Maybe the 310 pilot did?

All well and good, and I'm sure it's a nifty gadget. But does it include upper wind (actual fligth level wind) in the ground speed/fuel consumption/range calculations? I doubt it - but I would be very happy if you could prove me wrong.

The info you questioned is readily available online at http://www.xmwxweather.com/aviation/.

snip unsnip

As for whether it includes weather in its "ground speed/fuel consumption/range calculations", I doubt it. Some things like fuel consumption are aircraft specific so I would not expect a portable unit to do that. Some things are easily computed though if you have the input. This nifty gadget can get you those numbers without having to use fuel to find out for yourself.

I want one of them suckers.

There is a gap between what information that is "readily available online" and what pilots, commanders, soldiers and (naval/land/air) officers actually are able to relate to. More often than not this gap hinders the flow of information from the services to the people that actually need that information.

Realizing why this gap exist can be rather hard when you have a comfortable desk job with all the time in the world to research new services (like I do). Fortunately I meet regulary a bunch of personell that tells me their point of view in rather blunt and unofficial terms.

It's not about being to lazy or incompentent to check information "readily available", but it has A LOT to do with having to perform the job you're supposed to be doing, which leaves little or no time to fiddle around with "new and promising" web services, punch numbers manually or scrutinize obscure map plots.

I'll look into this nice and nifty device. I'm sure it's a step in the right direction. I also don't think it goes far enough in that direction.

Yes, fuel consumption, air speed and so on is airplane specific. But unless you fusion that specific information with forecast wind at the level you'll be flying there is still a gap between the raw information (upper level wind) and the answer needed (how far can I fly/how much fuel do I need today?).

In the end it's just another tool to help the pilot keep flying. It won't fly the plane or make important decisions; it can only provide information in a useful format so a pilot can make a (hopefully) better informed decision.

What we have here is the preliminary data.

http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/preliminary_data/media/F_1011_N.txt

What we don't have is an initial or final report fom the accident investigators. Initially, it appears to be an error in estimating fuel requirments. But, initial assumptions are often wrong.

If you look at the flight-aware track, what possibly could have killed his estimate was his (unplanned?) climb from 6,000 ft up to 11,000 ft. Your aircraft will burn the most fuel during takeoff and climb. In most aircraft, your climb speed is typically less than your cruising speed. Granted, fuel burn is less once you get to the higher altitude with a normally-aspirated engine, but so was his airspeed/ground-speed. I imagine winds aloft would have been somewhat higher at 11,000 ft too. I somehow doubt he planned for either of those when flight planning.

As to why he climbed, only he (and the controllers he might have been talking to) can say - maybe it was weather or just "Maybe I can conserve more fuel up here". The chosen altitude would have been incorrect for his direction of flight (even-thousand heading 180-359, odd-thousand 360(0)-179 degrees), which makes it more mysterious.

Spinnr -- Can you post the link to the flight-aware track?

Doggone! Dang perceptive of you, HTMLSpinner. I'da missed the "Odd People Fly East" thing relative to his 11,000-ft alt.

Well, if he's gonna be at wrong alt, mebbe when he got up there he did not lean out his engines...

Coulda been watchin' Oprah, y'know.