Hello folks, this wasn't quite the way I imagined introducing myself to the forum. I've been a long time reader, but just joined up officially.

My name is Fred and I'm also a pilot, heck it's even what I do for work (air carrier)...so I have an opinion or two of my own when things go wrong with pilots and airplanes.

First off I don't know the pilot involved in this, nor do I know or work for the same company, nor have I ferried airplanes.
But I have been flying for over a decade, am a flight instructor, and have flown both North and South of the border of the US.

And, in my opinion this flight was most certainly on a flight plan (either Defense VFR [visual]or IFR [instrument])since he was planning on crossing 2 ADIZ's (Air Defense Identification Zone), the first when he left the lower 48 and the second approaching Hawaii...and it's one of those pesky rules the FAA has in place as part of securing the national airspace. The boys in sage jumpsuits that burn jet fuel in a most spectacular fashion will probably come up an look at you up close and personal and escort you to some airport where a friendly government representative will ask, "What's up?", if you're not.

Also it was probably an instrument flight plan, since when you look at that flight aware track he was at 6,000 ft for most of it, which means it was the appropriate altitude for a west bound aircraft on an instrument flight plan, as per FAR 91.179.

Looking at the company web site, they seem to deliver lots of aircraft all over the world...so I would give them the benefit of the doubt that they did in fact have all the proper permits regarding ferrying this aircraft.

Now it's easy to sit in a comfortable chair on the ground and arm chair quarterback the result, but if you don't have the appropriate experience it really doesn't result in much...kinda like 2 blind guys arguing about what the color blue looks like.

I put fourth that it is very difficult to know your exact position when out over the water with absolutely no reference points what so ever, course with GPS it does actually become easier as long as you know what it's actually telling you and can interpret that into usable information as regards to your position, where you're trying to go, how much time, and fuel required, while factoring in weather, winds, etc..

This wasn't some 1 hr flight around the pattern, or even a 2 hr cross country, but a true intercontinental style flight where he was airborne for 12 hrs and 38 min. Everyone knows how fast the weather can change in an hour, let alone half a day later.

So given that I believe this was an instrument flight plan, he would have been required to have enough fuel to get to his destination, plus 45 min if the weather was forecast to be better than a 2,000 ft cloud ceiling and 3 statute miles visibility within 1 hr prior and 1 hr after his flight planned eta. (Estimated Time of Arrival). If the weather was forecast to be below he'd need an alternate airport, in which case he'd need the fuel to get there as well, and then the 45 min reserve. FAR 91.167

So if you're burning 28 gal/hr, 14 per side as it's a twin engined airplane, 7 gal/side gives you 30 min, so 10.5 gal/side or 21 gal total is all he would have been legally required to land with if the weather was good. Not much after you've burned over 350 gallons to get across the Pacific, and it doesn't leave you much room to play with if the weather/winds change after you cross your calculated point of no return.

And, it would have all been legal...possibly not smart but legal.

So the flight plan probably looked good, otherwise the FAA wouldn't have signed off on it (ferry permit), the Flight Service Station briefer (folks who file the flight plan for you) would probably have questioned the pilot if he'd said he wanted to fly for 12+ hrs but didn't have the fuel,or if the company had a dispatcher they wouldn't have signed off on it, and I don't know any old pilots who try and cross an ocean on a wing and a prayer, hoping for the best.

All that said, he obviously came up short and we won't know the reason until after an investigation by the experts...everything else is just speculation and depending on the tone throwing dirt.




Another point, which might be best discussed in it's own thread.

Why have some people become so obsessed with trying to recoup the cost of a rescue effort, I mean the folks at the Coast Guard are working and training anyway so it's not like that expense doesn't already exist, or go way up just because it's for real instead of training.

When you press that button on your PLB, should you be thinking about how much it's going to cost, or how about when you call the fire department, police, where does it begin/end?

Haven't we decided as a society that it's beneficial to all of us to have these services available to everyone, no matter if you could never afford to pay for it on your own?



So after all that, hope you guys don't think to badly of me.