Plane lands on I-95 in Florida (N95KC)

[traumamed]

I read both pilots refused to give statements on the scene.

Not a bad move in most cases from a liability standpoint.

Not going to mean squat in this case if the defining event remains fuel starvation, as is being reported on ASN (with their source listed as NTSB preliminary data). My crystal ball is showing a CFI out of a job, a perturbed flight school insurer, and two 709 rides forthcoming.

 

[WDD]

Either way, safety pilot is the most likely to be found at fault if this was a fuel exhaustion situation, or something else caused by mismanagement of aircraft systems.

I'd swing the other way. Safety pilot is there to look at the window, essentially providing the see and avoid of a VFR flight while left seat guy can't see for VFR. The left seat guy is still the PIC responsible not only for flying but everything else plane related.

And then I seem to recall that they usually go after the more senior pilot, although I can't say if that is more fact or fiction.

 

[Turbo-Arrow-Driver]

Oh no! Not being put on blast by a Youtuber!

Agree. Very little original content in JB's initial video on this. With one exception...mebee.

JB says "fuel starvation" is different than "fuel exhaustion" and the NTSB is saying this is "starvation". The difference being that with starvation, there is in fact fuel available, but the pilot(s) didn't make use of it. Don't know if JB is correct here -- anyone?

Let's say he's correct, and this is starvation, not exhaustion. I don't see tip tanks on the Baron in the video. This is my guess here, but it seems like the only way to do "starvation" is to select both engines on the same tank (e.g.#1 on left tank, #2 on crossfeed) which goes dry, while there's still fuel available in the other tank, and you don't try switching to the other tank. Doesn't seem likely to me, but who knows?

Again, this is all based on JB's delineation between "exhaustion" and "starvation"...it it's really exhaustion then the above reasoning is junk.

 

[traumamed]

JB says "fuel starvation" is different than "fuel exhaustion" and the NTSB is saying this is "starvation". The difference being that with starvation, there is in fact fuel available, but the pilot(s) didn't make use of it. Don't know if JB is correct here -- anyone?

Yes, your understanding of exhaustion vs starvation is correct. And yes, the preliminary NTSB data is saying starvation.

The NTSB prelim also says purpose of flight was "instructional," so this probably wasn't a time-building venture for two pilots using the simulated instrument/safety pilot loophole.

 

[bonefishpete]

Yes, your understanding of exhaustion vs starvation is correct. And yes, the preliminary NTSB data is saying starvation.

NTSB report stated They did not travel to the scene? They are out of Orlando?
Mix up of words I think.
The NTSB prelim also says purpose of flight was "instructional," so this probably wasn't a time-building venture for two pilots using the simulated instrument/safety pilot loophole.

 

[bonefishpete]

Yes, your understanding of exhaustion vs starvation is correct. And yes, the preliminary NTSB data is saying starvation.

The NTSB prelim also says purpose of flight was "instructional," so this probably wasn't a time-building venture for two pilots using the simulated instrument/safety pilot loophole.

NTSB report said they did not travel to the scene page 2. Mix up of words I think.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Good question. Worth expanding the thought process a bit.
In order for both of them to log time, the safety pilot has to agree to be acting PIC, either for the entire flight or (more likely) for the duration of the simulated instrument portion of the flight. That way he logs the time while the flying pilot logs at the controls PIC time for the duration of the simulated IMC portion of the flight.

Not so - If the PF is also acting as PIC, the safety pilot can still log it as SIC under 61.51(f)(2).

Well, it's better than Dan Gryder making some outlandish conspiracy theory about why the crash happened...

... and then visiting the scene and stealing evidence, and then going flying in the same type so he can crash it himself to figure out the true cause.

What if both pilots say, "the other guy was PIC!"

FAA probably fries 'em both.

 

[flyingron]

Legally, it's a matter for the courts. They'll both be sued.
As far as the FAA enforcement goes, they'll harm whomever they can hurt more and in the most painful way.

 

[Daleandee]

Well, it's better than Dan Gryder making some outlandish conspiracy theory about why the crash happened...

Isn't he the "it was suicide" guy?

 

[Dana]

The difference being that with starvation, there is in fact fuel available, but the pilot(s) didn't make use of it.

Fuel starvation is the engine not getting fuel for any reason, could be pilot error or mechanical failure (mechanical failure is unlikely to kill both engines in a twin, though). But fuel exhaustion will cause fuel starvation...

 

[flyingron]

Fuel starvation is the engine not getting fuel for any reason, could be pilot error or mechanical failure (mechanical failure is unlikely to kill both engines in a twin, though). But fuel exhaustion will cause fuel starvation...

Especially on the Baron 55. If I'm remembering properly, each engine has only main and aux (or two) on each side. The crossfeed is only used in emergencies and it draws from opposite the fuel selector on the other side. I suspect another possibility is both sides were fueled with bad fuel (like a quantity of Jet A that would reduce the octane down to a dangerous level), but that doesn't seem to fit with the observations.