History repeats itself because nobody listens...

I enjoy how people read an article on a news website and immediately jump to "he ran out of gas". The NTSB disagrees:http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/ngdrlw55tbvcsy55afw2xhm41/C11172011120000.pdfAnd I'm wondering if someone can explain to me the relevance of the Fitzgerald? Different lake and different mode of transport. With regards to history repeating itself... Perhaps my history is failing me, but there hasn't been a major loss of a ship with all hands on the lakes since.

That report states what the pilot said to them-I see no reference to if the aircraft was checked out to verify (probably at the bottom of lake Huron and not worth the money to check out). Certainly flying a 150 over Lake Huron at night is not the best judgement and word on the street is running out of fuel was more likely. Perhaps the flight plan and the winds at the time (was it not a long xcross country for a 150?).I am sure he was coached by a lawyer that there are two things the faa can't verify-rough engine and carb ice..and stating either is preferable to bad judgement...

That report states what the pilot said to them-I see no reference to if the aircraft was checked out to verify (probably at the bottom of lake Huron and not worth the money to check out). Certainly flying a 150 over Lake Huron at night is not the best judgement and word on the street is running out of fuel was more likely. Perhaps the flight plan and the winds at the time (was it not a long xcross country for a 150?).I am sure he was coached by a lawyer that there are two things the faa can't verify-rough engine and carb ice..and stating either is preferable to bad judgement...

So you have information that the NTSB doesn't? The probable cause cited that weather was conducive to carb icing. Also, I'm sure he was coached by a lawyer (would be stupid NOT to consult one before talking to the NTSB or FAA), but unless there is evidence to the contrary, I'm interested in your accident investigation experience to be able to say he ran out of fuel, based on what the NTSB has said?While I seriously question the judgement of flying a 150 over that lake at 3000' (with only 140 hours TT), I will still give the benefit of the doubt to an accident pilot absent any tangible evidence (despite stupid pilot tricks). I only hope that if you should ever have an accident/incident, that the peanut gallery won't rush to imply that your lying and they know what happened based on a news report.

So you have information that the NTSB doesn't? The probable cause cited that weather was conducive to carb icing. Also, I'm sure he was coached by a lawyer (would be stupid NOT to consult one before talking to the NTSB or FAA), but unless there is evidence to the contrary, I'm interested in your accident investigation experience to be able to say he ran out of fuel, based on what the NTSB has said?While I seriously question the judgement of flying a 150 over that lake at 3000' (with only 140 hours TT), I will still give the benefit of the doubt to an accident pilot absent any tangible evidence (despite stupid pilot tricks). I only hope that if you should ever have an accident/incident, that the peanut gallery won't rush to imply that your lying and they know what happened based on a news report.

I haven't looked into that seriously but 140 hours, flying a 150 over a great lake at night at 3000', and a wildly optimistic flight plan kind of point the way. Surely with the credentials you have mentioned you have met or flown with this type?It was local news here-discussed and everyone I know came to the same conclusion.

I haven't looked into that seriously but 140 hours, flying a 150 over a great lake at night at 3000', and a wildly optimistic flight plan kind of point the way. Surely with the credentials you have mentioned you have met or flown with this type?It was local news here-discussed and everyone I know came to the same conclusion.

I haven't looked into that seriously but 140 hours, flying a 150 over a great lake at night at 3000', and a wildly optimistic flight plan kind of point the way. Surely with the credentials you have mentioned you have met or flown with this type?It was local news here-discussed and everyone I know came to the same conclusion.

According to that NTSB report, the light conditions at the time of the crash was day not night?

I haven't looked into that seriously but 140 hours, flying a 150 over a great lake at night at 3000', and a wildly optimistic flight plan kind of point the way. Surely with the credentials you have mentioned you have met or flown with this type?

I have flown that type a/c, though I don't remember what year model I flew (the accident aircraft was a 1966 model), I remember the max range was in the 350NM ballpark for planning purposes. Based on the report, his origin/destination length was 330NM (straight line). Doable, but very small margin for error.The flight planning/ran out of gas issue aside, I would have recommended (especially given TT and the narrow margin) would have been to skirt SW, land somewhere near BUF, top-off, then continue the segment across Canada (heading west to cross at the south tip of Lake Huron, near Sarnia). That way when you turn north, plenty of airports for fuel in case you need it, and you minimize your low-altitude over-water exposure time.I flown a Cutlass from KPVD out to Osh a couple times, with a stop at D95. Always built in a continue/no-continue decision point before Buffalo, on whether I had enough fuel to get through Canada without having to land. Most of the time, paying EXTREMELY close attention to fuel burn rates and playing the curves (as well as getting a lot of "direct to" from ATC) not a problem. One time there was a question I had that I might invade my IFR reserves if I needed to do any storm avoidance over Canada. OK, landed, topped off, continued.Still, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt absent any evidence, since he was there. I'm sure it was a valuable learning experience for the pilot.

There are several things in this report that are confusing or vague. My remeberance from the discussions soon after the incident was that he was heading to Oshkosh but trying to divert to Bad Axe due to low fuel.In any case-flying a 150 at 3000 ft. over a Great Lake regardless of the time is the 1st sign of bad judgement.<edit> his destination was Au Clair, Wisconsin.

I have a now humorous story to share which perhaps gives my perspective.There is a friend of mine who is known as being a scattered pilot. He wanted to fly to Chicago to pick up his son and his wife begged me to fly right seat with him (knowing his deficiencies). I finally agreed but told him I would only do it if we didn't fly over Lake Michigan and to file a southern no over water flight plan. I knew from making the trip countless times that Chicago likes to vector you over Lake Michigan at 3000 ft. and I didn't want to do it in a single.He agreed..we were to fly at 5pm.The next day at around 1pm I checked the weather-there was a huge line of t storms over Chicago. I called him and said what are your intentions? He said he checked the weather at 5 am and everything was great...I explained to him that he had better check it again as things had changed...we finally decided we would meet at 4:30 at the airport and make a decision then. Luckily the storms had dissipated and we made the decision to go. After takeoff-he pulled the mixture control a couple times instead of the prop causing the engine to quit, and told me he really didn't know how to work the gps and could I take care of it. When half way across Michigan-you guessed it-Chicago wanted to take us across the lake at 3000. I told him to refuse the clearance-he wouldn't and I madly said if I had known we were going to do this I would have brought survival/life vests etc. His face brightened and he said he did have a life raft. Relieved I asked where it was and how to get to it-he said-its back in the hangar! (I kid you not).I sat uncomfortably looking at the water for 30 minutes knowing if we had a problem we were probably gonners but knowing the stats are in our favor. We made it to Chicago-landed and while losing speed his cell phone rang. He stopped in the middle of the runway-and started talking to his wife-all while the tower was yelling at us to vacate the runway! I told him to get off the phone and the runway and he did stating "my wife picks the darned times to call". I mentioned to him he didn't have to answer the phone and that seemed to be a revelation...Needles to say it was an interesting flight-also on the way back, I haven't flown with him since-but he continues to fly succesfully proving the safety margins in flying...I would suspect the above accident has a similar individual...

He stopped in the middle of the runway-and started talking to his wife-all while the tower was yelling at us to vacate the runway!

And I'm wondering if someone can explain to me the relevance of the Fitzgerald? Different lake and different mode of transport. With regards to history repeating itself... Perhaps my history is failing me, but there hasn't been a major loss of a ship with all hands on the lakes since.

They have nothing to do with each other. I was just commenting that his plane fell victim to the Great Lakes like many other Planes and Boats. Their is a lot of history at the bottom of those lakes.Cheers

That he survived is a miracle. I would never fly a single at night over the Great Lakes, and though the article says carb ice the word is he simply ran out of gas. Luckily he ditched in Huron-Lake Michigan they say you have about 1/2 hour before hypothermia will do you in.

I'm so not up on my flying skils but what is the range of a 150 and I doubt it would make it that far? I mean isn't this basic math. You've got x amount of pounds, and you burn x per hour. Then you have headwind, etc etc... Was this guy a new private pilot?

I mean isn't this basic math. You've got x amount of pounds, and you burn x per hour.

That is the generally accepted flight planning methodology.

I'm so not up on my flying skils but what is the range of a 150 and I doubt it would make it that far? I mean isn't this basic math. You've got x amount of pounds, and you burn x per hour. Then you have headwind, etc etc... Was this guy a new private pilot?

With a distance of 311nm between Gouverneur, New York and Harbor Beach, Mich where he crashed and the C-150 having a range of 366nm, considering he was flying East to West, which means he probably had a headwind, I would say he was cutting it real close. Also the NTSB report is no longer online for some reason, they may be updating it!!

Also the NTSB report is no longer online for some reason, they may be updating it!!

Nope. Report is still available in the database. The link I posted is no longer valid.