Firstly David, your comments are cheap and out of line, between you and Arben I have plenty to hand to show the court of your slander and blackmail.
Libel or slander? Do you understand the difference? Who is blackmailing you by posting on a public web board? You throw out these bald accusations, without any semblance of hair to cover them. Where is your evidence?
Firstly the Seneca V is a single crew aircraft, its MTOW is under 12,500LBS.
You're about to beat your chest and tell us that you're a flight instructor (only rated for single engine airplanes, mind you), but your statement here is nonsensical. What does being under 12,500 lbs. have to do with the number of crewmembers required, or used? (hint: it has nothing to do with the number of crewmembers used, or required).
Your comments remind me of an individual I met several years ago who crashed an airplane while applying for a job. He later told me that the crash didn't count, because he hadn't been hired yet. In this case, you're asserting that you weren't the pilot in command, but you're quick to tell us about your flight instructing credentials (though you're unqualified to instruct in the aircraft in question).
As you insist it's a single pilot airplane, and as you're clearly unqualified to instruct, and as you're insistent that you were never a part of the crew, just what were you doing there that required you to be rescued after your crash?
As a FAA CFI let me "teach you a little about the FAR AIM" :
Well, Mr. Single-Engine-CFI, perhaps someone needs to teach you about accidents and incidents.
First of all, the regulation to which you refer is not the "FAR AIM," which is a commercial reprint of certain portions of the Aeronautical Information Manual and certain of the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulation to which you point, which clearly isn't something with which you're familiar, is Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 830. You appear to be attempting to use the definitions found in 49 CFR 830.2 to say you weren't involved in an aircraft accident, which is not the case.
49 CFR 830.2 defines "aircraft accident" as:
"Aircraft accident" means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of "aircraft accident" includes "unmanned aircraft accident," as defined herein.
49 CFR 830.2 defines substantial damage as:
"Substantial damage" means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered "substantial damage" for the purpose of this part.
Whereas the aircraft in question received substantial damage to engines, propellers, and landing gear at a minimum, the definition of substantial damage is met. Damage affecting the structural strength and flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which does indeed require major repair or replacement of the affected components, occurred. Whether an engine failure, to which you allude, occurred or not is irrelevant, as damage upon "landing" was substantial, and has met the definition.
Skate as you will out of it, you were involved in an aircraft accident. Did no one explain how this works to you when you obtained your flight instructor certificate?
49 CFR 830.2 defines "incident" as
"Incident" means an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations. What you experienced doesn't qualify. You were involved in an aircraft accident. You understand this, correct?
So on the basis above, No FAA OR NTSB contact requesting a report, no injury to those on the aircraft or damage to other persons or property on the ground over $25,000. (this "excludes" the aircraft")
You're asserting that you weren't required to make NTSB notification, based on your poor understanding of the regulation, then? Let's look at the regulation (you can find it in your "FAR AIM"):
49 CFR 830.5(a):
§ 830.5 Immediate notification.
The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office1 when:
(a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed serious incidents occur:
You were involved in an accident, as we've shown, and this requires immediate notification of the NTSB. You don't need to look at the list of serious incidents, though you attempted to excuse yourself or your flight, by doing so. Your event was not an incident, but an accident, as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations. Does your "FAR AIM" not tell you this? Are you not a Flight Instructor?
Reason for landing might have something to do with a thrown cylinder and stronger then enroute forecast winds.
It *might* have something to do with a "thrown cylinder?" It wasn't simply piss poor planning and simple fuel exhaustion? Say it together, class: you ran out of gas.
Are you an A&P mechanic? Did you open the cowlings and investigate the alleged "thrown cylinder?" Did anyone? Have you any basis, other than your insinuation here, for this claim? It *might* have had something to do with flying saucers beaming out your remaining fuel, too, or perhaps you were simply shot down? No, what it *might* have had to do with is irrelevant, isn't it? You ran out of fuel. A "professional" ferry pilot that runs out of fuel? Curious, isn't it?
I would finally like to add that I was not a crew member or PIC on that Seneca V, and any one who states otherwise risks a court hearing.
What were you doing on board, then? Is that question too risky for you?
Certainly you couldn't have been the pilot in command, especially if the flight was operated under IFR, because despite your prior claims elsewhere to have taken your multi-engine instrument checkride with the FAA at Daytona Beach, your current FAA records indicate that you are a VFR-only multi engine pilot. You lack the instructor qualifications to teach in the airplane.
You're quick to beat your chest as an instructor, so tell me Mr. Instructor, what on earth put you in that airplane in the first place, and why did you let someone run out of fuel?
From the report translation previously posted herein:
Cl. 1603 motor in N344SE stopped because of fuel shortages, so the commander called
MAYDAY.
Where's the "thrown cylinder" in there, again?
Stop making excuses, and come clean. Catharsis is good for your soul.
It should be really good in court, too.
Anyone care to answer?
Mutt
Mutt, you trouble-maker. Stop asking questions that require intelligence and common sense to answer. However, why not tackle them, one at a time?
*
Why didnt the AIB find evidence of a blown cylinder?
Perhaps because there wasn't any to find, the issue wasn't raised, and it's a *might* suggestion by hgfcpilot, rather than a rational explanation of something that really occurred. After all, it was reported by the PIC as fuel exhaustion, not a mechanical failure.
*
Why didnt a light weight Seneca manage to maintain level flight on one engine?
Very curious, indeed, as the Seneca is one of the best performing light piston twins on one engine, on the market. It has one of the best single engine service ceilings, too. Of course, when it's out of fuel, that doesn't matter much.
*
Did the ferry permit allow the carriage of passengers?
Perhaps hgcf pilot (the guy with the CFI) can answer that, as the "passenger" who was aboard to train some else to ferry airplanes.
*
Did the insurance require two crew?
From a regulatory point of view, an insurance requirement doesn't make it a two-crew aircraft, but it does raise the interesting question, once again, of what hgfcpilot was doing there.
*
Did the insurance permit the carriage of passengers?
Same question, again. Seems to come up a lot, doesn't it?
*
What was the planned alternate?
Whatever it was, the piss-poor fuel planning doesn't really seemed to have accounted for that eventuality, let alone the possibility of multiple approaches being necessary. Not too surprising for a VFR pilot, but very unwise over the North Atlantic.
*
FAR 91.703 What action was taken to ensure compliance with the local regulations pertaining to the reporting of accidents/incidents?
Good question. Perhaps the non-PIC Flight Instructor unqualified passenger hgfcpilot can answer that question.
*
What sort of pilot allows himself to sit in the right seat of an aircraft and doesn't calculate fuel requirement to destination?
Doesn't seem very bright, does it?