Factual NTSB Report from Ben's Crash

This should be a good lesson for everyone that any pilot is only a honest mistake away from having a bad day.
 
Boris Badenov said:
I don't have anything to add to MikeD's thoughts, spot on. I will say that I've run a 210 dry and it took ~15 seconds (guessing, hard to tell when you're pooping your pampers) to identify the problem, switch tanks, hit the boost pump, and get the engine back. When you're that close to the ground, you may not have 15 seconds, and if you do, you might be way too busy worrying about the impending forced landing to concentrate on getting the engine back.
Click to expand...
What I've learned in the process of running a few tanks dry myself at times is at the first sign of any roughness, SWITCH TANKS. Don't troubleshoot, don't ABC (Airspeed, Best place to land, Communicate, etc), just reach down and switch tanks and switch on the boost pump if you've got one. Every time it's happened to me it's come right back up. That said, I've never done it in a 200 series Cessna and rumor has it it's not quite as immediate a recovery as it is in a PA32 or PA31.

We had a couple new guys come through indoc in JNU way back when after I had been there several months and one day shooting the breeze while they were in training I asked them what the immediate action items were for engine roughness or failure, and they each spit out the ABC mnemonic, etc. It's a good CFI / student pilot / checkride answer, but it's not the right answer.
 
TallFlyer said:
What I've learned in the process of running a few tanks dry myself at times is at the first sign of any roughness, SWITCH TANKS. Don't troubleshoot, don't ABC (Airspeed, Best place to land, Communicate, etc), just reach down and switch tanks and switch on the boost pump if you've got one. Every time it's happened to me it's come right back up. That said, I've never done it in a 200 series Cessna and rumor has it it's not quite as immediate a recovery as it is in a PA32 or PA31.
Click to expand...

It's quick enough, from my experience in 100/200 series Cessnas. Still, as I mentioned before and others have since, including you; switching tanks is a fundamental reaction to engine loss of power.
 
scooter2525 said:
does suck

But is there a "smart" way to die?
Click to expand...


By "stupid" I meant "100% avoidable and preventable." His death could have been prevented by 3 mins of pre flight, instead he turned into another NTSC statistic. I just knew him from JC but he was a standup guy from what I could tell.
 
My heart goes out to Ben's family.

Seems to me as though the shop that did the annual made quite a few mistakes. These don't have any thing to do with the accident but they certainly were serious enough to cause an accident in the future. They installed the seats incorrectly and didn't safety wire the quick drain plug correctly. Both of these could have caused an accident in the future.

I was just surprised to see a qualified shop make such big mistakes. I never have liked flying a plane right after an annual even though i have never found anything serious when pre-flighting after an annual. But really, installing the seats backwards?? Maybe it's common for such mistakes but it seems odd to me.
 
USMCmech said:
The one lesson that I think we should all take a way is that on any given day any of us can make a simple small mistake that can have disastrous consequences. That doesn't mean that Ben wasn't a great pilot, or that he wasn't a safe professional in everything he did. It only means that he made a mistake. How many of us have done the exact same thing, but got away with it?

One common theme you will find is that accidents happen to two kinds of pilots. Inexperienced low timers get into situations over their head because they don't know any better, and pros with thousands of hours in their log book will get killed by some small error in procedure or judgment.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more. I've always tried to get it through my kids heads that making mistakes is normal for everyone. I'm 40 and still making mistakes. What people don't always think about is the consequences of those mistakes. It's the consequences that matter. I think we will all agree that there are mistakes that you just aren't allowed to make. This isn't in regard to Ben's accident just life in general. A mistake is a mistake but the results of that mistake is what you have to deal with.
 
Hello all,

I am new here and I am not a pilot, I am an Engineer by training but I am very interested in aviation. I would like to ask a question related to this topic and hope you would forgive me if the answer is obvious.

Given that GA aircraft are advancing in technology to the point where the accident plane had a sophisticated engine monitor, I am puzzled that a simple electronic fuel switch is not standard equipment on all GA craft. It isn't technically challenging or particularly expensive to install a solenoid-controlled tank switch to alleviate the need to manually switch tanks. At the very least, an alarm should go off when you are a few gallons away from exhausting the fuel in a tank. It seems to me from the previous posts that it is common to run a tank dry and have to scramble to switch tanks.

Any responses are appreciated.

Sam.
 
pullup said:
By "stupid" I meant "100% avoidable and preventable." His death could have been prevented by 3 mins of pre flight, instead he turned into another NTSC statistic. I just knew him from JC but he was a standup guy from what I could tell.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. I see your point, but it's incorrect since the failure to check the tanks isn't what did him in. Remember, Ben DID NOT run the airplane out of fuel, he ran one tank out of fuel. There was still 10 gallons minimum remaining in the other tank, had he switched fuel tanks when the engine first lost power.

Had Ben ran the entire airplane out of fuel, then I'd agree with your assessment; and while both contributory as well something that could've had future negative ramifications, it wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back in this accident. In this one, was the failure to switch tanks, which appears from one account to have not been ingrained habit.
 
Aviation Fan said:
Given that GA aircraft are advancing in technology to the point where the accident plane had a sophisticated engine monitor, I am puzzled that a simple electronic fuel switch is not standard equipment on all GA craft. It isn't technically challenging or particularly expensive to install a solenoid-controlled tank switch to alleviate the need to manually switch tanks. At the very least, an alarm should go off when you are a few gallons away from exhausting the fuel in a tank. It seems to me from the previous posts that it is common to run a tank dry and have to scramble to switch tanks.

Any responses are appreciated.

Sam.
Click to expand...

Only issue I have is the severe automation of things. We're not talking a B-36 where you are managing 8 or more fuel tanks, the fuel balancing therein for feed and CG purposes, and and managing 8 recip engines and 4 jet engines; with a dedicated FE to do so.

We're talking a single engine GA airplane with two fuel tanks. Why make things more difficult than they need to be, and make the pilot have to do less piloting? It's not difficult to manage fuel in this case, or shouldn't be if you're prioritizing correctly. And with automatic systems, what's to say they won't malfunction in some way or form?

No need to cure the headache by cutting off the head, in my opinion.

While it's not common to run a tank dry, people have. But usually the reason for the sudden power loss is usuall more than obvious, and one of the most common and logical first steps.....switching tanks.....normally alleviates it quickly.

I still wonder about the toxicology; even though no one here seems to want to touch those findings with a ten-foot pole.
 
MikeD said:
I still wonder about the toxicology; even though no one here seems to want to touch those findings with a ten-foot pole.
Click to expand...

It's one of the most striking things that stuck out to me. I know I turn into a space cadet when I take certain cold medications, and I can see why the FAA doesn't want you take these medications and flying.

See: The FAA's recent 72 hour span between Nyquil and flying.
 
MikeD said:
Incorrect. I see your point, but it's incorrect since the failure to check the tanks isn't what did him in. Remember, Ben DID NOT run the airplane out of fuel, he ran one tank out of fuel. There was still 10 gallons minimum remaining in the other tank, had he switched fuel tanks when the engine first lost power.

Had Ben ran the entire airplane out of fuel, then I'd agree with your assessment; and while both contributory as well something that could've had future negative ramifications, it wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back in this accident. In this one, was the failure to switch tanks, which appears from one account to have not been ingrained habit.
Click to expand...



Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.
 
jtrain609 said:
It's one of the most striking things that stuck out to me. I know I turn into a space cadet when I take certain cold medications, and I can see why the FAA doesn't want you take these medications and flying.

See: The FAA's recent 72 hour span between Nyquil and flying.
Click to expand...

My wife looked at those drugs and said they were what's in Dayquil or Tylenol Cold and Flu AM. Those drugs don't typically make me loopy, but it may affect others differently.

Again most of us have flown when a little bit sick and were not presented with an emergency situation to deal with.
 
Aviation Fan said:
Hello all,

I am new here and I am not a pilot, I am an Engineer by training but I am very interested in aviation. I would like to ask a question related to this topic and hope you would forgive me if the answer is obvious.

Given that GA aircraft are advancing in technology to the point where the accident plane had a sophisticated engine monitor, I am puzzled that a simple electronic fuel switch is not standard equipment on all GA craft. It isn't technically challenging or particularly expensive to install a solenoid-controlled tank switch to alleviate the need to manually switch tanks. At the very least, an alarm should go off when you are a few gallons away from exhausting the fuel in a tank. It seems to me from the previous posts that it is common to run a tank dry and have to scramble to switch tanks.

Any responses are appreciated.

Sam.
Click to expand...

Actually, pretty common in newer piston singles that I have flown (206, newer 182's.). The cost of retrofitting and certifying with STC's in older airframes makes it unlikely to happen elsewhere.
 
Diphenhydramine makes me very, very tired. I won't take it and drive my car, let alone get anywhere near an airplane. Everyone reacts different to medications, but fatigue and delayed reactions are very common side effects.
 
Aviation Fan said:
Hello all,

I am new here and I am not a pilot, I am an Engineer by training but I am very interested in aviation. I would like to ask a question related to this topic and hope you would forgive me if the answer is obvious.

Given that GA aircraft are advancing in technology to the point where the accident plane had a sophisticated engine monitor, I am puzzled that a simple electronic fuel switch is not standard equipment on all GA craft. It isn't technically challenging or particularly expensive to install a solenoid-controlled tank switch to alleviate the need to manually switch tanks. At the very least, an alarm should go off when you are a few gallons away from exhausting the fuel in a tank. It seems to me from the previous posts that it is common to run a tank dry and have to scramble to switch tanks.

Any responses are appreciated.

Sam.
Click to expand...
Two things: simplicity is a good thing. Some kind of electronic fuel switch is just one more thing to break.

Second, FAA certification requirements would make designing and installing such a retrofit VERY cost prohibitive. You'd need a large market to make back your initial investment, and due to to reason number one I guarantee you there would not be a large market.
 
USMCmech said:
My wife looked at those drugs and said they were what's in Dayquil or Tylenol Cold and Flu AM. Those drugs don't typically make me loopy, but it may affect others differently.

Again most of us have flown when a little bit sick and were not presented with an emergency situation to deal with.
Click to expand...

Even normal ops can be affected by these drugs, as I cite in the USMC EA-6B crash on the Nimitz in '81.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Actually, pretty common in newer piston singles that I have flown (206, newer 182's.). The cost of retrofitting and certifying with STC's in older airframes makes it unlikely to happen elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I was actually referring mainly to new-production craft and from what you say, it seems that it is being done already.

I would think that a simple alarm hooked into the fuel gauge system wouldn't be that costly to retrofit but again, I'm not very familiar with what requires a full FAA cert, costs etc.

Sam
 
MikeD said:
Only issue I have is the severe automation of things. We're not talking a B-36 where you are managing 8 or more fuel tanks, the fuel balancing therein for feed and CG purposes, and and managing 8 recip engines and 4 jet engines; with a dedicated FE to do so.

We're talking a single engine GA airplane with two fuel tanks. Why make things more difficult than they need to be, and make the pilot have to do less piloting? It's not difficult to manage fuel in this case, or shouldn't be if you're prioritizing correctly. And with automatic systems, what's to say they won't malfunction in some way or form?

No need to cure the headache by cutting off the head, in my opinion.

While it's not common to run a tank dry, people have. But usually the reason for the sudden power loss is usuall more than obvious, and one of the most common and logical first steps.....switching tanks.....normally alleviates it quickly.

I still wonder about the toxicology; even though no one here seems to want to touch those findings with a ten-foot pole.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But don't you feel that some indication that you are running low on fuel would have been helpful in Ben's case? I feel that even an "idiot" light as in my car could have changed the outcome regardless of his medical situation.

Thanks,

Sam
 
Aviation Fan said:
Fair enough. But don't you feel that some indication that you are running low on fuel would have been helpful in Ben's case? I feel that even an "idiot" light as in my car could have changed the outcome regardless of his medical situation.

Thanks,

Sam
Click to expand...

Already is there. A fuel gauge, backed up by dipping the tanks and knowing exactly how much is in there.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the Tox results did have an effect on his performance, as right now, the levels present aren't known.

Remember, he didn't run the plane out of fuel. He ran one tank out of fuel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top