Idiot Pilot Runs Out of Gas - Lands Cessna on I-81 - WON'T BE CHARGED!!

On Apr 3, 2:45 pm, gatt > wrote:
> _ Prof. Jonez _ 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
> >> 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.
>

Oh yeah - that makes a lot of sense. So now crimes are prosecuted
only if they're commonplace.??? THINK

"richard" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.

The article mentions that a Cessna ran out of fuel within sight of a local
airport and made an emergency landing on I-81.

http://www.nbc4.com/news/15781391/detail.html

That's basically all the information you and I and anyone here has. And
you want to practically lynch the 'idiot' pilot.

Myself, I'd like a bit more information before i draw and quarter someone
for alleged and unproven crimes. Minor stuff like
'why did he run out of fuel within sight of an airport?':
'was the aircraft mechanically sound? running inexplicably rich? fuel
gauges working?';
'did he deviate from flight plan signifigantly? did he extend his flying
time beyond safe limits?';
'did he check the tanks visually before takeoff, or take someone's word as
to fuel quantity?';
'did he land along a large clear stretch of the interstate, or did he
squeeze into a pack of traffic?'

.... minor stuff. Y'know, facts.

Regardless of why (about which none here, including you truly have any
information beyond speculation and wild ass guesses) the pilot showed both
skill and good judgement in bringing his powerless aircraft down on the
highway without doing harm or damage instead of mumbling 'hail mary' up to
the moment of impact in a residential neighborhood (if you can speculate, so
can I).

IMHO, for a rookie doing his first solo, he handled an emergency rather
well, and deserves a pat on the back for bringing the aircraft down safely
with no damage or injury (remember that part of the story?).

If you wish, you can contact the proper authorities and demand that charges
be filed. If i understand correctly, YOU can file charges against the pilot
if you're so offended by this event. Go for it, crusader. I'll wait and
watch.

In article
>,
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" >
wrote:

> On Apr 3, 2:45 pm, gatt > wrote:
> > _ Prof. Jonez _ 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
> > >> 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.
> >
>
> 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."

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

"richard" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:48:40 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
> > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Larry > wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Apr 3, 12:05 pm, necromancer
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > 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?
>>> >
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> 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-
>
> 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.

"Larry" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Bo Raxo" > wrote:
>
>> "richard" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > 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.
>
> I suspect that its been years since Richard has made a post on Usenet
> that accurately states the law.


decades

> 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!!!

Pretty ****ing good pilot, IMO. His first solo flight, and has a
successful dead stick landing in traffic.

> 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?

Larry Bud wrote:
>> 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?
>


You do what you have to. The same as the pilot. Luckily, he didn't
smash a carload of kids.

What the **** is pointless about requiring people to act responsibly?


--
"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

necromancer wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:04:15 -0500, gringo > wrote:
>
>
>> But I suppose if an incompetent pilot crushes a few cars
>>
>
> Oh, give me a ****ing 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-da...ts.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
>

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?

--
"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