Terrible accident, 8 people on board, 4 died, one adult and 3 children survived. German regulations allow two children up to 10 years to occupy one seat so having 8 people on board of this airplane was apparently not the problem.
The official police statement says no fuel was found in the aircraft. This is a bit hard to believe because given how the fuel system of the Piper works, the pilot would have had to completely drain one tank (until the engine stutters) and then do the very same thing with the other tank. Who would do this?
Weather and the area were good for a forced landing but while having a high probability of succeeding, such landings don't always end up well. The preliminary statement says the pilot made the -- in hindsight -- wrong decision to try to make it to the airfield.
I'm not familiar with the Saratoga, but I guess with 8 POB he had to be very economical with the fuel. And yes, there are people who do exactly what you describe, Achim.
I wouldn't say running the first tank dry is a problem, or even a bad thing (http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182044-1.html)
As for the second tank... makes you wonder how some people manage to make the kind of money needed to run such a plane in the first place. My deepest sympathies for the families and the children who survived, breaks my heart to even think about this happening to my own daughter.
8 people with so many kids probably made no difference to fuel. No excuse for running out of fuel.
I wouldn't say running the first tank dry is a problem, or even a bad thing
I can imagine the reaction of my mother if I fly with her and the family and use that technique to switch fuel tanks. I think she would convince my wife to file for sole custody...
The word is that he took on 80 litres at Dortmund, and prior to that fill (at Dortmund) he had a calculated 30 litres in the tanks.
So 110 litres total.
Can the fuel level in a Saratoga be visually checked at the 30 or the 110 litre mark?
I can imagine the reaction of my mother if I fly with her and the family and use that technique to switch fuel tanks. I think she would convince my wife to file for sole custody...
Well I guess technical feasibility and passenger management are two different things ;) And as the article notes further down, doing this with turbos might require some extra care.
As the guy says - if it's announced to the passengers before it happens, commented on with a chuckle when it does and the tanks switched without fuss, I don't think it would cause much concern. Having said that, I've not yet run a tank dry either - on the excuse that I'm only flying chartered airplanes, and to gain the real benefit of the exercise (detailed knowledge of real fuel capacity e.g.) this only makes sense in a plane you fly all the time. As I've said somewhere else though - this is one of the things that I believe are better experienced on purpose (and mentally prepared) a couple of times, instead of having it happen in a bad moment unexpectedly, with never having gone through the moves before. So I'll probably try it out some day, maybe on a checkride with a FI along (if he agrees to go along with it).
Peter; While I have not flown the Saratoga, I have flown the normal tail Lance and on that machine once you came off full tanks, it was impossible to visually check fuel. They did have little fuel gauges on the wing but I never checked the accuracy of them. I usually flew her from a known fuel position, FULL. :-) If the Saratoga is similar then it would be tricky to gauge accurately unless you were the only pilot flying the machine and flying it properly. ie:- not forgetting to lean on one of the legs and so forth.
Most IFR tourers are not visually inspectable once below 50% - due to the wing dihedral versus the filler hole location.
However this guy's flight appears to have been in the "impossible" category even before he started.
