Tristar
Pattern Altitude
I had the opportunity to visit the FAA legal department during a field trip for my law class. We were grouped with one of their lawyers to go over a case involving fuel exhaustion. From there, our group had to answer some questions and come to conclusions.
I attempted to do some more research on this case at home. I found some interesting contradictions and questions I would appreciate your thoughts on.
Keep in mind that the following paragraph is all we were given. "Mr. B, private pilot with 35 years experience, decides to fly from Jackson, MS to Wiley Post Airport in OKC. He is flying VFR in a Maule Aircraft. (specs on separate page) Mr. B filled his aircraft (however cannot produce a fuel receipt indicating how much fuel or when he last fueled his Maule. Mr. B takes off towards OKC and runs out of gas at 4 miles short of McAlester, OK." Let me first point out that in the first sentence, it states he's going to Wiley Post but in the last it says OKC but falls short of McAlester. Obviously these are two different airports but seem to be used in the same context.
Some of our group questions:
1. How far is it from Jackson, MS to OKC? Group answer: 420
2. How far is it from Jackson, MS to McAlester? Group answer: 395 (only one person had the sectionals)
3. How far can the aircraft fly on a tank of fuel? Using this: http://pilotfriend.com/aircraft performance/Maule/10.htm Group Answer: Range 360 miles
4. Could the pilot, with proper planning, determined that he could not make OKC? Yes
Obviously from this data, the pilot could not have made the airport due to being out of range. Not only this but McAlester is 35 miles further than the max range of the aircraft in no wind conditions. We did use no wind conditions but according to the lawyer, there were in fact headwinds that day. So there is no way he could have gotten within 4 miles of McAlester according to this.
Some things that I later found:
When I read closer, as stated above, the pilot only intended to fly to McAlester, not OKC. I went into the FAA accident database and found this: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050226X00236&key=1
Now without having specific names, it makes the analysis trickier but I find that the resemblance is a little more than coincidence. The first thing I noticed right off is that the aircraft are different. In our Stats, it states a Maule M-6, but in the accident it is a Maule M-4-210C. Which if you notice in http://pilotfriend.com/aircraft performance/Maule/3.htm the range drastically increases by 240 miles! This makes it increasing probable that the airplane is capable of making the airport in the first place! Now the question can really fall under where, if and how much the pilot refueled.
The next thing I noticed when reading the accident report by the NTSB was a confirmation that the pilot was flying to MLC and not OKC. So it takes OKC completely out of the picture for analysis.
Also, I believe the numbers are off for the above questions we were given.
Possible True answers to the questions:
1. How far is it from Jackson, MS to OKC? My answer: 417 NM (but doesn't matter since he didnt fly to OKC) I used www.airnav.com
2. How far is it from Jackson, MS to MLC? My answer: 324 NM
a. Note that 324 is drastically different from 395. With 324, it makes it possible for even the original Maule 6 to have made the airport on full tanks, with 395, it is impossible especially with a headwind. With the Maule-4-210C, either would have been possible. So the question becomes based on fuel reading which is of course the main problem in the case anyways.
b. We did originally ask the lawyer we were with how he could possibly get that far, she said the FAA didn't know either. It wasn't actually her case.
3. How Far can the aircraft fly on a tank of fuel? 500 NM
4. Could the pilot with proper planning determined that he could no make OKC? Yes, but with proper planning, its possible to have even made both airports in the Maule 4 but not the Maule 6. To be very informal, it is possible to just guestimate with a Maule 4 to know with a 500 mile range, to make a 324 mile flight. That could be common sense.
Further Notes: The case seems to emphasis the pilot not knowing how to use his installed fuel gauge equipment, depending on it instead of his factory fuel gauges, and making an emergency landing. If he truly filled his aircraft to the brim, it wouldn't have mattered in no wind conditions, he would have made McAlester airport. Since I don't truly know the winds, I cannot calculate that but I dot see it knocking down the Maule 4's range to less than 324 miles.
Of Course with the information we were provided, it was easily proven that there was no way the pilot could even dream about reaching the airport. But if the information I found is correct, then the airport was reachable but there was somehow not enough fuel in the airplane. So questions are left open. If the information I found is correct it was also unfair of us to make such a quick determination without knowing the true facts. In the end, the deduction was still true, the pilot did not flight plan correctly, and yes, its possible he didnt read his equipment correctly too although as stated I don't see that effecting the McAlester flight.
What I would be honestly interested in finding is the court case and what their thoughts were as well as what the pilot actually said rather than depending so much on one paragraph and information that I could not research at the time. I have not been able to find much with the current information. All I know is Mr. B Vs. NTSB. From there, a solid answer as to proper information can be found despite the outcome still the same. I just honestly felt it was unfair for us to make improper conclusions and answers to the questions if the information was incorrect. Also, if I missed something, I'd be willing to know that as well.
Tristar
I attempted to do some more research on this case at home. I found some interesting contradictions and questions I would appreciate your thoughts on.
Keep in mind that the following paragraph is all we were given. "Mr. B, private pilot with 35 years experience, decides to fly from Jackson, MS to Wiley Post Airport in OKC. He is flying VFR in a Maule Aircraft. (specs on separate page) Mr. B filled his aircraft (however cannot produce a fuel receipt indicating how much fuel or when he last fueled his Maule. Mr. B takes off towards OKC and runs out of gas at 4 miles short of McAlester, OK." Let me first point out that in the first sentence, it states he's going to Wiley Post but in the last it says OKC but falls short of McAlester. Obviously these are two different airports but seem to be used in the same context.
Some of our group questions:
1. How far is it from Jackson, MS to OKC? Group answer: 420
2. How far is it from Jackson, MS to McAlester? Group answer: 395 (only one person had the sectionals)
3. How far can the aircraft fly on a tank of fuel? Using this: http://pilotfriend.com/aircraft performance/Maule/10.htm Group Answer: Range 360 miles
4. Could the pilot, with proper planning, determined that he could not make OKC? Yes
Obviously from this data, the pilot could not have made the airport due to being out of range. Not only this but McAlester is 35 miles further than the max range of the aircraft in no wind conditions. We did use no wind conditions but according to the lawyer, there were in fact headwinds that day. So there is no way he could have gotten within 4 miles of McAlester according to this.
Some things that I later found:
When I read closer, as stated above, the pilot only intended to fly to McAlester, not OKC. I went into the FAA accident database and found this: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050226X00236&key=1
Now without having specific names, it makes the analysis trickier but I find that the resemblance is a little more than coincidence. The first thing I noticed right off is that the aircraft are different. In our Stats, it states a Maule M-6, but in the accident it is a Maule M-4-210C. Which if you notice in http://pilotfriend.com/aircraft performance/Maule/3.htm the range drastically increases by 240 miles! This makes it increasing probable that the airplane is capable of making the airport in the first place! Now the question can really fall under where, if and how much the pilot refueled.
The next thing I noticed when reading the accident report by the NTSB was a confirmation that the pilot was flying to MLC and not OKC. So it takes OKC completely out of the picture for analysis.
Also, I believe the numbers are off for the above questions we were given.
Possible True answers to the questions:
1. How far is it from Jackson, MS to OKC? My answer: 417 NM (but doesn't matter since he didnt fly to OKC) I used www.airnav.com
2. How far is it from Jackson, MS to MLC? My answer: 324 NM
a. Note that 324 is drastically different from 395. With 324, it makes it possible for even the original Maule 6 to have made the airport on full tanks, with 395, it is impossible especially with a headwind. With the Maule-4-210C, either would have been possible. So the question becomes based on fuel reading which is of course the main problem in the case anyways.
b. We did originally ask the lawyer we were with how he could possibly get that far, she said the FAA didn't know either. It wasn't actually her case.
3. How Far can the aircraft fly on a tank of fuel? 500 NM
4. Could the pilot with proper planning determined that he could no make OKC? Yes, but with proper planning, its possible to have even made both airports in the Maule 4 but not the Maule 6. To be very informal, it is possible to just guestimate with a Maule 4 to know with a 500 mile range, to make a 324 mile flight. That could be common sense.
Further Notes: The case seems to emphasis the pilot not knowing how to use his installed fuel gauge equipment, depending on it instead of his factory fuel gauges, and making an emergency landing. If he truly filled his aircraft to the brim, it wouldn't have mattered in no wind conditions, he would have made McAlester airport. Since I don't truly know the winds, I cannot calculate that but I dot see it knocking down the Maule 4's range to less than 324 miles.
Of Course with the information we were provided, it was easily proven that there was no way the pilot could even dream about reaching the airport. But if the information I found is correct, then the airport was reachable but there was somehow not enough fuel in the airplane. So questions are left open. If the information I found is correct it was also unfair of us to make such a quick determination without knowing the true facts. In the end, the deduction was still true, the pilot did not flight plan correctly, and yes, its possible he didnt read his equipment correctly too although as stated I don't see that effecting the McAlester flight.
What I would be honestly interested in finding is the court case and what their thoughts were as well as what the pilot actually said rather than depending so much on one paragraph and information that I could not research at the time. I have not been able to find much with the current information. All I know is Mr. B Vs. NTSB. From there, a solid answer as to proper information can be found despite the outcome still the same. I just honestly felt it was unfair for us to make improper conclusions and answers to the questions if the information was incorrect. Also, if I missed something, I'd be willing to know that as well.
Tristar
