Navajo lands on the street in yyc

[CanadianBird]

It has been some years now since I flew a 31, but I do have a fair amount of time on them...

So....lets clear this up.

The POHs are quite clear on when to switch to inboards.
The Capt, or other pilots should have seen the error in the SOPs and brought that to the attention of management...A perfect example of using SMS.

All the pilots, if they were properly trained would immediately have seen that omission.

So who wrote the SOPs, and said they were “training” SOPs. The sense I get is they were written by someone who really had no idea of what SOPs are and no familiarity with the Navajo. Which reflects very badly on management. And who trained both the Captain and the FO?
In any event that does not resolve the Captain for fuel mismanagement. They should have shown at least enough initative to read the POH...
It is not a difficult aircraft to manage the fuel.

In my career I have seen so many pilots flying these delightful little planes that have no clue how the systems work or what to do when something goes wrong. In this case what should have been a rather benign oopsie, and a simple switching to the inboards when an engine started surging,

I fly a Mooney, with retractable gear. First thing we did in circuits is go through GUMPS. G is for GAS or Fuel... as in, make sure you have it set to the proper/correct tank, which is the fuller one. Can't believe this was missed on a SOP. I still call pilot complacency / error.

[pelmet]

One thing for sure they won't run out of fuel again, assuming they did in fact run out of fuel.

Running out of fuel is called fuel exhaustion. Ie no more fuel on board. This was a case of fuel mismanagement ie. plentyof fuel but none of it going to the engines. I guess it wasssumed by the pilots when the engines quit(or at least the first one) that it was a failure due to a fault with the engine and handled that way.

[goingnowherefast]

Yeah, they're not making that mistake again. I've blown a tank in a Navajo too, but I was well aware that the tank was near empty, and wasn't surprised by it. I also resolved the issue by switching to a tank with lots of gas in it.

[trey kule]

Thank you ifly for your articulate and well reasoned answer.

Despite your so what attitude, I had a reason for asking. I wasnt looking for names.
As part of a training course, it is sometimes good to have examples of consequences for actions of pilots that have found themselves in these circumstances. It also may be an example to be used for proper training, cockpit resource management, and a couple other things. I believe there are a lot of lessons to take away from this accident/incident.

New pilots tend to treat these instances as learning lessons, and believe there are no consequences. Management of companies never seem to relate to what appears to be serious management failures here. Maybe there were no consequences to the crew or company .

Unfortunately, I cannot talk to the crew and get their perspective post crash. Might have given some great insight for others.

But the answers to the question help fill a database as best as can be done without input from the crew.

Again thank you for your post. Now if any of the grown ups here can answer the question, it would be appreciated. Feel free to PM.

[iflyforpie]

New pilots tend to treat these instances as learning lessons, and believe there are no consequences. Management of companies never seem to relate to what appears to be serious management failures here. Maybe there were no consequences to the crew or company .

Yeah... I think my response was appropriate for that level of thinking. And considering most of your posts have a sardonic tone as well... I’ll let it stand.

[trey kule]

Sardonic. How unfair a characterization....though I will give it to you that it is a pretty impressive word for a 14 year old to use

Just in case you missed the , That was intended to be humorous.

Us old sardonics do have sense of humour.