Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

What was he thinking?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

HerrJeremy

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2003
Posts
62
Is it just me, or is this about as stupid as one can get? What ever happened to wind/groundspeed/fuel calculations.....and time distance checks. This seems to have been completly unavoidable to me....

SAN FRANCISCO - A pilot on a solo flight from Hawaii to California died Friday when his small airplane plunged into the Pacific Ocean during an emergency water landing attempt, the U.S. Coast Guard said.

Three Air Force parajumpers attempted a rescue in chilly waters about 300 miles off the coast of Monterey, but found the body of Kelvin Stark of New Zealand in the submerged cockpit of his overturned plane, said Veronica Bandrowsky, a Coast Guard spokeswoman.

Stark had attempted a water landing Friday morning after reporting that he didn't have enough fuel to make land, Coast Guard Lt. Geoff Borree said. An airborne Coast Guard crew that coached him through the landing via radio watched and waited to drop him a raft, Borree said.

After Stark didn't emerge, the Coast Guard called in the parajumpers, an Air Force plane and a commercial vessel that was the closest ship around to assist in a deep sea rescue. The jumpers arrived about three hours later.

Because of rough sea conditions, the rescue team wasn't able to recover Stark's body, Bandrowsky said.

Borree, who was part of the seven-member rescue team, said it was unclear whether Stark was knocked unconscious on impact or became trapped in the plane.

Stark was delivering the single-engine PAC 750XL aircraft to a company that converts planes for skydiving.

The National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration will investigate the accident.
 
winds are forecast, not calculated with mathematical precision
this guy may have just been a victim of an unforseen wind shift or changing velocity
charma is a bItch, buddy
 
This seems to have been completly unavoidable to me....

Looks like it was completely unavoidable to him too.... :p :D :D

Poor guy, too bad really :(
 
Last edited:
He probably did. But so long as you spend your career flying inside a tiny performance box doing nice, safe operations in a clean white shirt, you don't really have a leg to stand on to talk about it, do you?
 
I read another article on this crash that said there was fuel on board. The problem was a malfunctioning fuel transfer pump. If I find the article Iwill post it later.
 
But so long as you spend your career flying inside a tiny performance box doing nice, safe operations in a clean white shirt, you don't really have a leg to stand on to talk about it, do you?

Perhaps not, if undertaking the same types of operation is a prerequisite to having any valuable insights.

Aside from that, I have to observe that a great many operations take place outside that box, and the majority of pilots still live to tell about it. I'd like to think that you or I would have planned a fuel level check at a point of no return, made plans to ditch with survival equipment, or taken any number of additional measures to mitigate the risks.

I see a great value to society in risking one's life to fight fires, whether it be at home with my volunteer department or in an airplane as you do, where the dangers are even greater. I have to question the stability of someone who sees this ferry job for a conversion to be of such great importance that his life could be at stake if things went bad.

I don't think I have to walk a mile in those shoes to call that flight into question.
 
Light aircraft are ferried transatlantically or transpacifically every week. There is no shame nor dishonor in doing so. It's an honorable job.

Few have looked back on Lindbergh and accused him of stupidity, or called his flight into question. Today we have a much greater understanding of ferry work, transoceanic flight, etc, not to mention far superior navigational capabilities, better fuel systems, more reliable engines, and so forth.

Flying fires is far from the only working endevor I undertake in an airplane. I'm familiar with the mentality; those who haven't been there are quick to judge. They're usually the same who will never go there or fly outside that little box.

Ferry work involves flight over long distances using auxilliary tanks installed in the fuselage, baggage spaces, etc. This fuel must typically be transfered from cell to cell. The inability to transfer this fuel doesn't represent poor planning; it represents a malfunction while underway. Certain such malfunctions may represent dangers which may affect the outcome of the flight. Weather that played a part here or not is not clear. What is clear is that this individual was unable to complete the flight.

Perhaps it would be prudent to hold the accustions until one knows what happened. Don't you think?
 
avbug said:
Light aircraft are ferried transatlantically or transpacifically every week. There is no shame nor dishonor in doing so. It's an honorable job.

Few have looked back on Lindbergh and accused him of stupidity, or called his flight into question. Today we have a much greater understanding of ferry work, transoceanic flight, etc, not to mention far superior navigational capabilities, better fuel systems, more reliable engines, and so forth.

Flying fires is far from the only working endevor I undertake in an airplane. I'm familiar with the mentality; those who haven't been there are quick to judge. They're usually the same who will never go there or fly outside that little box.

Ferry work involves flight over long distances using auxilliary tanks installed in the fuselage, baggage spaces, etc. This fuel must typically be transfered from cell to cell. The inability to transfer this fuel doesn't represent poor planning; it represents a malfunction while underway. Certain such malfunctions may represent dangers which may affect the outcome of the flight. Weather that played a part here or not is not clear. What is clear is that this individual was unable to complete the flight.

Perhaps it would be prudent to hold the accustions until one knows what happened. Don't you think?

It was not an accusation I made, it was a reply to Vald's illogical ‘hypothetical’ post.
 
I see what you mean. A fuel transfer pump gone bad is difficult to forsee. I have to admit, though, when considering covering that kind of distance over the pacific, I'd look very strongly at the idea of having a manual means of fuel transfer, like a hand pump. I admit it, I don't know enough about the airplane or the position or accessibility of the tanks to make a truly "sound" judgement about that.

I know ferry flights happen every day, but I have to wonder if enough of the variables were taken into account to raise the pilot's actions to "due dilligence". The report mentions chilly, rough seas. If a ditching became imperative, had the pilot taken this set of conditions into account? Certainly, there are more questions than answers at this point.

That said, what little evidence we have right now does not sound encouraging in terms of planning. A pilot takes off on a long flight over cold, angry water, relying on a transfer pump and one engine to keep him out of trouble? You're right, that does sound like Lindberg, who flew at a time of little or no rules and sparse experience.

Hopefully, we have learned something about inflight failures since Lindy crossed the big pond.
 
Last edited:
It is always sad to read about the loss of a human life, more sad when you see that it was a fellow aviator. The risks are always calculated on these types of trips which occur every week, most make it and we never hear about those "successful" flights. I would say that this pilot probably knew what he was doing and had make the trip (or similar ones) many times before without incident. Some failures are beyond the control of the pilot. I would not monday morning qb this guy since all facts have not been released nor would I dare to compare this to a flight that happened many many years ago under completely different circumstances.

Perhaps it would be prudent to hold the accustions until one knows what happened. Don't you think?


exactly, easier said than done though for many.

3 5 0
 
fLYbUDDY said:
It was not an accusation I made, it was a reply to Vald's illogical ‘hypothetical’ post.

whiskey tango foxtrot, over

illogical? what was illogical about what I posted? he looked at the forecasts, hoped for the worst, expected the worst and maybe got the worst, after calculating the living hell out of his proposed route...and died as a result of weather, varying over the distance of about 2000 miles... this is weather, not physical equations, especially over an area of 4000000 square miles

do you take off every day, fully expecting to land in an orderly fashion just because you've calculated the **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** out of everything?

maybe the Columbia should've never taken off too, because there were too many unforseen variables?

oh, and before you spout off about god, and believing and asking for his help, or some other religious nonsense....
well, nevermind, you will anyway, as all the other flightinfo bible thumpers
 
Vladimir Lenin said:
whiskey tango foxtrot, over

illogical? what was illogical about what I posted? he looked at the forecasts, hoped for the worst, expected the worst and maybe got the worst, after calculating the living hell out of his proposed route...and died as a result of weather, varying over the distance of about 2000 miles... this is weather, not physical equations, especially over an area of 4000000 square miles

The illogic was in how you said he could have just been the victim of "an unforeseen wind shift". Lack of factoring certain margins of eras in planning is not the same thing as being the victim of uncontrollable circumstances as you implied. And that is beside the point since it has not yet been mentioned what the 'cause' was.
 
fLYbUDDY said:
The illogic was in how you said he could have just been the victim of "an unforeseen wind shift".

yes, winds shift, even when they were forecast not to...

I am surprised god hasn't been brought up yet

oh, well, the flame fest is just starting, keeping my fingers and other extremeties crossed :D
 

Latest resources

Back
Top