs out of fuel (yes, it can happen to anyone who doesn't properly plan), the trucker usually is wise enough to get onto the shoulder--but if he doesn't make it and sitting in traffic causes an accident, hell yes he will be charged. Since there ain't no shoulders in the sky, they are required by commonsense to take extra care. As someone else said, the bulk of the blame may belong to the flying school who sent him up with an unambiguous flight plan (i.e., go so far and come back) and a full tank of fuel. If the rookie pilot ignored his flight plan and just went joyriding till he ran out of fuel, hell yes! he deserves a stiff fine. Excuses aren't accepted when a trucker's negligence results in traffic accidents or traffic impediment, so why the hell should a sky-boy be excused? Signature"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." --- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992 >>> But I suppose if an incompetent pilot crushes a few cars >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > traffic accidents or traffic impediment, so why the hell should a sky-boy > be excused? Um, would like red or white wine with that? > I'd rather the pilot act as responsibly as the rest of us are expected > to do. Running out of fuel and endangering possibly hundreds of people > is inexcusable. Fine, talk theory all you want, pretty pointless, really. So now you're flying and you DO run out fuel. What do you want the pilot to do at that point? >> I'd rather the pilot act as responsibly as the rest of us are expected >> to do. Running out of fuel and endangering possibly hundreds of people [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > pilot to do at that point? > You do what you have to. The same as the pilot. Luckily, he didn't smash a carload of kids. What the f.ck is pointless about requiring people to act responsibly? Signature"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." --- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992 > >> I'd rather the pilot act as responsibly as the rest of us are expected > >> to do. Running out of fuel and endangering possibly hundreds of people [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You do what you have to. The same as the pilot. Luckily, he didn't > smash a carload of kids. So you agree with the final actions of the pilot. > What the f.ck is pointless about requiring people to act responsibly? What was pointless was wanting the pilot to go back in time and act responsble in the first place. I mean, great, yes, we all wanted the pilot to be responsible. Once he's in the air, that ship had sailed. BTW, we don't know the details of why the plane was low on fuel to begin with. > >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > begin with. > A fine for the irresponsibility would encourage others to be more circumspect. That is *the point* of sending people to prison for involuntary manslaughter if their actions/inactions cause deaths of persons and loss of personal property. What is that, if it isn't going "back in time" to punish irresponsible people??? What is a conviction for murder for someone who drops bricks from bridges "just playing around?" All jail sentences and fines are in fact intended to encourage people to look consider the consequences if they do not act responsibly. Since nothing was mentioned about a fuel leak or other mechanical breakdown, it stands to reason that either (a) the pilot overstayed his welcome in the skies and burned up his fuel or (b) the flight school failed to fuel the trainee before sending him aloft. In either case, someone damn well should be punished. I avow that the pat on the back he's been getting will encourage other hotdoggers to try their skills, landing on a highway. Signature"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." --- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992 > >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > begin with. > A fine for the irresponsibility would encourage others to be more circumspect. That is *the point* of sending people to prison for involuntary manslaughter if their actions/inactions cause deaths of persons and loss of personal property. What is that, if it isn't going "back in time" to punish irresponsible people??? What is a conviction for murder for someone who drops bricks from bridges?" All jail sentences and fines are in fact intended to encourage people to consider the consequences if they do not act responsibly. Since nothing was mentioned about a fuel leak or other mechanical breakdown, it stands to reason that either (a) the pilot ignored his instructions and overstayed his welcome in the skies and burned up his fuel or (b) the flight school failed to fuel the trainee before sending him aloft. In either case, someone damn well should be punished. I aver that the pat on the back he's been getting will encourage other hotdog to try their skills, landing on a highway. Signature"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." --- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992 >>>>> I'd rather the pilot act as responsibly as the rest of us are expected >>>>> to do. Running out of fuel and endangering possibly hundreds of [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > that the pat on the back he's been getting will encourage other hotdog to > try their skills, landing on a highway. While I haven't flown in 20 years, there's FAA rules about calculating one's fuel on board vs the distance to be flown. He is to land with (is it 30 minutes or more fuel on board at touchdown?) a reserve of fuel that will permit him to reach an airport along his route. If he lands at one of these airports because he is in need of fuel, then, again, if an inspector were to check his tanks, he should find 30 minutes (it may be more than that) of reserve. Weather plays a part, too, in a pilot's flight plan, and he is to account for that in his route and allow for more of a reserve should he have to divert elsewhere due to WX. There are a lot of crashes that happen because somebody tried to "stretch" his fuel, and this is, indeed, against FAA rules. And DANGEROUS, too! Anyhow, despite the arguments in here pro and con, there ARE penalties ranging from suspensions to fines for various infractions of FAA flight rules, and running out of fuel carries one (if it is determined that the emergency landing was simply due to pilot error, or fuel miscalculation. A mechanical issue that caused the plane to use more fuel than normal (leaks, pump failures) wouldn't cause a penalty. And, btw, someone that lands a plane on a highway had BETTER have a GOOD reason. A pilot that knows what's good for him, and wants to keep his license AND his cash in his pocket won't pull any such caper! :) J > >> [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > I agree with everything you said. > Signature"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." --- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992 > There are a lot of crashes that happen because somebody tried to "stretch" > his fuel, and this is, indeed, against FAA rules. And DANGEROUS, too! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > reason. A pilot that knows what's good for him, and wants to keep his > license AND his cash in his pocket won't pull any such caper! :) "I just wanted to stop and get a fish and chips, pick up some nice roses for the wife." Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" > Anyhow, despite the arguments in here pro and con, there ARE penalties > ranging from suspensions to fines for various infractions of FAA flight > rules, and running out of fuel carries one if it is determined that the > emergency landing was simply due to pilot error, or fuel miscalculation. A > mechanical issue that caused the plane to use more fuel than normal (leaks, > pump failures) wouldn't cause a penalty. Fines and suspensions aren't enough. I want this nut convicted of a crime and behind bars. >All jail >sentences and fines are in fact intended to encourage people to consider >the consequences if they do not act responsibly. I think you mean for actions that hurt someone else only, at least that is what I get from the context. There are many people behind bars around the world for mere vices of consuming various substances, religious beliefs, political reasons, their political views, and host of other reasons which harm no one else. Governments make many things criminal that have nothing to do with acting responsibly. >Fine, talk theory all you want, pretty pointless, really. > >So now you're flying and you DO run out fuel. What do you want the >pilot to do at that point? Aim for Aunt Judy's car. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> But I suppose if an incompetent pilot crushes a few cars [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > --Quark > I'd rather the pilot act as responsibly as the rest of us are expected to do. Running out of fuel and endangering possibly hundreds of people is inexcusable. When a truck runs out of fuel (yes, it can happen to anyone who doesn't properly plan), the trucker usually is wise enough to get onto the shoulder--but if he doesn't make it and sitting in traffic causes an accident, hell yes he will be charged. Since there ain't no shoulders in the sky, they are required by commonsense to take extra care. As someone else said, the bulk of the blame may belong to the flying school who sent him up with a faulty flight plan (i.e., go so far and come back) and a full tank of fuel. But if the rookie pilot ignored his flight plan and just went joyriding till he ran out of fuel, hell yes! he deserves a stiff fine. Excuses aren't accepted when a trucker's negligence results in traffic accidents or traffic impediment, so why the hell should a sky-boy be excused? Signature"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." --- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992 >In article ><8a19bac6-f11a-450b-a65a-d13ad132455f@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >What crime did he commit? Show us a statute that applies to this >situation. You want crimes? 1) driving on a roadway with an improperly licensed vehicle. 2) vehicle on road not meeting requirements 3) insufficient lighting. 4) over width without a permit. > You want crimes? > 1) driving on a roadway with an improperly licensed vehicle. > 2) vehicle on road not meeting requirements > 3) insufficient lighting. > 4) over width without a permit. I suspect all of those require mens rea - basically, intent. If you end up on that road due to an accident - like, say, you're flying over the road and drop out of the sky involuntarily - there's no intent, and thus no crime. > > > > You want crimes? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on that road due to an accident - like, say, you're flying over the road and > drop out of the sky involuntarily - there's no intent, and thus no crime. I suspect that its been years since Richard has made a post on Usenet that accurately states the law. >> > >> > You want crimes? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I suspect that its been years since Richard has made a post on Usenet > that accurately states the law. decades SFB spewed: >He oughta be charged with a crime and do a couple years in the can and >never be allowed to fly again. Bullshit. He's a better pilot than you could ever hope to be. And 10,000 Euros says he is a better driver than you also. >Stop being a criminal coddler, you >hatefilled loonball. When you stop being the biggest f.cking idiot on usenet, I'll consider it. In the mean time, **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE**CODDLE** -- "Hell i once painted a whole car with a bunch of spray cans." --Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 3/29/06 Ref:http://tinyurl.com/qqaeq Message ID: 1143700563.098595.106970@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com > On Apr 3, 12:05 pm, necromancer >> SFB spewed: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > So, you would like some cheap wine with that? Something you will be > comfortable with, like Thunderbird or perhaps Boons Farm Apple? On Apr 3, 11:21 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Apr 3, 12:05 pm, necromancer > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > never be allowed to fly again. Stop being a criminal coddler, you > hatefilled loonball. WHAT?? It's called an "emergency landing"... Mike > On Apr 3, 11:21 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Mike > emergency caused by someone's negligence. Someone, who should be punished. Signature"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." --- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992 >> On Apr 3, 11:21 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" >> <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > emergency caused by someone's negligence. Someone, who should be > punished. If you were punished for every instance of your negligence even Torquemada wouldn't have had enough time in the day. > >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Before I set out on a trip I always check my fuel levels . What this turkey did (he or his instructor) is criminal negligence. Signature"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." --- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992 >>>> On Apr 3, 11:21 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" >>>> <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Before I set out on a trip I always check my fuel levels . What this > turkey did (he or his instructor) is criminal negligence. Who said he didn't? Perhaps there was an in-flight mechanical or electrical malfunction regarding the fuel gauge, eh jackass? > >> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > perhaps an alien ship sucked the fuel from his tanks. Obviously, JACKASS, the FAA will give the plane a thorough inspection, and will so note any mechanical problem. Lacking any, they will punish the rookie or his school. As they should. A truck tire blows and kills someone, DOT will inspect the wreckage, possibly run tests of the tire casing. If the rubber was faulty, manufacturer will probably be assessed blame and lose money in a lawsuit. If rubber was good but worn, truck owner will be blamed. If rubber and tread were fine, then *then* it would be adjudged to be "act of god," and no one would be blamed. If a trucker or auto runs out of fuel for *any* reason on many of our nation's long bridges (Chesepeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel for instance, bet your a.s someone will be fined. Signature"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." --- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992 >>>>>> On Apr 3, 11:21 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" >>>>>> <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > mechanical problem. Lacking any, they will punish the rookie or his > school. So you've already inspected it, eh asswipe? > As they should. A truck tire blows and kills someone, DOT will inspect > the wreckage, Bullshit. > possibly run tests of the tire casing. If the rubber was faulty, > manufacturer will probably be assessed blame and lose money in a lawsuit. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reason on many of our nation's long bridges (Chesepeake Bay Bridge and > Tunnel for instance, bet your a.s someone will be fined. More bullshit. > >> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > you have a problem accepting responsibility, don't you? Yes, honey, I do inspect my truck before I begin each trip. I've been at this for longer than you've been alive, little boy. Since I learned long ago not to put all my trust in gauges, I do manually check fuel level, oil and coolant levels. I thump my tires, visually inspect the threads, and if one sounds a bit hollow, I gauge the inflation pressure. Everything that could affect the truck's safe operation is inspected. I drive a 12-hour shift, and every time the truck is stopped, I give it another quick walk-around. In summation, yes, sonny, before I shift into gear, I damned well have already inspected it. > >> As they should. A truck tire blows and kills someone, DOT will inspect [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > little man, since you are no driver, you don't know what you are bullshitting talking about. >> possibly run tests of the tire casing. If the rubber was faulty, >> manufacturer will probably be assessed blame and lose money in a lawsuit. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Stop eating hay for a day or so, take a laxative and an enema, little cow, gargle with Listerine. Go get a colonoscopy, because obviously, the sh.t has backed up in your gut, its poisons are flooding your brain, and sh.t is spilling out your mouth. Signature"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." --- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992 >>> On Apr 3, 11:21 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" >>> <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > If you were punished for every instance of your negligence even Torquemada > wouldn't have had enough time in the day. Most in-flight emergencies are caused by somebody's negligence. Somebody failed to inspect something, failed to notice a problem, failed to do scheduled maintenance---and so on. Btw, airplanes do NOT "fall out of the sky" as the news medial LOVES to chirp at 6 PM. In fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an aircraft to just come tumbling out of the air unless there is an really, really serious structural failure of the fuselage. A wing must come off, a vertical stablizer disintegrates, an aileron gets stuck in position, the pilot exceeds the capabilities of the aircraft, going beyond what the airframe was designed to do---something has to happen to the plane itself to cause a plane to just tumble down like a rock. If you study airframe dynamics even a little, you can see that planes simply don't come fluttering down out of the sky: they can't! Has to be a mid-air collision, something to render the craft uncontrollable. So what causes most crashes? Same thing that causes truck crashes. The nut behind the wheel!! He made a mis-calculation, a wrong turn, let the craft get too low and he collides with the ground. IOW he literally DROVE the plane into a mountain, onto the sea, or into another plane. The plane didn't do anything wrong: it simply went where the pilot guided it and BOOM! Sad that it often costs so many lives. J > "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in message >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Most in-flight emergencies are caused by somebody's negligence. Good thing then that negligence isn't always a crime, let the entire human race be forced to incarcerate itself, eh? > Somebody failed to inspect something, failed to notice a problem, > failed to do scheduled maintenance---and so on. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > simply don't come fluttering down out of the sky: they can't! Has to > be a mid-air collision, something to render the craft uncontrollable. A stall/spin perhaps? > So what causes most crashes? Same thing that causes truck crashes. > The nut behind the wheel!! And what of the car and motorcycle crashes ? > He made a mis-calculation, a wrong turn, > let the craft get too low and he collides with the ground. Yeah, funny that. It's the "sudden deceleration trauma" from impacting Earth that is the common coincidental cause of death, eh? > IOW he literally DROVE the plane into a mountain, onto the sea, or into > another plane. Or into the World Trade Center ... > The plane didn't do anything wrong: it simply went > where the pilot guided it and BOOM! Not every aircraft crash is "controlled flight into terrain". > Sad that it often costs so many lives. What's sad about it? > If you were punished for every instance of your negligence even Torquemada > wouldn't have had enough time in the day. Ah yes - the old "everybody does it" excuse so beloved of the criminal coddlers. >> If you were punished for every instance of your negligence even >> Torquemada wouldn't have had enough time in the day. > > Ah yes - the old "everybody does it" excuse so beloved of the criminal > coddlers. When they outlaw what everybody does, then criminals will be everybody. On Apr 3, 2:21 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Apr 3, 12:05 pm, necromancer > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > never be allowed to fly again. Stop being a criminal coddler, you > hatefilled loonball. Please tell us specifically which crime he commited. The police officer apparently didn't think a crime was committed: "Sgt. Danny Glick commended the pilot for landing with the traffic flow so no vehicles were hit during the landing." > http://www.nbc4.com/news/15781391/detail.html > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > negligence. This is a lot worse than drunk driving but the cops pat > him on the back and say forget it!!! What charges could they legally bring, being the FAA has sole jurisdiction over aircraft in the U$A? >> http://www.nbc4.com/news/15781391/detail.html >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > What charges could they legally bring, being the FAA has sole jurisdiction > over aircraft in the U$A? The states also have jurisdiction. I've had to register my plane in several states, had to pay state taxes and I was also subject to local governement laws. I was also forced to register myself in each state. SignatureRegards, BobF. >>> http://www.nbc4.com/news/15781391/detail.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > The states also have jurisdiction. No, they don't have any jurisdiction over planes in flight. > I've had to register my plane in several states, had to pay state taxes > and I was also subject to local governement laws. None of which have anything to do with the in-flight operation of aricraft, which is under the sole jurisdiction of the FAA. > I was also forced to register myself in each state. Which state(s) , and for what exactly? >> This nut could have easily killed a lot of people due to his own >> negligence. This is a lot worse than drunk driving but the cops pat >> him on the back and say forget it!!! Except that there are a whole hell of a lot more people killed by drunk drivers than by airplanes landing on freeways, so the sheer nonsense factor of the post above undermines the credibility of the entire argument. The world is full of pantywipe losers who are afraid of airplanes, but, that doesn't modify drunk driving fatality vs airplane-vehicle collision statics no matter how loudly or dishoneslty you little twits screech. -c > >> This nut could have easily killed a lot of people due to his own > >> negligence. This is a lot worse than drunk driving but the cops pat [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > drivers than by airplanes landing on freeways, so the sheer nonsense > factor of the post above undermines the credibility of the entire argument. Oh yeah - that makes a lot of sense. So now crimes are prosecuted only if they're commonplace.??? THINK In article <c4f18726-c378-4d2f-ad93-6d7420c049bc@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote: > > >> This nut could have easily killed a lot of people due to his own > > >> negligence. This is a lot worse than drunk driving but the cops pat [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Oh yeah - that makes a lot of sense. So now crimes are prosecuted > only if they're commonplace.??? THINK And -- just WHERE would *YOU* have had him land after running out of fuel? It sounds to me as if the freeway was a good choice, if he couldn't make the airport. Running out of fuel is a different issue, as many here have posted. Both he and his instructor have a lot of questions to answer. BTW, this "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" doofus advocates driving well under the speed limit and other obnoxious behavior, all in the name of "safety." SignatureRemove _'s from email address to talk to me. > What charges could they legally bring, being the FAA has sole jurisdiction > over aircraft in the U$A? I doubt there could be criminal charges - things like blocking traffic require intent, and he could argue the emergency forced his actions. He might be subject to a civil suit - costs related to closing the highway, any losses by businesses due to late deliveries, etc. That could add up to quite a few dollars. >http://www.nbc4.com/news/15781391/detail.html > >This nut could have easily killed |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message