LongEZ question

Stingray Don said:
He didn’t even have a valid pilot’s license at the time of the crash. He had no business even flying.
Click to expand...
Bullhockey. His pilot "license" was perfectly valid. You can argue as to whether his medical was valid or not.
 
Tom-D said:
Had he put fuel in the proper tank, he would never been retired to switch tanks.
Click to expand...
Again, my opinion is that was intentional. He was trying to leave as little fuel as possible in the plane prior to the fuel system work that was scheduled. Yes, foolhardy, but not quite as the haters will want to impute on him.
 
flyingron said:
Again, my opinion is that was intentional. He was trying to leave as little fuel as possible in the plane prior to the fuel system work that was scheduled. Yes, foolhardy, but not quite as the haters will want to impute on him.
Click to expand...
I have done fuel system work a time or two - and have deliberately run tanks dry to save having to drain them. But, I do it at more than a handful of feet AGL and not out over the water (my ride lives on an island). And, I still think the blame is on the PIC.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I have done fuel system work a time or two - and have deliberately run tanks dry to save having to drain them. But, I do it at more than a handful of feet AGL and not out over the water (my ride lives on an island). And, I still think the blame is on the PIC.
Click to expand...
Right, I wasn't excusing his bad judgment, just pointing out it wasn't as completely random as people would have you believe.
 
Stingray Don said:
Pedantic. He was not legal fly.
Click to expand...
Not legal isn't the same as not competent. He didn't crash because the FAA pulled his medical.

I think Bob Hoover was at least as competent as any pilot, the day after the FAA railroaded him. . .
 
Sundancer said:
Not legal isn't the same as not competent. He didn't crash because the FAA pulled his medical.

I think Bob Hoover was at least as competent as any pilot, the day after the FAA railroaded him. . .
Click to expand...

As far as I know, Bob Hoover did not act as PIC when it wasn’t legal to do so.

Not sure why all the pushback for pointing out he was not legal to fly at the time. The NTSB considered it relevant enough to include in the final report.
 
The NTSB has to record all of the facts. Not having a medical was not a contributing factor.
 
Stingray Don said:
Not sure why all the pushback for pointing out he was not legal to fly at the time. The NTSB considered it relevant enough to include in the final report.
Click to expand...
Because its about as relevant to the matter at hand as saying he's never once been in my driveway. It wouldn't have changed the outcome of his flight that day but the fact remains, John Denver has never been in my driveway. The NTSB mentioned it in their report because their protocols required them to do so. Their protocols also require them to say if it was a factor. They didn't mention it as a factor which means it wasn't. Do you mean to imply the NTSB was wrong on that?

By your logic, every aviation accident is preventable because the pilot could have just never learned to fly nor ever set foot inside an airplane.
 
John Denver was a fool of the highest order. He took off a new to him experimental airplane and flew over water. He took off on a tank that was less than full knowing (he did look over the fuel system before launching, right?) that changing tanks was going to be an issue. He unsurprisingly drowned.

And every time a fool wins the Darwin award things get that much harder for us.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Because its about as relevant to the matter at hand as saying he's never once been in my driveway. It wouldn't have changed the outcome of his flight that day but the fact remains, John Denver has never been in my driveway. The NTSB mentioned it in their report because their protocols required them to do so. Their protocols also require them to say if it was a factor. They didn't mention it as a factor which means it wasn't. Do you mean to imply the NTSB was wrong on that?

By your logic, every aviation accident is preventable because the pilot could have just never learned to fly nor ever set foot inside an airplane.
Click to expand...

Every pilot that is not ‘legal’ to fly should stay home.

He acted as PIC when it was not legal to do so. He continued drinking when abstinence was a condition of his medical. He turned down an offer to refuel knowing that switching tanks was going to be problematic. All of this demonstrates a hazardous attitude. Although certainly not the primary cause of the accident, these actions were all links in the accident chain.

His death was tragic. As with all accidents, we should learn from others mistakes. A poorly located fuel selector is not likely to be an issue for anyone here. However, we can all be reminded about the dangers of having a hazardous attitude.
 
steingar said:
(he did look over the fuel system before launching, right?)
Click to expand...
An aircraft maintenance technician who assisted the pilot in removing the airplane from a hangar before the accident flight stated that he observed the pilot perform a preflight check that took about 20 minutes. He stated that the pilot borrowed a fuel sump cup and drained a fuel sample to check for contaminants. He did not observe whether the pilot visually verified the quantity of fuel aboard the airplane. He did not see the pilot check the engine oil level.

The technician stated that he and the pilot talked about the inaccessibility of the cockpit fuel selector valve handle and its resistance to being turned. The handle was located behind the pilot's left shoulder. They attempted to extend the reach of the handle, using a pair of vice grip pliers. But this did not solve the problem as the pilot could not reach the handle. The pilot said he would use the autopilot inflight, if necessary, to hold the airplane level while he turned the fuel selector valve.

The pilot then asked the technician about the quantity of fuel shown. The technician told the pilot that he had "less than half in the right tank and less than a quarter in the left tank."

https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20001208X09045&akey=1
 
steingar said:
John Denver was a fool of the highest order. He took off a new to him experimental airplane and flew over water. He took off on a tank that was less than full knowing (he did look over the fuel system before launching, right?) that changing tanks was going to be an issue. He unsurprisingly drowned.

And every time a fool wins the Darwin award things get that much harder for us.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree based on what I've read and from watching the episode the other day. Other pilots who knew him spoke highly of his skills. He checked the fuel levels before departing and took that into account, and mentioned that he should have plenty since he'd planned on only flying for an hour. He'd done three T&Gs, then departed the pattern. Things went haywire for him while he was within gliding distance to shore.

I don't peg him a fool by any means. He was an adept pilot recovering from some rough setbacks in life. Had just bought a new toy and was in the process of making a list of several items he wanted tweaked/fixed with the plane and was spending a few minutes having some fun.

I'm not defending him flying when he shouldn't have been, but man, I really wish the flight had ended uneventfully and he was still enjoying his toy.

Side note: I've only seen an ez once, last summer. I was out mowing and something caught my peripheral vision. I looked up and one was tearing through the sky at an impressive rate at maybe 2K ft. A few other people saw me and must have thought I was crazy, stopping to watch a plane.
 
Gerhardt said:
I have to disagree based on what I've read and from watching the episode the other day. Other pilots who knew him spoke highly of his skills. He checked the fuel levels before departing and took that into account, and mentioned that he should have plenty since he'd planned on only flying for an hour. He'd done three T&Gs, then departed the pattern. Things went haywire for him while he was within gliding distance to shore.
Click to expand...
He took off over water with a n unknown quantity of fuel unable to easily change tanks. If that isn't foolish I don't know what is. And if was in gliding distance to shore why'd he drown?
 
does anyone know of a photo of the plane showing where the fuel selector valve was?
 
steingar said:
[snip]And if was in gliding distance to shore why'd he drown?
Click to expand...

Apparently because he got fixated on turning the fuel selector rather than flying the airplane. It hit the water before he figured out what was what. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate
 
Cause of death was blunt force trauma, not drowning. He didn’t glide to shore because it’s been determined CFIT. If indeed he was trying to reach over his left shoulder and his right foot extended, it would create a rolling moment much more rapid that a conventional aircraft. If not detected (blue sky blue ocean) he could have easily found himself in a steep right bank nose low.
 
jsstevens said:
Apparently because he got fixated on turning the fuel selector rather than flying the airplane. It hit the water before he figured out what was what. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate
Click to expand...
Then perhaps he shouldn't have taken off in an airplane where he couldn't reach the damn selector! Or better yet, perhaps he could have filled the tank he was on so it would last the duration of the flight. I can't believe you're lionizing someone who took a perfectly functioning airplane and through his own ineptitude did a CFIT on a bright sunny day.
 
Velocity173 said:
Cause of death was blunt force trauma, not drowning.
Click to expand...

IIRC, his body was identified through finger prints because the dental work and facial features were too badly damaged by the crash to be used to make a positive ID.
 
steingar said:
Then perhaps he shouldn't have taken off in an airplane where he couldn't reach the damn selector! Or better yet, perhaps he could have filled the tank he was on so it would last the duration of the flight. I can't believe you're lionizing someone who took a perfectly functioning airplane and through his own ineptitude did a CFIT on a bright sunny day.
Click to expand...
I’m not lionizing anybody. I was just answering the specific question you asked. In my opinion it was foolish to fly that plane unmodified. You asked why didn’t he glide to shore? He got task fixated and forgot to aviate.
 
steingar said:
I can't believe you're lionizing someone who took a perfectly functioning airplane and through his own ineptitude did a CFIT on a bright sunny day.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on your definition of "perfectly functioning". He knew there was a problem with him reaching the fuel selector which is why he and the mechanic put vice grips on it....so he could move the switch. Not something I'd do, but then again I've done other things more stupid than that. Still, nothing he did warrants a death sentence.
 
Stingray Don said:
As far as I know, Bob Hoover did not act as PIC when it wasn’t legal to do so.

Not sure why all the pushback for pointing out he was not legal to fly at the time. The NTSB considered it relevant enough to include in the final report.
Click to expand...
not sure what isn't clear - it wasn't relevant to the accident, wasn't a factor in the outcome, or the lead up, or the physics of the flight.

The NTSB offers up some assinine and/or irrelevant opinions. Not always, of course, but they do publish some SAS. And get the basic facts wrong on occasion, as well.

A fellow pilot made a mistake, cost him his life - I think my knee-jerk pushback is giving any consideration to the FAA noise about prvevious DUIs.

My point on Hoover was his skills and abilities weren't suddenly diminished by some arrogant, unaccountable bureacrat's hatchet job - and Denver was no more, or less, capable by not being "legal".
 
ircphoenix said:
But if he was not legal to fly... And didn't fly as a result of not being legal to fly... This particular accident wouldn't have happened. So.... There's that.
Click to expand...
Not that he wouldn't have been safe.

He went flying with minimal fuel in the header tank, rather than drain a few gallons.

stupidity, should have consequences, in this case it did.
 
Tom-D said:
Not that he wouldn't have been safe.

He went flying with minimal fuel in the header tank, rather than drain a few gallons.

stupidity, should have consequences, in this case it did.
Click to expand...
Throwing the BS flag on "Stupidity" - he made a mistake, for sure, but he wasn't a stupid man. It might help to think he was, since any of us can make a fatal error; maybe it helps to reason "Geez, that was dumb, I'd never do that!". Likely you wouldn't - you'll have your own, unique blind spot, or momentary distraction, or whatever. Anyone beyond solo has certainly made one or two mistakes that had a high probability of being fatal - but were saved by luck or other circumstance.

You can get killed in GA, and you don't have to work that hard to make it happen. Sure, it ain't free rock climbing or base jumping, but a minor oversight or two is all it takes. Self deception to think otherwise.
 
Sundancer said:
Throwing the BS flag on "Stupidity" - he made a mistake, for sure, but he wasn't a stupid man. It might help to think he was, since any of us can make a fatal error; maybe it helps to reason "Geez, that was dumb, I'd never do that!". Likely you wouldn't - you'll have your own, unique blind spot, or momentary distraction, or whatever. Anyone beyond solo has certainly made one or two mistakes that had a high probability of being fatal - but were saved by luck or other circumstance.

You can get killed in GA, and you don't have to work that hard to make it happen. Sure, it ain't free rock climbing or base jumping, but a minor oversight or two is all it takes. Self deception to think otherwise.
Click to expand...
Plane and simple, It is stupid to go flying with out enough fuel.
To forget is one thing, but he knew.
 
Tom-D said:
Plane and simple, It is stupid to go flying with out enough fuel.
To forget is one thing, but he knew.
Click to expand...
We know there are plenty of reasons to fly with less than full tanks; can't know what Denver's thinking was, of course. Might have just been a simple arithmetic error, or some other consideration he had in mind. Makes him guilty of a mistake, no doubt. But I'll stick with "not stupid".
 
Sundancer said:
We know there are plenty of reasons to fly with less than full tanks; can't know what Denver's thinking was, of course. Might have just been a simple arithmetic error, or some other consideration he had in mind. Makes him guilty of a mistake, no doubt. But I'll stick with "not stupid".
Click to expand...
Less than full tanks is a lot different than damn near empty.
 
One of my friends passed away when he entered a departure stall in a new to him Sonex. There were issues of density altitude, and the Volkswagen engine probably wasn't making all the power it was supposed to. I don't consider him stupid, I don't think he acted foolishly. He was well out of his element (in the west in mountainous terrain) in a new airplane, he got caught. It could easily happen to anyone.

Denver was foolish. He ran out of gas, which is the one thing we're never supposed to do. He did it over water, where we're all trained to be extra careful.
 
Coroner's Report: John Denver Had Sunshine On Shoulders At Time Of Crash
10/21/97 3:00pm
SEE MORE: Entertainment
MONTEREY, CA—According to a Monterey County coroner’s report released Monday, singer John Denver had a shoulder-sunshine level of .27—more than two times the legal limit—at the time of his fatal airplane crash into Monterey Bay on Oct. 12. "Our autopsy discovered a substantial quantity of sunshine on and around Mr. Denver’s shoulders, more than enough to make him high," Monterey County chief coroner Richard Bozell said. "It is my opinion that it would be difficult for even the most experienced pilot to safely operate an aircraft while high on that much sunshine." Denver, who battled sunshine addiction throughout his career, was 53.
 
steingar said:
One of my friends passed away when he entered a departure stall in a new to him Sonex. There were issues of density altitude, and the Volkswagen engine probably wasn't making all the power it was supposed to. I don't consider him stupid, I don't think he acted foolishly. He was well out of his element (in the west in mountainous terrain) in a new airplane, he got caught. It could easily happen to anyone.

Denver was foolish. He ran out of gas, which is the one thing we're never supposed to do. He did it over water, where we're all trained to be extra careful.
Click to expand...
I think there are a lot of things we're never supposed to do - like stall on departure, for example. My airplane is terribly myopic - it can't tell if we're over land or water. I also suspect she can't discern night from day.
 
Sundancer said:
I think there are a lot of things we're never supposed to do - like stall on departure, for example. My airplane is terribly myopic - it can't tell if we're over land or water. I also suspect she can't discern night from day.
Click to expand...
While I can't disagree, I can see one getting caught pulling hard to get over the trees and entering a departure stall, because the airplane didn't have it that day or the density altitude was just that high, or some other factor. Granted it shouldn't happen, but the things that contribute to it can be utterly insidious. Like I said, I don't think at all ill of my friend. This sort of thing could easily bite anyone.

If I'm taking off over any kind of water (or any other flight for that matter) I'm going to make certain I've got the fuel to complete the flight. As far as I'm concerned if I have to reach behind me with a pair of vice grips to get fuel, I'm going to consider it unavailable. As it is I don't change tanks on downwind in my aircraft, the fuel switch sits below me between my knees (one of the very few poor design features of my aircraft). I have to take off my shoulder belt and reach down to switch it, and I won't go head down in the pattern at low altitude and energy. I have both tanks available in cruise, but once I'm low I have whatever I'm on and no more.

Denver was low enough that the act of switching tanks caused him to crash. Were it that bad he either should have been at a higher altitude, taken aboard more gas, or perhaps flown a Varieze that was built according to Rutan's plans. Why anyone would think they could outsmart Burt Rutan in term off airplane design is a bit of a mystery to me.
 
steingar said:
While I can't disagree, I can see one getting caught pulling hard to get over the trees and entering a departure stall, because the airplane didn't have it that day or the density altitude was just that high, or some other factor. Granted it shouldn't happen, but the things that contribute to it can be utterly insidious. Like I said, I don't think at all ill of my friend. This sort of thing could easily bite anyone.

If I'm taking off over any kind of water (or any other flight for that matter) I'm going to make certain I've got the fuel to complete the flight. As far as I'm concerned if I have to reach behind me with a pair of vice grips to get fuel, I'm going to consider it unavailable. As it is I don't change tanks on downwind in my aircraft, the fuel switch sits below me between my knees (one of the very few poor design features of my aircraft). I have to take off my shoulder belt and reach down to switch it, and I won't go head down in the pattern at low altitude and energy. I have both tanks available in cruise, but once I'm low I have whatever I'm on and no more.

Denver was low enough that the act of switching tanks caused him to crash. Were it that bad he either should have been at a higher altitude, taken aboard more gas, or perhaps flown a Varieze that was built according to Rutan's plans. Why anyone would think they could outsmart Burt Rutan in term off airplane design is a bit of a mystery to me.
Click to expand...

I think the airport environment is the most likely place for a mid-air collision; so I try and avoid anything that puts me head down. It also would be a pity to lose the engine at such a low altitude and near to the airport.
Since there is always a potential risk when changing tanks; I actually prefer to do it when at least 3K AGL and five or more miles from the airport. Does not always work, especially on short flights. However, that is a general rule I try and follow.

Tim
 
tspear said:
I think the airport environment is the most likely place for a mid-air collision; so I try and avoid anything that puts me head down. It also would be a pity to lose the engine at such a low altitude and near to the airport.
Since there is always a potential risk when changing tanks; I actually prefer to do it when at least 3K AGL and five or more miles from the airport. Does not always work, especially on short flights. However, that is a general rule I try and follow.

Tim
Click to expand...
We are in agreement. Most fuel management wisdom talks about changing tanks on downwind, which isn't a bad practice. Switch to a tank you know has gas while you're at low altitude and low energy. But I won't do it because of the poor design of my fuel switch. Usually, if I have any question at all I change tanks at the top of the descent. Thankfully the Mooney sips gas, so it's yet to be an issue.
 
steingar said:
We are in agreement. Most fuel management wisdom talks about changing tanks on downwind, which isn't a bad practice. Switch to a tank you know has gas while you're at low altitude and low energy. But I won't do it because of the poor design of my fuel switch. Usually, if I have any question at all I change tanks at the top of the descent. Thankfully the Mooney sips gas, so it's yet to be an issue.
Click to expand...
Funny that you mention your airplane is a Mooney. The one thing I really dislike about the Mooneys I've flown is the placement of the fuel selector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top