I guess anyone can run out of fuel.

SkyHog said:
Really? We're going to draw a similarity between a worthless drunk that drove a car on a runway and then abused the arresting officers and a pilot that made a mistake and exhausted his fuel supply and safely landed his plane on a road?
Click to expand...
Uh, I don't even know how to respond to that.

If we assume that he is responsible for running out of fuel (rather than a mechanical or other issue), then he should not be flying. I'd MUCH rather fly with that "worthless drunk" who hasn't done anything quite as stupid as running out of fuel than with a pilot who makes very basic mistakes that show a serious lack of judgement.

Of course, that's assuming that it was his mistake. It seems rather likely that it wasn't.

-Felix
 
sba55 said:
If we assume that he is responsible for running out of fuel (rather than a mechanical or other issue), then he should not be flying. I'd MUCH rather fly with that "worthless drunk" who hasn't done anything quite as stupid as running out of fuel than with a pilot who makes very basic mistakes that show a serious lack of judgement.
Click to expand...
**** can happen -- we don't know the details. I wouldn't hesitate to fly with Sean Tucker and would be honored. No one lives long in his business with a serious lack of judgment in aircraft.

He is a hell of a pilot and making the above statements without more information is rather disrespectful. He does a lot of good for general aviation. Even the best make mistakes and one should not consider themselves immune to error.
 
jesse said:
**** can happen -- we don't know the details. I wouldn't hesitate to fly with Sean Tucker and would be honored. No one lives long in his business with a serious lack of judgment in aircraft.

He is a hell of a pilot and making the above statements without more information is rather disrespectful. He does a lot of good for general aviation. Even the best make mistakes and one should not consider themselves immune to error.
Click to expand...

+1. Well stated, Jesse.
 
sba55 said:
Of course, that's assuming that it was his mistake. It seems rather likely that it wasn't.

-Felix
Click to expand...
Jesse and Troy,
You seem to have overlooked this very important addendum to Felix's post!
 
Ron Levy said:
They are subject to the same regs, and 91.151 (VFR minimum fuel) is not waiverable (see 91.905).
Click to expand...

The VFR minimum fuel requirement can be, and is, waivered for certain situations like airshows and aerobatic competitions for the event itself. I'm not personally aware of any waivers granted for getting from point a to b without minimum fuel and I'm having a hard time imagining that circumstance. The waiver for airshows and competitions makes sense considering that you're usually right over the runway for the flight.

Having said all that, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with Tucker's incident. There's no FAA waivers for careless that I'm aware of.
 
...and now, the rest of the story...

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=c5dd6929-0abe-483c-911d-6289b0c61108&

Seems it wasn't as careless as one might have thought.

Sounds like he did not intentionally put himself in a low-fuel situation and did a pretty good job once the problem manifested itself. Whether the FAA will consider his reliance on the sight gauge and failure to visually check the level inside the tank before flight worthy of administrative action (remedial training or letter of correction) or a 709 ride on preflighting the plane remains to be seen, but an enforcement action seems unlikely since it doesn't seem to have been particuarly careless -- unlike electric gauges in light planes, sight gauges are usually considered to be accurate.
 
Goes without saying that the man could put that plane anywhere he wants.

I remember at one Oshkosh where I saw a ring of orange flames under the cowl of Sean's biplane. He did like one roll and from midfield went on a short down downwind down runway center in the box and landed on the runway like a helicopter. He coasted down to the center turn off, did a run up, and parked it.

I wonder what he saw on the engine instruments. Bet the CHTs were a little high. :D
 
1. Who's Sean Tucker?

2. I think most of can agree that Wagstaff appears from all indications to be a very worthwhile drunk.
 
alaskaflyer said:
1. Who's Sean Tucker?

2. I think most of can agree that Wagstaff appears from all indications to be a very worthwhile drunk.
Click to expand...
1. Sean Tucker is, in my humble opinion, the finest stunt pilot in the world.

2. Dang, I wrote and deleted a response 12 times for #2. There are some comments that do not belong on the internet.
 
I'll remember this thread when I run out of gas and use the excuse that the gas gauges weren't reading right.
 
I trust the gages on a Skyhawk at only two different times... when the tanks are visually inspected and shown to be full and when they are empty. Between those two points, the gages are near worthless; especially when Cessna won't deal with the sensor problem they've had all these years.
 
alaskaflyer said:
:dunno: OK, guess I don't keep up with aerobatic stuff much. The stunt pilots I know do different types of stunts with different kinds of planes :P They don't run out of fuel in the air either (low blow, I know.)
Click to expand...

How else was he supposed to practice his deadstick landings? lol
 
steingar said:
I'll remember this thread when I run out of gas and use the excuse that the gas gauges weren't reading right.
Click to expand...
Check the certification requirements and you will see the gauges are not required to read right, except when the tanks are empty in level flight the gauges must show empty.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Check the certification requirements and you will see the gauges are not required to read right, except when the tanks are empty in level flight the gauges must show empty.
Click to expand...

No duh Sherlock. Tucker should have known exactly how much fuel was in his aircraft by finding out how much was pumped in or by visual inspection of the level in the tanks, just like the rest of us. I don't care if he can do chandelles using nothing more than his tongue, he still has the follow the same rules as the rest of us.
 
Guys....keep in mind that his tube fuel gauge is *NOT* the same as the ****ty gauges in the 172s we fly. Generally, they're very damn accurate. Not to say that he didn't make an mistake (nor did he say that).
 
jesse said:
Guys....keep in mind that his tube fuel gauge is *NOT* the same as the ****ty gauges in the 172s we fly. Generally, they're very damn accurate.
Click to expand...

Yup. And I'll admit to flying airplanes with tubes without checking the tanks.

He also didn't "dead stick" apparently, after one engine burble he turned the fuel pump on and headed for home, after the second burble he went for the highway, *under power*.

So, this was a *precautionary* landing, not a forced one, and that's a skill all of us should be better at. Too often, pilots try to make the nearest airport and kill themselves, when they are surrounded by excellent off-field landing sites as the problem occurs.

In this case, nobody was hurt, the airplane wasn't bent, and we all learned something. So, kudos to Sean.
 
FWIW, always verify your fuel by 2 methods. That can be by the number added versus fuel gauge, tank stick versus fuel added, etc.

In my plane I verify by the Shadin versus fuel added and also by sight.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Check the certification requirements and you will see the gauges are not required to read right, except when the tanks are empty in level flight the gauges must show empty.
Click to expand...
I'm NOT volunteering to check that... Nope. No wing walking done here; especially if they're empty. I'll just assume full is full right after the fuel truck leaves. All other times are swags.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top