Chuck,
Some of my colleauges in Aviation seem to be all upset because someone was prosecuted for crashing into a house because he ran out of fuel.
If he had been low flying over the houses in that area... I mean low flying like ten feet above them but not hitting them, and there was irrefutable proof that this happened, should he be prosecuted?
I can't comment for other posters, only on my own feelings. I also can't comment on this particular case because, as I said in my earlier post, I feel that there is some vital fact which I'm not in possession of. But in general, there is a key difference between running out of fuel, and low-flying - and that is intent.
I can't concieve of a situation where anyone would be low-flying un-intentionally. It's something which pilots make a conscious decision to do, and they deserve to pay the price for it, IMHO. Having done it once and got away with it, what's to stop a pilot from doing it again, other than fear of prosecution?
On the other hand, no one ever intends to run out of fuel - if you do run out of fuel, it has to be an accident, a mistake. People learn from mistakes, and hopefully don't make the same mistake again. Whatever the cause (or, more likely, causes) of the mistake - whether it be an error in converting between units, or failure to check the accuracy of fuel logs, or failure to dip or visually check a tank's level, or over-relliance on a fuel-guage, it was never the pilots intention to run out of fuel, and you can be pretty sure that next time he will take whatever steps would have avoided the mistake the previous time.
Like I said, just my opinion, and not in any way related to any specific case.
FFF
------------------