Out of Fuel, Pilot Lands Small Plane in Pacific Ocean With Coaching From Coast Guard
- Posted on October 8, 2011 at 2:32pm by
Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
- Email »
HILO, Hawaii (The Blaze/AP) — A small plane ran out of fuel and ditched in the Pacific Ocean off Hawaii, but the pilot was rapidly rescued by Coast Guard crews who had flown alongside and coached him on crash landing in the choppy seas.
The 65-year-old man, who was not seriously injured, was flying solo from Monterrey, Calif., when he radioed authorities Friday afternoon that he was running low on fuel about 500 miles from his destination of Hilo, Hawaii, the Coast Guard said.
The Guard sent a plane to rendezvous with the two-engine Cessna and dispatched a ship and helicopter to be ready for a possible rescue, spokesman Lt. Gene Maestas told The Associated Press.
After meeting up with the plane over the Pacific, the Guard’s HC-130 Hercules flew alongside for more than an hour, until the aircraft’s fuel gave out and it ditched 13 miles off Hawaii.
“We were communicating to him the entire time,” Maestas told The Associated Press. “The pilots were telling him how to make the airplane ready … to lighten, tie things down, adjust the seat.”
He was also urged to go in at a low angle to the water and touch down parallel to the waves — running at strong six feet — rather than absorbing their power by plowing into them head-first.
“We basically talked him down,” Maestas said.
The pilot ditched his airplane about an hour before sundown, but Maestas didn’t have details on the crash itself. The pilot climbed onto a wing where he was met by a Coast Guard swimmer, who aided as he was hoisted into a hovering helicopter.
“He was able to crawl out of cockpit and speak to the rescue swimmer; he didn’t appear to have any significant injuries,” Maestas said.
The Cessna sank in just a few minutes, he said.
“We feel very fortunate that we were able to save this man’s life,” Maestas said.
The man, whom the Coast Guard did not identify, was taken to a hospital but there was no further word on his condition.
Comments (48)
Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 571 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 395 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 386 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 369 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 331 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 386 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 395 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 331 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 386 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Sevenwhitehorses
Posted on October 13, 2011 at 9:54pmFirst off, I vote for not enough fuel. However, that said there are a lot of things that can go wrong on a 16 hour flight. I have ferry flights out of annuals where the mechanics have said every thing is in great shape and, for example the turbo charges were rusted out and the engines did fine in tests with fuel consumption then a turbo charger went out in flight and over 16 hours the plane burned way more fuel than one would anticipate. I am very interested in heating what he says went wrong. One can easily ferry a 310 to hawaii if they know what they are doing but fuel and winds are critical.
Report Post »Arshloch
Posted on October 9, 2011 at 5:39pmAs a 40 year pro pilot – stupid is as stupid does
Report Post »hud
Posted on October 10, 2011 at 10:32amHe might have run into head winds which thru his fuel calculations off, or maybe he needed a tune up.
Report Post »80mesh
Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:12amThe only time you have too much fuel is when your on fire ;)
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on October 9, 2011 at 7:24amToo cheap to… FillerUp?
Report Post »reckless
Posted on October 9, 2011 at 2:48amHe did a better job at landing in the water than flying over it…
Report Post »lmert
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 9:11pmFirst, cynic, I would suggest that you drag out one of those manuels you have. As a 16000 hr ATP (Air Line Transport for you that are non-pilots) with over 5000 hrs in Corporate 310s, ALL CESSNA 310s carry 50 gallons usable in the main tanks (the tips). There are aux tanks found in the main wing that carry 20 – 30 gal and also 15-20 gal in each locker tank located behind each engine (if such locker tanks are installed). SO do the math! The most that can be on board WITHOUT ferry tanks is 200 gallons. So PLEASE tell me where you found a 310 with 81 gallon in the tips!!!
Report Post »Cynic-clinic
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 9:42pmOK LMERT here we go: Here is what I said in my post:
“The Cessna typical 310R had 162 gallons of fuel in tip tanks plus 2-30 gallon internal wing tanks.” How about if I re-state it (same thing):
The Cessna 310R carries 162 gallons in 2 tip tanks plus 2 internal wing tanks (30 gallons each).
That would be 162 minus 60 gal.=102 divided by 2 tip tanks=50 gal in each tip. I’ll give you the extra galon. And you can call me captain.
Report Post »jrcess
Posted on October 10, 2011 at 10:16amnever seen a high wing 310 OOOps.
Report Post »piper60
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 8:17pmYet another example of why we need our coast guard. Great job, fellows.
Report Post »MKFlyboy
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 5:47pmCynic-clinic: Excellent job, I like your specs better. I pulled up every model from A to R and averaged them out, but I don’t think my numbers included the tip tank capacities for some reason. But, as you proved, somebody’s in a heap of trouble here!
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 6:39pmSorry, but this guy is a complete and total moron. Nevermind his apparent inability to perform mathematical calculations, when it comes to fuel consumption versus range in his aircraft, but if he would have asked virtually anyone in the aviation field, they would have told him that a Cessna 310 is not capable by design of reaching Hawaii non-stop from the West Coast……he ran out of fuel just about where he should have…..idiot!!
Report Post »Cynic-clinic
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 7:12pm@TXPILOT—please tell us all the total amount of fuel, including ferry tanks, that the plane was carrying. Thank you very much.
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 8:51pm@CYNIC-ClINIC…..per your question, the aircraft was a Cessna 310R, which has a normal fuel capacity of 102 useable gallons. This yields a range with a 30min reserve of about 660 nautical miles, at a speed of 185-180 knots. Based on how far he got, he obviously had a ferry tank installed, and assuming he had the largest ferry tank I’m aware of that is available installed in the cabin, it would have only been enough fuel to carry him to about the area in which he crashed. The distance between Hawaii and Monterey, CA is 2,088 nautical miles. His calculator should have told him that….
Report Post »BowHuntingTexas
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 8:58pm“TXPilot
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 8:51pm”
I love it when an expert pops up and casts a foggy cloud over the meadows of those who know, well …. not too much.
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 9:22pm@BOWHUNTINGTEXAS…….lol….sorry for my educated rant, but pilots that go out and do stupid things are a pet peeve of most other responsible professional aviators, due to the fact that when one of us does something idiotic, it usually results in the FAA deciding to fire up the legal team and add yet another stupid rule to the already gigantic book of Federal Aviation Regulations…….which we are then required to know…..and it’s getting more difficult every year to do our jobs, when we have to know the information in a book thats approaching the size of the bible ….and getting larger every year…..especially when its all written in difficult to interpret “legal-eze”. However, in this case, there are actually many rules already present to indicate that you aren’t supposed to run your aircraft out of fuel.
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:49amAMEN, TXPILOT !
The general public has no idea how much study and education is involved.
The FARs change so rapidly, the only constant seems to be ‘change’ ! LOL
The approach plates have been changing as well, due to new technology.
Technology itself changes, which requires costly training in both money and lots of time!
The public sees flying like a car in the air. You just hop in, and turn the key.
I will never understand people who do stupid things in aircraft. It is not like we can just pull over on a cloud and get gas. We don’t have mid-air refueling like our military.
3 Useless things? Air above you, air in the tanks(fuel on the ground), and runway behind you. We could add a few more, like charts in the case, a flashlight at home, spare batteries at home, a new elt in the hangar, inop instruments, etc.
It just takes one bad apple, as they say, and here comes the FSDO with the NOTAMS.
Report Post »Quencher
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 5:03pmto MKFLYBOY lol—– Find some good research on aviation and you will see that there actually is a procedure for increasing power to extend the maximum range of an aircraft in the presence of headwinds! Yes, I had to be convinced too. But it is true. Not too useful in light aircraft but commonly used in the heavier variety.
Report Post »Try “Assen Jordanoff” as the author of several books on the finer points of aviation if you would like to see for yourself.
MKFlyboy
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 5:18pmWell, I was just trying to lighten the mood with a little humor, but that is very interesting.
It‘s too bad we can’t see the tail number — then we could find out exactly what model 310 that is (was). The fact is, they made an awful lot of models of the 310 and the standard cruising range for that aircraft is from about 600 to about 800 nautical miles (690-920 statute miles). Therefore, to even think of attempting that trip it would have had to have been rigged with auxiliary tanks of some sort and somebody grossly underestimated what was needed.
I have to admit we are all speculating without more detail, but when it comes to the FAA you are guilty until proven innocent. I suspect the only excuse they will accept is that he flew over a boat load of terrorists who shot holes in the fuel tanks!
Report Post »chazman
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 5:19pm… Cessna 310. Nice plane … NOT ANYMORE!!!
Report Post »Armyof One
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 7:52pmChaz, more like; “Nice artificial reef”.
Report Post »liberalsarealiens
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 3:53pmThings useless to a pilot … altitude above him, runway behind him and the fuel he “thought he didn’t need still on the ground! Glad he wasn’t hurt but to run out of fuel is a cardinal sin for a pilot!, No excuses! Plan for the UN-expected!
Report Post »Quencher
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 4:33pmIt may not be that simple—- Sometimes the real world steps in and changes that formula! I can tell you from personal experience that one can follow your formula and still have to put it down dead stick! In this case I see a pretty cool pilot according to C130 crew and according to the results. Pretty hard to change one’s mind after the point of no return is reached. I will give the pilot the benefit of the doubt rather than lecturing him in good planning. When it happens to the lecturer is when the lecturer has a right to criticize!
Report Post »Down2TheC
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 4:47pmBut it will never happen to the lecturer because he won’t go out with a risky fuel plan. By the standard definition that was piss poor. It’s “any landing you can walk away from”. Swimming away from a landing means you probably goofed.
Report Post »BowHuntingTexas
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 8:52pm“to run out of fuel is a cardinal sin for a pilot”
I start getting a bit nervous when my gas tank on the pickup gets below half way down.
To run out of fuel is a cardinal sin …. regardless of vehicle.
Report Post »Jenny Lind
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 3:49pmBet if he keeps his license he never makes that mistake again! He had the angels on his shoulders and the Coast Guard as his new best friends. Blessed and lucky man!
Report Post »MKFlyboy
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 3:47pmSorry, Dirty Harry, but I have to agree with TOMFERRARI and THEGRAYPIPER, as another commercial pilot myself. You could argue that the FAA regs, 30 min reserve for VFR, 45 min IFR, are not strict enough, but you are supposed to use common sense and adjust accordingly. The PIC is always responsible. To have to ditch because you erred by something well over 2 hrs is pretty tough to justify.
Report Post »NeoKong
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 3:41pmHe was thirteen miles short of the runway….?
Report Post »Geezus. He only needed five more minutes of fuel.
What’s that ? One more gallon….?
givemelibertyorgivemedeath
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 3:47pmThat’s crazy. Is that really all he would have needed??
Report Post »NeoKong
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 4:39pmJust a guess.
Report Post »How much fuel does it take for a small plane to go thirteen miles when you are flying 150 miles per hour…?
HawkEyeTx
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 4:47pm*
Report Post »Water is softer knowing the USCG is ready for the ditch.
ReadItToday
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 3:34pmHe should have called Captain Sulley who magically landed a plane in the Hudson river. Another made up event? Probably. Have you seen this
Report Post »http://BiggestCoverUp.blogspot.com/
Stryker
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 3:53pmWOW!! Some people just don’t have enough to do to come up with something like that…lol
Report Post »Grumpy old Flight Nurse
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 3:11pmDumb A$$ pilot. Glad he is OK.
Report Post »Sincerely yours,
The Self Loading Baggage.
TomFerrari
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 8:45pmThat’s funny, right there!
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 3:00pmYes, he should have planned his fuel better. Unexpected headwinds can happen, but, are no excuse. You know they are possible, so allow extra fuel for that eventuality.
They TALKED HIM DOWN? REALLY?
If he had to be TALKED THROUGH IT, then he has no business flying, imho.
As a commercial pilot, I can tell you, all pilots are trained in ditching procedures. Additionally, the Aircraft Manual likely has the ditching procedures as well, and aircraft are required to have the aircraft manual on board.
A pilot who is not skilled at trans-oceanic flight has no business attempting such a flight in the first place.
Sounds like he’ll be okay. I suspect the FAA will be looking closely at him, though.
Report Post »Dirty Harry
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 3:14pmFor an alleged commercial pilot, you sure posited quite a few half-baked opinions.
Yeah, they talked him down because the CG does this weekly and he has never done it before. Do you really think he should spend time with his eyes in the manual when he has the CG as a resource? Ever heard of “fly the plane first?”
As for “taking enough fuel, puhleez. Do you know what the range is on a C-310? He was ferrying it, so without aux tanks in the cabin, he probably had the tanks full.
I suspect you’ll read later that he was a very high time ferry pilot with a lot more hours than you and I have. Every pilot makes mistakes, and if you‘ve convinced yourself you won’t, you illustrate the latter part of:
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.
Report Post »MKFlyboy
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 3:54pmHey, maybe he was running at full power so he could hurry up and get there before he ran out of fuel (LOL)
Report Post »Cynic-clinic
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 5:09pmAs an ex-Cessna 310 pilot I can shed some light here.
The Cessna typical 310R had 162 gallons of fuel in tip tanks plus 2-30 gallon internal wing tanks. Also approved optionally on the plame were up to 2-20 gallon baggage compartment tanks for a total of 202 gallons. The long range fuel burn would have been about 30 gph giving a range of 6.67 hours at about 200 mph, no wind, so about 1330 miles. If the plane were turbocharged, and many were, the range could be extended to about 1500 miles with higher altitudes. If the trip length of 2000 stat. miles were planned the plane must have had additional ferry tenks.
If all the required fuel was planned in advance there are still other possibilities that limited the pilot’s options including headwinds, fouling spark plugs, turbo wastegate errors, oxygen deprivation and weather that precluded optimal altitude.
Planning, skill and weather knowledge go a long way but fate still has a say in things. And yes, those of us who fly such trips all know water landing techniques. However, we try not to allow such thoughts to interfere with our sex lives.
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 8:26pmLOTS of 310 time here. Long and short nose. Coalmill conversions as well.
310 to me is the workhorse of general aviation.
Well over 300 hrs in the C310s.
Ferry flight? Still no excuse.
CG better to talk him down than the manual?
Well, first of all, KNOW the procedures and you don’t need to read the manual, but it is best to follow along. Second, the CG knows how to fly the 310 better than him? okay.?. Third, he contacted them thinking he would be 500 miles short, and ditched 13 miles short. That is 487 miles in between. Hardly a last minute effort. PLENTY of time to review the procedures over and over and over and over.
Fly the plane? ABSOLUTELY ! But, MULTI-TASKING is a necessity if you are going to fly! If you cannot multi-task, you may not want to be flying. Remember, the cabin wasn’t full of smoke. He was worried he might run out of fuel. He had ample time. Trim the plane. Review procedures.
Ditching procedure are fairly standard, V-speeds (like V-BR, V-BG) vary but not a lot else.
Serious BFR coming up at minimum!
I once pulled a pilot and pax from a burning King Air. I spoke with their insurance agent later, who commented the pilot would now be the best risk around – he would never repeat the cause of the accident again. Not positive I agree, but I understand what he meant.
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 8:28pm@mkfly LOLOLOL
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 8:43pm@dirty – why so miffed with ME? I merely stated MY OPINION.
Report Post »Am I not entitled to express what I perceive?
Surely, yours is not the only valid opinion.
You seem touchy on this, I hope everything is okay on your end, buddy! Seriously, no sarcasm.
CAVU!
TheGreyPiper
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 2:38pmHope he’s got some good excuse for how he managed to come up so short on fuel. 500 miles short on a 2000 mile trip? No offence Jack, but that sounds like just bad planning.
Report Post »Dirty Harry
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 3:06pmIt’s not like figuring mpg on a car. A little unforcast headwind’ll do the trick.
Report Post »AntiLiberal74
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 3:36pmThose the same headwinds the US is facing right now???
Report Post »MKFlyboy
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 4:01pmAntiLiberal74:
No, different headwinds, but he’s blaming it on Bush and claiming the tsunami moved Hawaii :-)
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 8:46pm@antilib – lol
Report Post »@mkfly – lol again ! You’re on a roll today!
TheGreyPiper
Posted on October 8, 2011 at 8:47pmRe: headwinds – exactly my point.
Report Post »