Pilot in the Dock for running out of fuel (Update: PILOT CLEARED!)MERGED.

[Practice Auto 3,2,1]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39470000/jpg/_39470975_plane_crash_bbc_203.jpg


Any Comments?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3199429.stm
Pilot 'made unforgiveable error'


The plane caused severe damage to the house it landed on
A brain surgeon who crashed his plane into a house near a Sussex airport had miscalculated how much fuel he had on board, a court has been told.
Chichester Crown Court heard Donald Campbell, who is accused of endangering safety, had wrongly converted US gallons into litres and ran out of fuel as a result.

The 54-year-old was flying into Shoreham Airport near Brighton in April 2001 when the crash happened.

His twin-engine Piper Seneca plane came down in a street near the airport, partially demolishing the house on which it landed.

'Miscalculated conversion'

The family who lived in the house in West Street were out at the time.

The court heard Mr Campbell, from Battle in East Sussex, was flying from Sheffield in Yorkshire to Shoreham.

The prosecution said Mr Campbell had made an error when filling his US-manufactured plane with fuel before take-off, apparently miscalculating the conversion from US gallons into litres.

The court heard as a result he set off with 23 gallons, instead of 30 gallons of fuel.

Mr Campbell was described as "negligent" and the jury was told it was "unforgivable" to run out of fuel when flying over a residential area.

Mr Campbell denies endangering the safety of an aircraft and endangering the safety of any person or property.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Well, that's a report of the prosecution case, it looks like the other side of the story hasn't been put yet. So we'll have to wait and see.

Miscalculating fuel load isn't that difficult to do; it has happened to airliners. That's one reason we have things like FREDA checks; you spot the fuel is less than it should be and you land, there's a runway every few minutes from Sheffield to Shoreham, hardly a problem, he must have flown over dozens.

But if it's true that he didn't load enough fuel and he failed to notice this on each and every one of his FREDA checks, which he should have done once every ten minutes whilst burning 23 gallons then yes, "negligent" would on the face of it sound like a reasonable description.

[Whirlybird]

But does a Seneca have reliable fuel gauges? Most of the aircraft I've flown don't.

"Unforgiveable" mistake? So now we're supposed to be perfect are we, and never make any mistakes. Stupid? Yes. Careless? Yes. But unforegiveable and should be prosecuted? Not IMHO. Can anyone here say they've never made a mistake? Luckily most don't have such disastrous consequences.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Whirley - spot on, IMHO. Every aircraft I've flown has fuel guages that are not to be relied upon, except as very gross indicators, which is no use at all when things are tight.

I use the 'time since last refill' method, which is OK if you're flying a type that always starts each flight with full tanks and you know the consumption, or if you have RELIABLE fuel uplift/usage data prior to your flight availabale before take off - by no means always the case. And if you're doing some aeros en route, you'd better factor in the resultant extra fuel consumption.

If airliner captains, with all the support systems they have, can and have done it, It seems harsh to haul up a PPL into court for a silly, avoidable, unprofessional, but hardly unforgivable mistake.

I am thinking of a flight not too long ago. Fuel endurance had been calculated and deemed well safe, but fuel guages worryingly low as I flew very gently towards final destination, rehersing what I might say to the CAA should I decide to put it in a field rather than risk engine failure throgh zero fuel.

I landed at destination and filled up. Fuel remaining in the tanks was more than the guages were indicating - it was pretty much in line with my calcs.

It's not an exact science, especially if you fly an aeroplane with limited fuel capacity and an ability to aerobat!

There but for the grace.....etc...

SSD

[Flyin'Dutch']

The CAA have a very dim view on accidents due to fuel starvation, as they see it as entirely avoidable and will virtually always prosecute no doubt partially as it is usually not particularly difficult to prove the case.

Once this case has come to an end it may be useful to discuss fuel calcs on here but think that it would be unhelpful at the moment to go into detail.

FD

[reynoldsno1]

Miscalculating fuel load isn't that difficult to do;

...nor is calculating fuel load correctly...

[PPRuNe Pop]

I am not supposed to have an opinion but I expect I will be forgiven for having this one.

I am expected to be wiser now that I am older. It actually makes no difference in this particular situation.

All fuel calculations are avoidable. Mistakes do happen but this one is NOT a mistake, it is a fundamental error in piloting skills.

My opinion.

PPP

[Flyin'Dutch']

Should we not hold back until we have seen what the defence is?

FD

[bluskis]

Apparently he had chartered the aircraft, so could not possibly know the fuel gage accuracies unless it was a regular charter.

I think the prosecution should fail if it relies on negligence, this was an error, if he can prove he actually went through the process of a fuel calculation.

However, it means he was calculating to land with 3 1/2 gallons per side, which hardly seems to be prudent.

The only sure calculation I have found is to fill to the brim, or to the step marker, and this may not be possible if weight and balance or field performance limit fuel load.

I disagree with FlyinDutch, peoples' ideas of fuel management would be a useful pprune subject.

[Flyin'Dutch']

BS,

I think we actually agree.

However since this case is still in court it seemed prudent not to add comments which could influence people involved in the current case.

FD

[gasax]

The prosecution is the result of CAA policy which is to always take action in the event of fuel shortages.

I'm not sure why the emphasis on fuel shortage - I would have thought they were much worst things a pilot could do that would warrant prosecution.

I'm pretty lucky flying the same aircraft, which has a surfeit of fuel capacity AND payload, something you certainly could not accuse a Seneca of having.

You might say that planning to arive at a destination with minimum fuel is a not unreasonable strategy - especially in an aircraft where payload and fuel have to be traded. Messing up the conversion is not smart but again not hard to do.

But the real essence of this case is that it is easy to 'prove' and so the cost recovery agency can be seen to be doing something to enforce flight safety, that has little risk of going wrong - certainly compared with a large number of their other prosecutions which have failed in a spectacular way........

And the lesson is? Don't run out of fuel, if you do, you will be prosecuted.

[Maxflyer]

Let me start by stating for the record that I am a very low time, recently qualified PPL holder and PPRuNe user. I do however notice a trend for knocking the NIMBY's and Joe Public in general (I quite often agree with the sentiments expressed), where GA matters are under discussion. We have all seen how a pilot making a forced landing endangered hundreds of households! when in fact the pilot probably landed well away from housing. However, in this case the guy actually landed on a house! Now whilst I hope he has a solid defence and is able to get back in the air, would it not be better (if he is guilty), to throw the book at him and show the public that the rules and regulations we abide by are there to protect them from bad piloting as much as to keep us safe.

If the GA community are seen to be behind this prosecution it shows a positive approach and hopefully takes some of the media hypebole away before we all get accused of being potential Kamikaze pilots!

As previously expressed; the trial is not over, he is innocent until proven guilty.

I'm off to check my fuel gauge now!

[Flyin'Dutch']

MF,

Very valid point.

And as an aside, abundant amount of time in the air or on this board does not equate to a better or more valid opinion.

Some would argue the reverse is true!

So feel free to give yours!

FD

[Pilgrim101]

Ran out of fuel myself once some time ago due to a duff fuel gauge. Luckily I was able to pull over onto the hard shoulder though. Apart from the inconvenience and expense of getting back on the road no harm done.

However, am I the only paranoid pilot out there who ritually checks fuel visually etc etc ? (Knowing full well the draconian response of the CAA if I am lucky enough to survive the error - 3000 Quid is oft reported !)

I am reminded of the Fireman's statement after a light aircraft ran out of fuel and landed in a residential area (of Los Angeles ?), "Lucky there was no fuel on board or the situation could have been much worse !" :rolleyes:

[Reichman]

I wonder if you guys who think this was just a "mistake" would be so forgiving if it was your house he crashed on.

Fuel is an integral part of a powered flying machine. Most aircraft will fly with quite large portions of the airframe missing (ie parts of wings, fin or tailplane), but no one in there right mind would take off in one in that state. So why accept a shortage of fuel?

As for the argument of inaccurate fuel gauges:

If weight and balance or performance is not critical, fill it up. If it is, drain the tanks and fill it accutately (time consuming, but there is never a time constraint in GA, not where risking your life is concerned).

[Flyin'Dutch']

A flight from Sheffield to Shoreham would need at least 25USG in still air in a Seneca.

As BS intimated, if you start off with 30 IMPG there would only be enough fuel for another 24 mins on board.

Just curious to see what the defence's arguments are.

FD

[englishal]

Mistakes DO happen, and its fine in hindsight saying what you would and wouldn't do, but its too late. Maybe it was negligent, but no doubt it was not done on purpose and had the pilot in question realised the problem I'm sure he wouldn't have taken off.....Just like NASA or whoever it was who mixed up metric and imperial measurements when they sent a probe to Mars. There is a bit of a difference between fps and m/s, and it caused the probe to burn up......

I was going to write my "fuel story" here, but decided against it for fear of incriminating myself :D.....The moral is DONT TRUST THE GUAGES!!! and be extra cautious when calculating endurance in an aircraft you don't know !

Cheers
EA:D

[N14HK]

only trust the damn things if they say the tank's empty!

[Monocock]

Fuel starvation apart, there is one thing I can't get my mind round on this subject.

I'm not entirely sure at what altitude/height this Seneca was at when the tanks ran dry but surely there must have been somewhere better to aim for than a house?

A wide road? A park? A beach? Even the sea??

Just can't understand, although I fully appreciate that none of us were there so any explanations can only come from the poor chap who actually had to deal with the problem.

And if I WAS qualified to say whether he was negligent.........I would wait until the facts are revealed before giving my opinion.

[Ludwig]

In these litigious times, I wonder, hypothetically, if one relied on say a Seneca fuel gauge, which was inaccurate, whether there is the possibility of a case against either the a/c manufacturer for fitting inaccurate dials, or the dial maker for making inaccurate dials, or for the a/c owner for allowing inaccurate dials to be fitted. Just a thought, especially in this high-tech age when fuel can be measured to the nanodrop

[Genghis the Engineer]

A couple of thoughts:-

- From the statement about fuel, this chap believed that he was arriving with at-most 6 gallons of fuel at Shoreham. Is that enough for a go-around, diversion to Goodwood, and a brief hold in a Seneca. Sounds very tight to me.

- Fuel gauges are not required by law to be accurate except in one case - they must accurately read empty when the tank is, well, empty (as N14HK says). So the chap should have arrived knowing that his tanks were empty. In those circumstance why was he flying a powered approach (by definition, he wouldn't have hit the house otherwise) instead of a high glide approach where an engine stoppage should end on the runway.

- So far as I know he didn't declare a fuel emergency, which would have been an obvious course of action.


I don't like CAA prosecuting people in most cases, it rarely helps anybody - but in this case I think that they have a better case than usual, albeit that I don't think that the fuel-calc is the main offence.

G

[gasax]

Chances of successful action on the basis of the accuracy of the fuel gauges is zero.

'Everyone knows' that aircraft fuel gauges are hopelessly inaccurate. They have done for 40 years. Given that public and general knowledge, how on earth are you going to persuade a court of law that you, in trusting such a device and ignoring the POH and various other cross checks, were not negligent?

Now if the aircraft had a fuel system that was advertised or promoted on the basis of absolute accuracy you might have a case - but you would have to prove that is was n't accurate - which given that it would be certified to allow it to be fitted to the aircraft is going to be a pretty uphill battle. Much more likely you didn't do something i.e. lean, monitor, put enough in, whatever, it would again come back to you proving you were not negligent.

Which in part leads back to why the CAA are generally on a 'good wicket' when they prosecute in these cases.

[Unwell_Raptor]

I wonder who is defending?

Anyone we know?

[DSR10]

I hope the defence mention [at least for the hell of it] an incident a few years back when a CAA staff pilot ran out of fuel in the Netherlands. He took early retirement soon afterwards

[strafer]

Lordy there are some strange justifications on this thread. I won't mention the original subject because as mentioned it's sub-judice. However, miscalculating fuel, then crashing into someone's house is always gross negligence. It's no more an 'honest mistake' than driving your car while 3 sheets to the wind. This sort of stupidity kills people every year and (if true) the bloke's lucky he's not facing a manslaughter charge. The apparent desire amongst some ppruners to always take the pilots side is not, in this case, helpful to GA.

PS Whirlybird you're an instructor - is this what you teach your students?

[dmjw01]

Those who say that the CAA always prosecute in cases of fuel starvation are a little out of date. Earlier this year I attended a CAA safety evening at Fairoaks in which we were given a talk by the CAA's current head of enforcement. He mentioned that his predecessor had a particular penchant for prosecuting fuel starvation cases, but made it clear that he personally did not agree with that emphasis. If you run out of fuel and do a successful forced landing with no damage and no injuries, it's unlikely that you'll be prosecuted by the current administration. They're more interested in pursuing illegal public transport nowadays, which is fair enough IMHO.

Also, let's not be too harsh on the pilot for arriving with a small amount of fuel on board. I seem to remember from the original AAIB report (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_502314.hcsp) on this incident that the aircraft operators put some degree of pressure on pilots not to return the aircraft with too much fuel on board, so that the aircraft could if necessary take a full passenger load on its next flight. That doesn't excuse the error completely of course, but it is perhaps a mitigating factor.

[vintage ATCO]

For the sake of accuracy, Genghis, there is no such thing in the UK as a fuel emergency. It's either a Mayday or Pan if you want help from ATC.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Granted, but if I declare a Mayday because I'm low on fuel, it may reasonably be regarded as a "fuel emergency" even if that's not the approved terminology. You do not I believe declare a mayday, you declare an emergency using the word "mayday".



Incidentally reading the report, there are a few things that don't seem to quite make sense and give me a little more sympathy for the pilot.

(1) He reported one gauge reading ¼ and the other reading ½ - even for a light aircraft fuel gauge that is a bit more than mild inaccuracy - that is unserviceable.

(2) What I'd heard on the rumour mill was clearly incorrect, the report does show that he reported an emergency - albeit an engine one, but subsequent pilot and ATC actions would be similar in each case and if he was indicating ¼ tank+ and the engine was faltering, entirely understandable.

(3) The pilot, who didn't have all that many hours and very few on type, had been taught to use a rule-of-thumb in his fuel planning that assumed LOWER fuel burn than was given in the POH for available cruise speeds. Whatever instructor taught that might usefully, it could be argued, be shot. Slowly.

(4) Aparently the operator didn't provide a fuel dipstick, which I'd have thought was standard for a low wing light aircraft in this class.

Ultimately however, the chap wasn't familiar with the POH data on cruise and fuel consumption - or at-least hadn't used it in his flight planning. Any pilot failing to use data available to them in that way deserves criticism - but reading the report in full, it doesn't read like a prosecution case to me.

It strikes me that the pilots biggest failing however, as reported in the AAIB report was failing to stay within glide range of the runway when he'd had what appeared initially to be an engine fault whilst joining overhead.

G

[G SXTY]

So then, just out of interest, how many pilots have never, ever, had a buttock-clenching low fuel moment? Probably fewer than have chipped in to this thread so far.

That doesn’t necessarily excuse it, but without knowing the full facts of the case, I’d be a bit reluctant to cast the first stone.

[pbentley]

as a regular flyer of PA34 aircraft , i cannot understand why the pilot concerned , once he calculated his fuel requirements, did not put in an extra , say , 1 hour's worth of fuel- neither weight nor runway length seem to have been a problem and although the operator preferred to have the aircraft returned with less than full tanks i should imagine that to return the aircraft with, say, 2 hours fuel remaining would have been acceptable to the operator.

[Spikeee]

The aircraft doesnt look in all that bad condition considering it just was "partially demolishing" a house.

_

Just reading the AAIB report and he seems to have been thorough with a lot of things and done all he could in the time (apart from the major error of the mis-calculation). He must have had a very high work load, as with any emergency i suppose.

But i think its worth reading to a lot of people commenting on his 'negligence' as it may be.


Both the pilot and a firemen who reached the scene a matter of minutes after the impact, recalled seeing fuel seeping from damage to the right wing, but none of the eyewitnesses were able to recall seeing or smelling fuel in the area of the severely damaged left wing.

It could have been the unusable fuel but maybe not...

The pilot and fireman would have had a better view toward this i'd presume and are in a more qualified position to judge.

I havent read it all yet because my breaks about to finish at work but its interesting.


Spike

[Kolibear]

Genghis said:-

4) Aparently the operator didn't provide a fuel dipstick, which I'd have thought was standard for a low wing light aircraft in this class

Dipsticks are only useful if the base of the tank is flat, so 1inch on the dipstick = X gallons, 2 inch = 2X gallons etc etc.

If the wing has dihedral and if the aircraft sits nose-high on the ground, then all the fuel will drain into the lowest corner, as is the case in my aircraft.

If the gauges in my aircraft read 1/4 full, we know that the tanks are actually 1/2 full (by checking the amount of fuel needed to fill them), but the sloping floor of the tank is bone dry. and a dipstick will not be the slightest bit damp.

In this case, it is very difficult to design an accurate fuel sender based on a float mechanism, as if the sender is near the lower end of the tank, the float will register full even when the tank is half full, but if the sender unit is at the top of the tank, the float will drop to the bottom of its travel when the tank is half empty.

Possibly the best method would be to isolate the tank from the airframe on rubber mounts and calculate the weight of fuel by the deflection of the mounts. Until you start to move, when vibration will cause the mounts to move and affect the reading of the gauges.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I beg to differ.

You drain the tank, then fill it a fixed amount at the time - each time you dip it and mark the known fuel level on the diptsick. You get a non-linear scale, but so long as you do it at enough intervals there's no problem at-all, there's no rule that any gauge needs to be linear.

Same applies to sight-tube gauges on tanks such as the PA18.


The same can be applied to any kind of electronic gauge, the Bulldog for example always is calibrated on the aircraft - that's why the twin-tank gauges on that type never have parallel scales.

It's a slightly tedious job, but only needs doing once and is equally valid for float gauges, sight tubes and dipsticks. (Except that the first two you might want on some types, especially taildraggers to do twice - one in the ground attitude and once in the flight attitude, and show two scales).

The problem gauges, which aren't used much on smaller aeroplanes, are capacitance based gauges, because they tend to read differently with different brands of fuel, as fuel make-up is changed with time of year, and with water content in the fuel, which can be storage and conditions dependent. But, even these should read correctly when the tank is empty.

G

[Ian_Wannabe]

Futher errors like this which endanger lives could be resolved if we used simple universal measuring rules - I dont see why new aircraft coming off the production line keep working in individual US Gallons or liters etc. This should have been figured out ages ago

[Flyin'Dutch']

Thanks for posting the AAIB report.

Interesting reading.

Do we know whether the charge is related to the fuel starvation?

FD

[CSX001]

Genghis

On this occasion, you are mistaken. The Seneca, along with many other light twins such as the Baron have filler caps towards the tips of the wings, and wedge-shaped tanks that rapidly drain to the point where there is no fuel visible under the filler point.

After 1 hour's flight, a Baron is "empty" if you go by a visual inspection through the filler.

This makes dipping the tanks completely without value.

Charlie.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Same goes for PA32s and the TB range.

FD

There are small tank gauges for the PA32 (Dunno about the PA34) which are not dissimilar to the ones found on Chippies which tell you how much fuel there is in the inboard part of the wingtank. OK give an indication.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Not having flown the type, I shall stand corrected.

Seems a bloody awful piece of design however.

G

[robmac]

The last posts about filler cap positions and dipsticks on low stable wings is absolutely right. The same goes for my Cessna 303. At airfields with low security, there have been fuel theft issues through the drains, and even my Shadin FF totalisers will not help in that case.

I was told that there was a mod for Beech turboprops that allowed sight guages in the underside of the wings where you could visually check fuel at different points of the wing.

Does anyone know if this is possible for piston engine A/C ?

[knobbygb]

Always wondered, would the presence of auxilary fuel tanks be any help in such a situation. A small additional tank containing perhaps 15 minutes fuel could be kept for use in a fuel shortage. The emergency fuel could be released into the main tank(s) if required and the pilot would then have a short amount of time to put it on the ground safely.

I seem to remember reading of a car (or possibly motorcycle) that had this facility a few years ago. Since lack of fuel in an aircraft is much more critical than it is on the road, I'm sure this is a possibility. Anyone know if this has ever been done?

Down sides: More complexity - an extra tank to check and fill before flight - more fuel lines etc. Also people (idiots) might start including the emergency fuel in calculations if the numbers were really tight.
Up side: Used with comon sense, makes it virtually impossible to "crash into a house" due lack of fuel I'd say.

Tell me to shut up if this is a stupid idea. Was just a thought.

[englishal]

Not a bad idea, should also have a warning light telling you you're on reserve otherwise people will accidentally switch to reserve and fly around until they run out [like on a motorbike :D]

As mentioned a PA34 with less than full fuel means you cannot see any fuel. As one instructor told me, "If you can see fuel, you have loads"......Still better to be safe than sorry in my....experience:D

[FlyingForFun]

Knobby,

The problem with that idea is that if the fuel in this "reserve" tank is never used, it will go stale, and by the time you need it, it won't work.

The only aircraft I know of that uses this type of design is the Europa. In this case, the reserve fuel tank is on the right hand side of the aircraft, the main tank on the left and centre. The filler cap is on the right. As new fuel is added, it displaces the old fuel out of the reserve tank and into the main tank, thus ensuring that the fuel in the reserve tank is always fresh. It really needs to be designed in from the start, I can imagine it would be a real pain to add it on afterwards.

FFF
--------------

[Whirlybird]

strafer,

Do I teach my students what?

That a fuel miscalulation is stupid and careless, which is what I said?

That they'll be prosecuted for it, and that in SOME cases I'd disagree with that?

Anyway, I teach on the R22, which actually DOES have accurate fuel gauges,or so I've always been told. It also has a fuel warning light, which comes on when you have five minutes of fuel left, and the light is checked before each flight. And five minutes is enough to land a helicopter safely - we don't need runways.

So your point is??

[DFC]

As many have pointed out, the geometry of the Seneca fuel tanks make a visual inspection prior to flight practically impossible if the aircraft is less than full.

However, the aircraft is fitted with fuel flow indicators and from memory at about 24/24 and leaned, the fuel flow will be about 10 USG per side making a total of 20USG per hour consumption.

Thus unlike the C172 or C150 or similar types, the pilot has a direct readout of the actual fuel consumption as the flight progresses.

Not having enough fuel to divert is absolutely no problem - Shoreham has several independent runways. However, that does not remove the 45 min final reserve.

As to accurately knowing how much fuel is in the aircraft before departure - Weight is the answer. The aircraft has a certified empty weight. If simple electronic scales are available at the aerodrome then simply weighing the aircraft without people or baggage will reveal how much fuel is on board and 6 pounds per US Galon is a nice round figure to keep things simple.

How about putting a weight platform on front of the pumps?

Regards,

DFC

[strafer]

Whirlybird - My point (as I'm sure you are well aware) was to do with your blase, 'anyway can make a slip-up' comments
Can anyone here say they've never made a mistake? No - but when it comes to fuel calculation, yes! People who have are not 'foolish', they are criminally negligent.

BTW, if someone has told you that the fuel guages on a R22 are always accurate, then no problem! And checking the fuel lights before each flight - well then there's no way they can fail during flight! Anyway, as you said, 5 minutes is enough to land a helicopter. However, I presume that one day you'd like to travel more than 5 minutes from the airfield? Over water say, or forests, or indeed, people's houses.

[Aerobatic Flyer]

How about putting a weight platform on front of the pumps?

Fine, if there's no towbar, cockpit covers, liferafts, baggage, mud, rainwater, etc. etc. etc. to falsify the weight.

And, from my experience of dealing with manufacturers of weighing equipment, they would never certify the weights recorded by a device that was left outside and was available for public use.

And nobody could really blame them for that.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

On some motorbikes the "reserve tank" is just a tap lower down the one and only tank, ie is a little bit of fuel in the bottom (and it'll get mixed in each time you refuel). I'd always assumed it was there as a cheaper alternative to providing a fuel guage - are there bikes with fuel guages, and if so do they have "reserve tanks"?

[Flyin'Dutch']

On the subject of auxillary tanks it should probably be noted that the Cessna twin series are equipped with just that and have been well presented in the accident stats due to mismanagement of the tanks.

Common threads on there are:

1. Failure to select a tank with fuel in it and making an off field landing with fuel on board;

2. Selecting an auxillary tank with the main tank still full. Excess unused fuel by the engine is then pumped back into the full mains and promptly vented overboard.

Nah, the system used for the Seneca and Seminole is quite good as it is not necessary to fiddle with the fuel selector other than in an engine failure when you want to cross feed or emergency when you want to shut the valve.

FD

[bluskis]

Just a couple of points following up all the interesting points raised.

Aztecs join the group of aircraft whose tanks appear to be dry when plenty of fuel remains, but how much exactly lurks in the tank is unknowable because you don't know how much more fuel was used after the initial 'dry' point, and who trusts aircraft gages to tell you.

Fuel flow gages are fitted to injection engined aircraft, but like all other gages they are not reliable within a couple of gallons per hour, so not suitable for fuel planning.

They can be cross checked by keeping a fuel log, and compared in a twin by referring to the EGT, however any gage can play up during the course of a flight, and leakage and theft can upset the log.

Reserve fuel tanks. We all have reserve tanks, they are that portion of the fuel load that should be reserved for in fuel planning, and that sort of reserve doesn't go stale.

Head winds, strong enough to throw marginal fuel planning out the window, can be overlooked, I was highly surprised at 90 kts ground speed in the Rhone valley one time, and that was with 160 kts airspeed.

[Whirlybird]

strafer,

My comment was not intended to be blase, more a case of "There but for the Grace of God...", "Let he who is without sin..." etc.

We check the fuel before each flight, and the lights. Also, checking the gauges is part of the cruise checks, ie making sure you are burning fuel at the rate you think you should, and at the same time, that the gauges are working. You should never - unless it's completely unavoidable - be flying over large areas of forest anyway, unless at a height at which you could glide (autorotate) clear; if I did so during training I'd get given a PFL. Ditto if flying over towns;though most of them do have flat areas where you could land in an emergency, it's something that's always born in mind. Over water? Well, lots of people won't fly single engined helicopters over water; I'm not one of them, but it is indeed a calculated risk...but I'm talking of engine failure here, not fuel mismanagement.

Would I like to travel more than five minutes from the airfield? Helicopters, as I said, don't require an airfield. "Fuel light coming on" is an emergency I've practised; you land as soon as possible, ie in a field, preferably close to a road. "Someone" hasn't told me the gauges are accurate; virtually everyone says they are. I don't believe it 100%, and always check as I fly, because that's the way I am, and that's what I was taught to do(and teach).

The only point I'm making is that I'm a helicopter instructor, and helicopters are different in some ways. Now let's not highjack this very important and interesting thread.

[BEagle]

I think it was the Triumph Herald which had a 'reserve' cock on the fuel tank. Problem was, it was in the boot. So not much use in an aeroplane! Personally, I've no idea whether the 'low state' fuel caption works in my Prelude as I've always diverted to the nearest fuel station when I'm down to 1 segment on the LED fuel gauge.....and I apply the same logic in aeroplanes.

Surely there must be someone out there who can design an accurate, reliable fuel gauging system for light aeroplanes? The best one for a PA28 is a calibrated piece of wood to dip the tanks - the manufacturer's gauges are utterly useless.

[Unwell_Raptor]

My Dad's old P5 Rover 3 litre had a reserve switch. There was a second fuel pump, with a lower inlet than the main one.

It worked fine.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Do you really think that incidents due to fuel starvation will be a thing of the past with reliable gauges?

Come on........

Aviation's history is littered with incidents and accidents which occured despite people knowing exactly were they were in relation to limits and performance of their machines.

What is suggested next? Weight sensitive squad switches whcih determine whether the aircraft is within weight and balance limits? And if not you can not start the engine?

Did you use to stick your pet in the tumble dryer before they issued advice against such practice in the manual?

FD

[Genghis the Engineer]

I can think of very few aeroplanes where, if it was considered important enough, a small panel / filler-cap where a dipstick could be inserted into the deepest part of the tank couldn't be inserted with very little trouble at-all. Also a reasonably cheap totaliser could be inserted in the main fuel line very easily with a cockpit readout - so long as you know how much fuel you had to start with there's no particular problem. The CAA mod fees would probably be more than the device itself.

Incidentally, in a previous life I used to do flight testing on a British light twin called a Jaguar. That had an obscene number of tanks, and a largely automated fuel system. Fuel gauging was through a totaliser which worked on everything except the tailtank. Drill was not to take-off until it started going down because until it had, you were out of aft CG. If you've ever seen a Jag sat at the start of a runway for longer than seems sensible in reheat before taking the brakes off, that's probably why!

G

[ModernDinosaur]

All this talk of invisible fueltanks - how about the DA-40 then? This has four tanks in total, two in each wing, joined by tubes so the outboard tank always drains into the inboard tank automatically. The outboards only hold 3USGal each... so anything beyond 6USGal (out of 40USGal) burnt makes the tank look completely empty.

Diamond thought this was stupid too - so they provided a fuel gauge which works like a manometer. Attach it to the fuel drain and you can SEE the fuel in a clear calibrated pipe. Works a dream, albeit a little soggy when you remove the gauge from the drain as the fuel in the pipe has to go somewhere! With a little practice you can make it "on the floor" rather than "up the sleeve" :D

I'm sure a similar system could be made for the other aircraft mentioned with "invisible" fuel tanks.

MD.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

are there bikes with fuel guages, and if so do they have "reserve tanks"?

My Honda Blackbird has an analogue fuel guage with a 'low fuel' light within the guage, just like my car. The Honda VFR I recently owned had a digital LCD fuel guage, and the last 'segment' would flash as a low fuel warning.

I think it's a while since bikes had a physical 'reserve' tap.

SSD

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I think it's a while since bikes had a physical 'reserve' tap.

It's a while since I've driven a bike. I just got too scared by all the car drivers pulling out in front of me "oh sorry, didn't see you". Plus I once had a girlfriend who was a speech therapist at a rehab unit - she said they never really managed to teach the motorcyclists who came in with head injuries to talk again.

[Hersham Boy]

SSD - bikes still have physical reserve taps... at least, mine do! Good idea, although how well they would function on an aeroplane where a spluttering fuel-starved engine could cause more than a bit of embarressment at the traffic lights?!

A thought on some of the comments above about how the operator liked their aircraft returned and what equipment the operator provided - not wanting to sound pompous, but who gives a monkey's?

If you are not happy with the state of the aircraft before flight (eg. you've been pressured into going with less fuel than you'd like or haven't been able to verify fuel levels to your satisfaction), don't take the aircraft at all, surely?

Yes, this is a textbook utopia and yes, we all succumb to outside influences in the real world, but surely it's a fear for your own life that should stop you taking off in an aeroplane you are not happy with or sure of the condition of?

Hersh

[Julian]

SSD,

Yeah mbike bike has an amber warning light but no analogue guage, I never trust it, for one thing I would think its only accurate when the bike is in a straight line as otherwise the fuel is sloshing about. Unfortunately I dont have a reserve so I am ******ed if I run out. I use the milage method and refuel between 100-120 miles done.

Julian.

[newswatcher]

As reported by the Beeb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3201561.stm

[daredevil]

This reminds me of the now deseaced Pop star Aaliyah who died in a plane crash coming from the Bahamas because;

1) The Pilot didn caculate the amount of fuel he would need for the journey bearing in mind weight he was carrying (Pop star, her stuff, her enotourage, their stuff,


2) Don't remember the details but the Piot had been convicted of some drug felon and was flying some sort of twin Engine Cessna Caravan with all the experience behind him of PPL without an IR (I'm starting to use these abbrevaitions like a pro)

But of course these matters didn't mean much to the pop star until the Pilot said

'Uh Oh!

The plane went down shorty after take off and as a result the victims familis families in compensation were entiled to the middle part of donut because the Pilot in question was only qualified to fly a singe engine aircrfat and probably a loawn mower.

Pax beware

[RodgerF]

Quote:

Also, let's not be too harsh on the pilot for arriving with a small amount of fuel on board. I seem to remember from the original AAIB report on this incident that the aircraft operators put some degree of pressure on pilots not to return the aircraft with too much fuel on board, so that the aircraft could if necessary take a full passenger load on its next flight. That doesn't excuse the error completely of course, but it is perhaps a mitigating factor.


What the AAIB actually said was


He was also aware that G-OMAR was occasionally used for charter flights and that in order to avoid potential weight problems the aircraft operator had an unwritten policy that the aircraft should not be returned with very high residual fuel loads.


Now IMHO coming back with 60 minutes fuel remaining for example does not represent a 'high residual fuel load'. In any case if on the next future flight the aircraft weight allowed no more than 60 minutes of fuel to be loaded, the aircraft is effectively useless. No need to run it so close.

[mad_jock]

If there is a reserve tank it is just another thing to go wrong, to be serviced and inspected etc.

Unfortunately the low fuel situation is normally learn't solo. This is due to the fact that most instructor s have been there done that and now are very careful about fuel required etc. In fact most I know would prefer to go over weight than have anything other than full tanks (this is training puddle hoppers not twins).

I had my scare in FL, which now I have more experence wasn't proberly as bad as I thought, but it did focus my mind on the fuel issues. And it was nice and easy in FL with a airfield every10 miles which sold fuel. (the handel jammed on the fuel tank selector on a PA28)

But it isn't uncommon enough that you see more fuel than the usable fuel getting put into a plane after a ppl hire has come back.(I have seen it 4 times in the last 2 years).

The only method i can think of,is if a Fuel supplier fills up with more than x amount for a given type they have to put a report in.
But that just generates more paper work which we have to pay for and smacks a bit of big brother. And its pretty easy to get round by only taking a half load.

MJ

[RodgerF]

Quote:

The only method i can think of,is if a Fuel supplier fills up with more than x amount for a given type they have to put a report in.
But that just generates more paper work which we have to pay for and smacks a bit of big brother. And its pretty easy to get round by only taking a half load.


Or alternatively saying to the fueller 'This aircraft is fitted with long-range tanks'!
:D

[mad_jock]

See there is not alot we can do about it.

MJ

[dublinpilot]

That article that NewsWatcher posted a link to is a bit strange.

Why would the instructor be commenting on his landings? Unless I'm missing something his (on airport) landings are completely irrelevant to this incident. In any case why did the instructor allow him to go solo if he wasn't happy that his landings were safe?

They also mention that he mad numerious previous errors, including fuel errors. If they felt that these were serioius enough, then surely they were serious enough to require further training, until they were happy with him, before letting him hire the plane solo?

Does the club not owe a duty of care to the public at large to make sure that they don't hire an aircraft to someone that they have serious concerns about their safety? If not, then surely they owe a duty of care to the aircraft insurers not to hire it to someone they has concerns about.

dp

[Vfrpilotpb]

Lorry driver or Brain surgeon, he/she who leaves the ground with too little fuel to get to his/her destination has made a mistake, not a small forgivable mistake, but a HUGE and unforgivable one, if the said Lorry driver or Brain Surgeon has not the ability to work out his fuel load and then DOUBLE check the tanks, then sorry, Unforgivable Mistake, do not pass go without paying severe funds to Mr Blair, or John Prescott(whoevers turn it is this week):mad:

[Flyin'Dutch']

dp,

That is the problem with these news snippets, they seem far detached from the issue, no doubt this was brought up in context.

In court both parties will want to try and give a bit of background to a defendant's abilities, character etc.

FD

PS: Vfrpilotpb, did I miss something? Did anyone refer to this person's vocation being a factor or otherwise?

[bookworm]

Those who say that the CAA always prosecute in cases of fuel starvation are a little out of date. Earlier this year I attended a CAA safety evening at Fairoaks in which we were given a talk by the CAA's current head of enforcement. He mentioned that his predecessor had a particular penchant for prosecuting fuel starvation cases, but made it clear that he personally did not agree with that emphasis.

The current view seems more enlightened. The role of enforcement in this area is to improve safety by detering pilots from doing dumb, dangerous or reckless things. In selecting cases to prosecute, it makes sense to pick those where the deterent effect is significant when the decision to commit the reckless act is made.

I don't know about anyone else but my motivation goes more along the lines of "I'd better load enough fuel or I'll crash" rather than "I'd better load enough fuel or I'll be prosecuted".

[bluskis]

The incident took place in Apl 2001, what was the procedure regarding licence, insurance and willing hirers in the intervening period?
This is a generalised question, but based on this incident for ease of asking.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

But it isn't uncommon enough that you see more fuel than the usable fuel getting put into a plane after a ppl hire has come back. I hired a plane once which had barely enough fuel in it to taxi to the pumps (certainly vastly less than a 45 minute reserve). I wasn't impressed. I did tell the people I'd hired it from, but I've no idea whether they said anything to or did anything about the previous hirer.

[Southern Cross]

I have noted all the comments about the notorious inaccuracy of fuel gauges. I use to fly a 310Q and its gauges were dreadfully inaccurate - in fact almost worse than having no gauges at all. Not to be trusted.

However, the gauges in the Yak 50 and 52 are a different matter. They are excellent and surprisingly accurate. I recently took my 50 up to Sweden and back and reconfirmed that the gauges were accurate almost to the litre.

Now if the Russians were able to make simple fuel gauges for their ("GA") aeroplanes in the 1970's, why couldn't the American or European manufacturers do likewise? Bear in mind that Yaks were not designed for cross country work either so accurate fuel gauges were perhaps less required than in say a Cessna, Piper or Beech.

:confused:

[Whirlybird]

I don't know about anyone else but my motivation goes more along the lines of "I'd better load enough fuel or I'll crash" rather than "I'd better load enough fuel or I'll be prosecuted".

Precisely. I'm not sure what prosecution achieves, apart from revenge. And since pilots DO make fuel miscalculations, whether it's forgiveable or not, reliable gauges or insisence on ONE unit of measurement rather than THREE would be a useful change.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Accurate fuel gauges, inacurate fuel gages or no fuel guages.

It is the responsibility of the pilot to ensure that there is sufficient fuel to fly the planned trip plus reserve, depending on if you are VFR or IFR.

There is one thing certain if you do not have enough fuel you will have a forced landing.

And then there is no excuse..... Unless you can show that the fuel leaked out or some other unusual mechanical problem.

Chuck E.

[Chilli Monster]

If you read the report then several facts become apparent.

1) This was a flight that could have been carried out safely, without loading up the aircraft, even if the fuel gauges were completely unserviceable - I'll explain how later.

2) This was a classic example of someone trying to be too clever by 'supposedly' calculating a fuel load and getting it wrong - like everything in aviation instead of deciding what was needed and then trying to convert it, he should have used the time honoured practice of KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid

He wanted 60USG in the aircraft. In the Seneca that equates to approx 2:45 of flying and certainly isn't round trip fuel Shoreham Sheffield and Return. Where was the contingency fuel? Where was the holding fuel? Where was the Div Fuel? In short - his preflight planning wasn't up to the standard of someone who flies that class of aircraft.

Next - the refuelling itself. Keep it simple like I said. You can't dip the tanks in a Seneca with less than 130 litres (approx) in the tank for reasons stated before. There is however a small rib in the tank just below the filler cap. Instead of asking for a set amount and doing a (wrong) conversion why didn't he do what most people would do and fill it to this step. It gives a visual check that there is fuel on board and, with the fuel up to it on both sides equates to 280 litres of fuel - 3:30 and plenty for the trip with contingency. It's not the refuellers responsibility for ensuring there's enough fuel - it's the aircraft commanders and if this is the only way to make sure there is sufficient then you damn well do it or pay the consequences.

This is an incident that should never have happened - at least hopefully it's something that people will learn from.

[Flying Lawyer]

Gertrude, in the very first response to this post, wisely pointed out: "Well, that's a report of the prosecution case, it looks like the other side of the story hasn't been put yet. So we'll have to wait and see."

A few posts later, after some had seen fit to condemn the pilot on the basis of nothing more than newspaper reports of the prosecution's allegations :rolleyes: , Flyin 'Dutch' made a reasonable and sensible appeal: "Once this case has come to an end it may be useful to discuss fuel calcs on here but I think that it would be unhelpful at the moment to go into detail."

A few posts later, FD tried again: "Should we not hold back until we have seen what the defence is?"

Still no luck, so FD tried yet again, this time spelling out the very real dangers in simple terms: "However since this case is still in court it seemed prudent not to add comments which could influence people involved in the current case."

Then, not surprisingly, he gave up.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if a juror read this thread, or was told by a friend who does, that the majority of posters on the pilots website think the pilot is guilty. Just the sort of thing the pilot on trial needs. :mad:

I only hope the jury will approach this case with more sense, and more fairly, than those who've condemned him here.


Unwell_Raptor asks who's defending the pilot? Some barrister called Tudor Owen.

Whirlybird: I agree with you 100%. Prosecutions are not an effective means of achieving flight safety.


Got to go now. I've got a lot of work to do for a trial at Chichester Crown Court.
My client says the allegations against him aren't true.


FL

[IO540]

Just my 2p's worth.

I read the original AAIB report on this (G-OMAR, I think) at the time it came out, and it (or something related I read at the time) mentioned that the firm he rented the plane from used it for charter work, and since in that line you never know if you will get five fat blokes with a load of golfing gear turning up, you don't keep much fuel in the tanks. Especially in a Seneca. This renter was told to not return the plane with too much fuel in the tanks, and he did his best to do as he was told. He made some fuel miscalculations on top of that.

On a more general point, I did my whole PPL in Cessnas, and not once did anyone show me a physical fuel check. This would have involved bringing out a ladder. I was told to check the two documents back at the office and if they agree it must be OK. It was immediately obvious that they were filled in by the same person each time....

I have never flown a self fly hire plane with usable fuel gauges. I always filled the tanks right up (even if the CFI moaned about it, one does not get charged for time to/from the pumps) and knew that gave me say 4 hrs range, and if the trip would take 2 hrs that was fine. Then you didn't need working fuel gauges, dip the tanks, etc. I think the whole business of fuel calculations and conversions, as taught in the PPL, with that stupid ex-WW1 ex-Wehrmacht circular slide rule, is an accident looking for a place to happen.

[Flyin'Dutch']

FL,

Thanks for your comments, as you say one can only try so much!

Is there an update about the court case. Been looking on the Beeb site but could not find anything.

Newswatcher?

FD

[High Wing Drifter]

I did my whole PPL in Cessnas, and not once did anyone show me a physical fuel check.
God's teeth!!!

[Unwell_Raptor]

Tudor who?

;)

[Hippy]

As a non-flyer I would like to ask if the practice of calculating the amount of fuel in an aircraft, where no visual check is available, by calculating the fuel burn since last 'fill' is widespread. The CAA report of this incident states that the aircraft was last filled 2 weeks previous and a total of fourteen flights had been made since then (including a trip to the engineers where they ground ran the motors).

Is it really common practice to rely on so many other peoples actions? I am a sailor and charter unknown yachts often, but will always check the echo sounder myself with a lead-line despite what anyone else tells me about it's calibration. (Echo sounders can be calibrated to water line or bottom of keel or may not be calibrated at all). Yet you guys seem to be happy if someone tells you that an aircraft you are about to take into the air has x gallons of fuel in it? What ever happened to the 'Runway behind you, altitude above you & air in the tanks' maxim?

[andrewc]

IO540

I go with you on this, fill your aircraft full and don't dick
around - it just gives you an opportunity to make a
mistake.

I know this is simplistic but I'm a simple person and
it works for me,

-- Andrew

[N14HK]

IO540
I did my whole PPL in Cessnas, and not once did anyone show me a physical fuel check.
Your CFI would be a worthy candidate for the CAA's legal attack dogs! This sort of omission in your training was tantamount to not explaining how check the oil.

Visually checking the fuel should be the very first action in one's very first flying lesson IMHO.

[sunday driver]

IO540

Price of a full fuel load sounds cheaper than the price of another Seneca.

Plus all the 3rd party stuff.

Plus the (excellent value) legal fees.

Hurrah for us simpletons !!

(But I hope all my errors are soft ones)


SD

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi Flying Lawyer:


Whirly's comments should be examined in another light, if there were no prosecutions what would Lawyers do for a living?

Running out of fuel and crashing into a house is a good example of needing a good Lawyer. :D :D

Chuck E.

[JABI]

Brain doctor huh?
Has anybody noticed the higher the education the more dangerous in Aviation or is that just me?:hmm:
This guy seems to be worthy to fly a Bonanza....LOL
If you truly cannot be bothered doing fuel calculations just FILL IT UP! Sod the charter they can always drain...
NO..just crash it and give everybody in GA a black eye.
This clown deserves to be stripped of his license:mad:

[BEagle]

In the absence of reliable fuel gauges, a totaliser would seem to be the best solution. So long as it also has a non resettable scale.

How do you establish the actual fuel quantity if the ac hasn't been refuelled to max for 14 days and the gauges aren't reliable?

If a charter company told someone to return the ac without a high fuel load remaining, the only options would be to say either:

a. "How much is there in it right now? Sign here please."

or

b. "I'll be using it for x hours at y gall per hour, so I'm going to add xy gallons to whatever is in it at the moment if you can't tell me the accurate figure. So you'll be getting it back with the same fuel as it's got right now!"

The xy calculation needs to be carefully checked though. But I agree that the variety of units in current use (US gallons, Imperial gallons, litres, pounds and kilograms) doesn't help. Nor does the fact that many people taking PPL exams don't understand the difference between density and specific gravity, particularly the decimal generation. I would like to see the use of specific gravity banned - the only units used should be mass, volume and density (= mass/volume). Comparing a bucket of fuel to the weight of the same bucket filled with water is an anachronism!


But then there are some total idiots around. An ac was filled with fuel for 5 hours. It flew for an hour, then another pilot went away on a trip of 2 hours, landed and came back later. Sure enough, after exactly 5 hours it all went quiet and he had to put it into a field, fortunately without damage. He could have refuelled before departure, at destination or at any one of about 8 different aerodromes on the way back..... But he thought that he knew better "These gauges must be wrong, we had x gallons and I've flown for y hours at z gallons per hour, so we must have (x-yz) left..." Well - only if x and z were accurately known - and he'd included all the taxying time in his estimate of y.........

NB - This is not to be taken as representing any comment on the current case referred to in this thread.

[Chilli Monster]

I go with you on this, fill your aircraft full.
andrewc (and all others who've said the above)

not so simple when you get to certain aircraft.

I recently went for a twin renewal and arrived at the airfield to find the aircraft (A Seneca - very relevant to this thread) on the pumps and full - I was mortified and cancelled the trip.

As the aircraft get bigger then the W&B becomes more critical - especially when you have to consider single engine performance too. A full Seneca with 2 up front and nothing behind can be close to MTOW but with a CofG so far forward and out of limits as to make it lethal should you lose an engine. This would have been the reasoning behind the hiring company saying don't return it full.

It's not excusing what happened, as I've explained before there was a simple way around the problem.

Just out of interest I wonder how much the "Fill it up" brigade do Weight & Balance calcs ;)

[bookworm]

Quite so Chilli.

Would the same people who condemn this guy for being frugal with fuel being condemning him for taking too much if he's had an EFATO on departure from Shoreham and hadn't made it over the high ground off 03?

Aviation is complicated.

[newswatcher]

Flyin'Dutch, no further report on Beeb. Guess nothing of substance emerged this week. With the surname Campbell, not the best time to be doing news searches!

[Flyin'Dutch']

NW,

Thanks for that information. We'll just have to be patient and await further information.

Vis-a-vis instruction as mentioned here before, it just confirms my beliefs that an awful lot of things are not taught to PPL students.

In my opinion because a lot of instructors are just too busy getting through the hours to make the next step up.

FD

[Hairyplane]

A very interesting thread.

My Robin has 4 fuel tanks. It is only possible to visibly check the wing tanks. For this reason I included in the new-build spec' an EDM700 engine monitoring system with Fuel flow - a super accurate bit of kit if the blurb is to be believed! - in order to provide me with additional information.

3 years later, the fuel flow transducer is still in the box.

I have given up trying to fit it - beaurocracy has beaten me.

So - here we have a useful bit of kit in wide use in the USA but not here.

What I do now is fill the (4th) long range tank only occasionaly, run the main until the guage is near the empty mark and the fuel light starts flashing (indicating 20 litres - ish remaining) - and only then use the wing tanks. These hold almost exactly an hours fuel each.

My bladder thereafter requires me to land well before I need some gas. Simple!

(Anybody out there want to take over the certification of the Fuel Flow for me? I realise that it will cost.)

As far as my old planes are concerned - even simpler!

I just ignore the guages completely - quaint as they are - and use my calibrated wooden stick.

One of them is weight critical so filling it up with 32 gallons of fuel just aint an option if I want to take a passenger or two (no accident that my lovely girlfriend is built like a racing snake...!

Running out of fuel and hitting a house? These facts alone are pretty damning. However, in case of a conviction - (who can predict this with certainty? - nobody!) - the magistrate will listen intently to mitigating circumstances before the inevitable 'take out your wallet and repeat after me - help yourself'.

There are a lot of 'holier than thou' pilots out there.

Hands up all those who have heard those immortal words from their passenger(s) - 'you've gone a bit quiet. Is everything OK?'

My words of wisdom are these - applicable to many aspects of aviation.

IF THERE IS A DOUBT, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT.

HP

[IO540]

N14HK

I agree, but this is common practice, if the Cessnas are those without a step on the (whatever you call the wing support member) so a ladder is needed, and nobody is bothered to bring one out. When I moved to PA28s I saw 2 cases of a virtually empty tank when there should have been "3 hrs" in it. But low wing planes are easy to check.

Beagle

"In the absence of reliable fuel gauges, a totaliser would seem to be the best solution. So long as it also has a non resettable scale."

I am not sure if there is a tamper-proof one for GA, and the popular Shadin costs far too much to find its way into anything much other than brand new £200k planes. And I still had a case of the FOB figure being tampered with (upwards) by a CFI who borrowed the plane... (not kidding!). He made the mistake of incrementing it past a plausible range, and I had the EDM700 data to check it against (and that cannot be tempered with). Actually, an EDM700/800 with the fuel option would give you a tamper-proof fuel flow LOG, although.... the problem is that somehow you have to set the FOB (fuel on board) figure when you fill up, and that always gives you an avenue to fiddle it, or make a mistake when not filling right up... But a Shadin etc is probably essential if you rent a plane out dry.

I agree with all you say, but such calculations just cannot be done reliably. You've always got to start with a physical check, without it everything you do is worthless no matter how many times you check it.

Chilli Monster

"Just out of interest I wonder how much the "Fill it up" brigade do Weight & Balance calcs"

Depends on the plane, a TB20 you can fill up every time and with 0-2 average passengers and some luggage you will always be OK. I've played with a W&B calculator for it and it's very hard to move it outside. This is also generally true with a PA28 and 1 average passenger, though I was often told by the school to not fill it right up (which I always ignored). Of course it can be argued that any plane which can carry fuel fuel and full passengers is a sub-optimal designl!!

Hairyplane

I am sure you've tried this, but if the FAA has given an STC for the EDM700 for an N-reg plane, the CAA often respects that. Alternatively there is the Shadin, which does not involve fitting all those thermocouple probes... But I have got through a few Shadins in 1 year, like a lot of American avionics they are awfully unreliable. You might have to pay a CAA Level 2 firm to get the approval done for you; there is one in Bournemouth and also Air Touring at Biggin Hill might be able to do it. Cost... maybe £1000.

[QDMQDMQDM]

Of course it can be argued that any plane which can carry fuel fuel and full passengers is a sub-optimal designl!!

Most four seaters under about 230HP should be called 2+2 in my opinion. Calling them four seaters leads people into a false sense of security.

QDM

[Flyin'Dutch']

QDM:

Robin DR 400s with the 160 and 180 engines are true four seaters.

IO540:

Unfortunately they are not certified in the States so the STC route is not available.

HP:

May be it is too late now but you were obviously missold this piece of equipment as it is not suitable for the purpose for which it was intended. So that would normally be a case of money back.

FD

[mad_jock]

What gets me for the PA28-161 (I think) is the fact that you can pay 1500 quid and get the MTOW increased. But they don't actually do anything to the plane apart from put a line in the POH that means you always take off with one stage of flap.

The speeds are all the same.

Visual check is the only way to be certain. And it is very common to have flights missed out of tech logs by owners. So looking at the times flown since last refill is not an option.

On the m&B if you work out the worst case situations for full and empty fuel. For different pax loadings and then keep a note of them on your Plog it makes life alot easier. So you can have a max all up pax weight on full tanks max in the back etc. Then you only have to get the graphs out when you go over these limits.
But remember every plane is different so as soon as you start flying a different plane of the same type you need to check that its not got 20kilos of pens stashed in the panel work

Also if you work out the TO and landing for max weight, grass, 5knt tail wind etc. Then you don't need to recompute it unless the RW is less than that distance. Saves playing chicken "well i managed to get it into 300m last week" (with of course a completly different load and conditions)

MJ

[Flyin'Dutch']

There you have it.

Jury instructed to acquit the pilot of the charges! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3081612.stm)

Will be interesting to find out why but I suspect on something procedural.

FL can you enlighten us?

FD

[DSR10]

AQUITTED

Probably due to sub judacy discussions on p-prune

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Just out of interest I wonder how much the "Fill it up" brigade do Weight & Balance calcs

Not a problem with the Chippy - 18 gallons max and all on or very close to the CG ;~)

The problem is - 18 gallons isn't enough to go many places and come back. So you have to fill up at just about every destinantion - and some destinations have to be planned into the itinerary for only that purpose.

SSD

[Whirlybird]

Has anybody read the book "The Naked Pilot"? It describes various airline accidents, many of them wellknown, all caused by HUMAN ERROR. The pilots concerned were experienced, well trained, and the errors shouldn't have happened...but they did. Mistakes DO happen. No-one if perfect all the time. this sort of thing happens time and time again...and just once is too often.

So, let's leave this case out of it for a minute, and talk generally. WHY, in this day and age, do we have unreliable fuel gauges? WHY, if the R22, and others, can have reliable gauges and also a low fuel warning light, can't other aircraft? WHY do we continue with this ridiculous situation of using THREE different units for fuel? WHY don't we make the system, if not completely human-error-proof, at least more so, since whether foregiveable or not, these accidents DO happen?

Condemning and prosecuting is easy. Why aren't we looking at the real issues?

[Heliport]

BBC News report

BBC NEWS | Pilot cleared of crash charges (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3081612.stm)

A brain surgeon who crashed his plane into a house has been cleared of endangering the aircraft and the public. "Mr Campbell has been acquitted without a stain on his character."
Civil Aviation Authority spokesman.

Despite the thoroughly irresponsible comments posted on this forum whilst the trial was still in progress. :rolleyes:

[Flyin'Dutch']

They are all very valid points you raise but are they the root cause why people run out of fuel?

Certainly in this case it seemed to stem from mistakes made in the flight preparation phase.

Surprised nobody has commented yet on the fact that despite the fact that the engine failure happened at 2000ft in the overhead the plane crashed off the airfield.

FD

[Aerobatic Flyer]

Whirly,

So, let's leave this case out of it for a minute, and talk generally. WHY.........

Excellent question - perhaps for a new thread, so as to separate it clearly from the case discussed (responsibly or otherwise) here?

[Heliport]

Whirlybird
Good questions - but I suspect you may be beating the wind in more senses than one trying to discuss the real issues on this thread. Most people seem to be more concerned with how pilots of light aircraft should work around the well-known and potentially dangerous problem rather than looking at how the well-known problem and danger could, and IMHO should, be removed. eg Accurate gauges or, at the very least, low fuel warning lights.

I wonder if those who say it's so important to make a visual check of the tanks have actually paused to consider what looking in the tanks actually tells you about the quantity of fuel on board unless the tanks are full.

You raised another interesting topic earlier in the thread: Which is more productive in terms of flight safety: Carrying out an investigation when the risk of prosecution is hanging over people's heads or an investigation in which all those involved, not just the pilot, can speak freely without being at risk of being prosecuted?
When there's the risk of a prosecution, people watch their own backs and/or say as little as possible. Human nature - but not very useful for learning from mistakes and improving flight safety.

[Brizzo]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mr Campbell has been acquitted without a stain on his character."
Civil Aviation Authority spokesman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But possibly one or two on his underwear?

[Flying Lawyer]

Flying 'Dutch' asks: FL can you enlighten us?

I very rarely comment upon cases in which I've been professionally involved, and never without the consent of both my instructing solicitor and the pilot.
In this instance, I didn't ask for permission.

Tudor Owen

[Evo]

I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I must admit to being rather surprised at this outcome - it seems to imply that a pilot is doing nothing illegal when an aeroplane under his command crashes because he failed to perform what most pilots would consider a very basic check as to the suitability of the aeroplane for flight.

I was always under the impression that I was responsible for the aeroplane while captain of it, so can somebody who understands this verdict explain it...? If I did a similar thing, would the result in the same verdict? And if so, if I made a different mistake while flight planning - say, causing me to enter a NOTAMed TRA - is that better or worse than crashing due to lack of fuel?

(edited slightly for language)

[BoeingMEL]

Bless all of those who excuse such shockingly bad airmanship! Let's imagine for a moment that the defendant's fuel calcs were accurate and he started his approach into Shoreham with three and a half gallons per side.... then the airport/runway is closed for whatever reason. Er..how far is he going to divert to... on his six minutes (at best) fuel? By the way... this was NOT fuel starvation it was fuel exhaustion. (Starvation = fuel in tank(s) but not reaching cylinders. Let's face it, the Seneca is a fairly simple but sporty performer.... and six minutes contingency fuel at the end of a c250 mile flight is irresponsible and reflects poor airmanship. (Mind you.... he'll remember that deafening silence and dead-stick landing much longer than anything the beak says!) bm

[jacquestall]

Do we not.........

1. Dip tanks where appropriate?

2. Add a nominal 10% just in case?

3. Carry sufficent fuel for a diversion?

Just my two bobs worth

Jacque

[englishal]

Its like the old days on here, you know when they used to burn whitches at the stake. The CAA in all their wisdom obviously thought there was a good enough reason to not prosecute so thats good enough for me.

I suggest some of the perfect pilots out there take a hard look at their own airmanship, I have seen many cowboys in the UK. [At least in the states they don't try and pretend they're perfect......:D]

EA

[Hippy]

I think it's disgusting. The bloke was obviously frugal with his fuel and deliberately crashed into that house to avoid the landing fees. I bet he was sweating when it appeared that he might actually be able to make the runway, it took some skill to fake the panic he reported on loosing power to one engine.

C'mon guys, this fella obviously didn't depart with the intent of running out of fuel, so how did it happen?

I ask again, but more specifically now, how can an avaiation business be run on the principal of what *should* be left in the tanks after 2 weeks and 14 flights? I'm sure this guy didn't have enough hours to foster his own bad habits, he was taught this (as were the 14 captains before him.)

For the sake of hearing it again - this fella did not intend to crash his plane and further more, he believed that he had taken all precautions to avoid such an outcome.WHY, in this day and age, do we have unreliable fuel gauges? WHY, if the R22, and others, can have reliable gauges and also a low fuel warning light, can't other aircraft? WHY do we continue with this ridiculous situation of using THREE different units for fuel? WHY don't we make the system, if not completely human-error-proof, at least more so, since whether foregiveable or not, these accidents DO happen?
and how many more lost aircraft and damaged roofs (or worse) will it take to get answers to these questions?

[El Desperado]

Hmmm...

"Sorry officer - the reason I crashed my car into this house on this wet rainy night is due soley to the fact that I measured the tread on my tyres with the wrong guage. I thought I had one inch of tread, when in fact I had one millimetre..... I drive this old car with spats on the wheels, so it's really difficult to see if there's any tread or not. The guy I just bought it from told me the tyres were nearly new...."

So....'kin fill it up with your required fuel or until it's full - whichever comes first.

I don't subscribe to this 'we all make mistakes philosophy' when it comes to fuel. If you do make this mistake then you pay the consequences (if you survive).

This guys walks with 'no stain on his character' (CAA quote), no licence endorsement.... sheesh.

The one redeeming factor in this case is that this is one pilot who is unlikely to make the same mistake again. Of course he didn't mean to run out of fuel, but he didn't do enough to ensure a safe flight.

A PPL is a privilege to fly over anyone's house, park, kids, school, whatever. Once you prove you can't do that properly, action needs to be taken. What's happened to this guy ?

[aviate1138]

"Mr Campbell has been acquitted without a stain on his character."
Civil Aviation Authority spokesman.

"But possibly one or two on his underwear?"

One thing for sure, he will have a hard job renting another aeroplane for a while, stain or no stain.

BJ

"There but for the grace of..........."

P.S. Will he get the nickname....

"Fulltanks Campbell" ?

[Chilli Monster]

Begs the question was this case won on the basis of justice and truth, or whether one legal team were better at their job than the other?

EA - the CAA did prosecute - but they lost.

[woodpecker]

Once ran out of fuel (fuel starvation) just as I lifted of this mown grass strip. Put it down again safely. Never used the Flymo again

[mad_jock]

Maybe the chaps at the CAA suddenly found out how far down the NHS waiting lists they were going to be for the next 10 years before the chap retires.

:=

MJ

[BEagle]

The link to the AAIB report is http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_502314.hcsp

It would be of interest to hear a verbatim report of the court decision and the reasoning behind it.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Are they available on line?

FD

[Stampe]

Excellent news for the gentleman concerned, the cause of flight safety is never served by prosecuting those who make errors of judgement however gross.Pilots rarely set out to endanger themselves or their aircraft intentionally.This pilot has already learnt his lesson painfully from the incident.I do do hope the CAA have picked up the costs of this misguided case.Shame on all of you all to happy to cast blame ,you will of course never have ever made an error of judgement??.Flight safety through knowledge and training must be the goal.

[Heliport]

The BBC report says
The jury was ordered on Thursday to clear the consultant neurosurgeon of the two charges against him.
That means the judge stopped the case.
There must have been a good reason. Something must have happened nobody's managed to find out yet.
The bush telegraph obviously doesn't work very well on this forum.

The Seneca was hired from Sky Leisure at Shoreham.
Surely someone out of all the PPLs on this forum can find out.

Anyone fly at Shoreham?

[FlyingForFun]

Now that the court case is over, I feel inclined to comment - although I still don't feel that I'm in possession of all the facts. From those facts that I do have, though, I can't for the life of me figure out how a court could find the pilot not guilty. I think I must be missing some vital piece of information which was key to the defence - I'd be very curious to know what that was (if not the details, at least whether it was a material fact or a legal issue), although I understand Flying Lawyer's reasons for not being able to divulge any details.

However, whatever happened, I agree with those posters who say that there is nothing to be gained from prosecuting the pilot. He has learnt his lesson. He will probably pay the price, financially, in terms of increased insurance costs. And I guarantee he will never make that mistake again - something which no court action could ever do.

FFF
--------------

[Whirlybird]

The court decides to acquit the guy. As Heliport says, judges don't advise juries in that manner for no good reason.

Yet STILL, people here know best, and think he should have been convicted.

Don't you think maybe, just maybe, their are some fcts we don't know.

I hope I'm never in the situation to have Trial by PPRuNe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[down&out]

Ditto FFF

I too did not want to comment until it was over. We have all made up our own views based on the AAIB report, but it is obvious something went on during the court hearing and I think we would all now like to know the facts of the hearing. Maybe we could all learn a bit more about flying (and the CAA) from it.

Does anyone know where relevant transcript can be read?

EDITED To Add
WB - our posts overlapped.

However I will add one GOOD thing that has come out of this. Many people are discussing fuel management in a depth that they would not normally consider. I can not comment if CAA were right to prosecute or not as obviously there is missing evidence we have not seen (hence my comments above).

[Bus429]

I have worked on a few modern light aircraft and have been amazed at the poor quality of some of the instruments, particularly those used for fuel quantity.

[Unwell_Raptor]

I agree with FFF. Prosecution will add nothing to safety, and merely satisfies the current thirst for retribution. If concern for your own hide doesn't make you a careful pilot, then the fear of prosecution is unlikely to do the trick.

Exactly the same applies to the foolish decision to prosecute managers for the Hatfield train crash. All that this will do is to stop the railways employing good bold managers, because they will not want to put their freedom at risk, and to make the system even more cringingly risk averse than it is now.

The partial shutdown of the railways after Hatfield almost certainly caused far more deaths than the original accident, by driving traffic onto the dangerous road system.

[strafer]

I'm bemused.

The court decides to acquit the guy. As Heliport says, judges don't advise juries in that manner for no good reason.
The jury were actually directed to acquit by the judge. They didn't decide anything. Maybe he was innocent (in the true meaning of the word) or maybe it was a legal technicality/snafu in our wonderful judical system. Either way he admitted to the gallon/litre conversion error.

I'm still bemused by how so many posters think this a 'mistake' rather than gross negligence. Had he killed the two small children who lived in the house would you have felt differently? I rather suspect you would, but it would only be the outcome of his criminal act that would have changed, rather than the act itself. Drunk driving is not more acceptable if you don't actually crash and neither should it be. There seems to be a lot of support for this guy just because he's a fellow pilot, and non-aviators looking in must be as surprised as I am.

[newswatcher]

Possible explanation on the acquittal from a local news site -

The Argus - News, Sport, Brighton and Hove Albion and Entertainment for Brighton, Hove and Sussex (http://www.thisisbrightonandhove.co.uk/brighton__hove/news/NEWS4.html)

http://www.thisisbrightonandhove.co.uk/brighton__hove/images/dc2.jpg

[Whirlybird]

Drunk driving involves a decision to drive a car when you KNOW you have been drinking. I'm sure this pilot didn't KNOW he'd made a fuel miscalculation...till afterwards. So it's not an exact or appropriate analogy.

[High Wing Drifter]

Either way he admitted to the gallon/litre conversion error.

I don't see how the numbers 23 and 30 relate to a litres - gallons conversion error?

It is fairly clear that the guy is either a Free Mason or we arguing around a facts vacuum :)

Saying that, I too cannot possibly imagine how somebody can mistakenly load too little fuel to complete the journey when it is so easy to chekc the quanitity. All there is in the ANO is a statement that the commander shall reasonably satisfy himself that he has sufficient fuel. I assume that the only officially recognised way of establishing how much fuel there is in the aircraft is by reading the fuel guages. So begins another iteration of the that argument.

[dublinpilot]

I can't help but think that this pilot is a very very lucky man, in more ways than one.

Is it not the sole responsibility of the commander of a powered aircraft to ensure that there is sufficent fuel for the flight?

Is he not required to have sufficient fuel to divert to an alternative field, and to hold there for 45 minutes?

Even if he had not made the calculation error, and had included the extra 23 ltrs surely he would not have met this requirement. I don't know the area, or much about the aircraft, but I'm sure a twin burns more than 31ltrs per hour, therefore he would not have been able to meet the 45 min hold alone...never mind the diversion. Ok, maybe he thought there was an extra 5 gallons in there, but I would still think that a twin would burn more that this in 45 min, and a diversion.

Sure I don't like to see a pilot prosecuted, and I agree that prosecution doesn't do much to improve safety. But neither does something like this do much for the GA cause.

If so many of us see him as getting away with it, then what do the public at large see? I dare say that they see a grossly unprofessional bunch of rich people with little airplanes, who aren't accountable to anyone, and who can get away with anything. Can this be anything but bad for GA, irrespective of any facts in this case?

dp

[proplover]

Just read the Brighton and Hove article, I must be missing something here. :confused: It seems that as the Concorde pilot found an error of 5 gallons in the fuel log this therefore makes everything ok as without the error he would have had enough fuel to complete the landing.
Good job he didn't have to carry out a go-round or divert - he'd be in exactly in the same position - heading quietly earthwards. :oh:
There seems to of been no calculation allowence for diversion or emergency by this chap, the comment that 'it was an accident waiting to happen' could apply to the pilot himself. (note that the mistake had been made before). :hmm:

No1 Rule of useless things in flying - Fuel in the bowser.:ugh:

The thought of where the litgation trail will now go is intresting as the finger is now seems to be pointing at the Hire Company with suspect fuel data - I'm sure that the Insurance companies involved will be looking at the case wording and policy small print VERY carefully - they do not like giving money out without seeing if they can find a victim to get that money back from. :ouch:

[big.al]

I'll not comment on the prosecution or acquittal. But I would say;

1) my (limited) experience of a/c fuel gauges is that they're much less accurate than car gauges, but it should be remembered they are (in light aircraft) usually only a gauge, NOT an accurate meter.

2) I once flew a 3hr round trip to Norwich and back in a C150 with the (standard) fuel tanks topped up on the outbound leg. 2/3 of the way back, one gauge read zero and the other only 1/3 of a tank. Based upon the club's approved 18 litres per hour fuel burn figures, the 150 should have around 5 hrs endurance. I carefuly did all the sums - twice - but was still concerned by the low gauges on the return leg. Upon landing and checking the tanks, each had over 1/3 fuel left - as I had expected and calculated, despite the fact that the gauges now both read almost zero. I could easily have been tempted to divert or make a precautionary landing under power if I had trusted the gauges instead of my numbers, BUT on the other hand, how can I be sure that there is no invisible fuel leak? I was operating the a/c nowhere near it's maximum range or endurance, and yet the gauges were so far out as to make me think something was wrong. I would add this wasn't the first time I had flown the a/c but it was the first time I had taken that particular C150 across country as opposed to toodling around the area, hence I wasn't familiar with the way the gauges read in that a/c.

I guess the moral is do the numbers, check the numbers and double-check the numbers, and never rely on fuel gauges that could so easily under-read or over-read.

As for the court case, there but for the grace of God go many.....

[Beanbag]

Pardon my ignorance, but can anyone explain how fuel is paid for for this kind of flying in the UK? In my PPL days in the US you paid for the aircraft by the hour and the owner reimbursed you for fuel purchased at distant airports. But this guy's behaviour seems more like someone trying to save money by putting in the minimum possible fuel. Otherwise why didn't he do as has been suggested a couple of times earlier, put in the amount he'd calculated he needed, and so expect to return it with the same fuel load as when he collected it (which was by definition acceptable to the operator).

I must say that (based on obviously limited information) it seems like the guy got off because he had the money for a first class brief and the contacts for impressive expert witnesses.

One indirect benefit of the prosecution, though, has been to make every GA pilot who reads about it think a bit more about fuel calculations - not for fear of prosecution, just because they've been reminded what can go wrong.

[mad_jock]

I bet the ops dept at sky leasure arn't looking forward to the next few weeks.

Does anyone know if there AOC has been suspended?

MJ

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Help me out here.

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?

Chuck

[pilotwolf]

WHY, if the R22, and others, can have reliable gauges and also a low fuel warning light, can't other aircraft?

Guess you've more faith in Frank's choice of equipment than a lot of Robbo pilots, Whirly... ;)

I know of one very experienced R22 instructor who ran out of fuel with fuel shown on the gauge and no waring light... his mistake was not to dip the fuel...

[Heliport]

Daily Telegraph report Brain surgeon cleared over air crash

A brain surgeon accused of crashing his hired light aircraft into a family home because he did not fill up with enough fuel has been cleared of endangering the public.

Prosecutors offered no further evidence on the fourth day of Donald Campbell's trial after a former chief pilot of Concorde and British Airways said the plane was "an accident waiting to happen".
Judge Anthony Thorpe directed not guilty verdicts on two charges of endangering the safety of an aircraft and endangering people and property.

Campbell, 54, was cleared after Capt William Lowe said fuel records for the Piper Seneca were "inadequate" before Mr Campbell had hired the aircraft for a return trip to Sheffield from Shoreham Airport in Sussex.

The court heard that the Piper ran out of fuel as it came in to land at Shoreham and crashed into the roof of a £200,000 property near the airfield. Campbell escaped with cuts and bruises while the occupants of the house were out when the crash happened.

The prosecution had claimed that the plane ran out of fuel because Campbell blundered when he converted US gallons into litres and put 23 too few litres into the plane for the journey. But Capt Lowe, a defence witness, said that although the full tank capacity was 128 gallons, only 123 were usable.

[Evo]

Still don't really get it - why does "the full tank capacity was 128 gallons, only 123 were usable" make the plane was "an accident waiting to happen"? Was this information not in the POH?

Whirly et al., I'm not attempting "Trial by PPRuNe" ... just trying to understand the verdict.

[FlyingForFun]

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
------------------

[DFC]

On the 123/128 issue, I beleive that what the witness was referring to was probably the fact that when the aircraft was full prior to departure, some pilots logged 123 i.e. only the useable amount on the tech log while others logged 128 for the same amount of fuel.

The same could probably be said of records of lesser amounts. Seems to me that the defence found that the tech log was not clear as to the requirement for recoding fuel on board refered to total fuel or just the useable portion of the total fuel (difference 5).

Never mind how the company is feeling. How are the pilots who made the entries in the tech log prior to this flight feeling?

Will the CAA make a second check of the tech log entries?

If one gets the fuel amount on arrival or on departure wrong in the tech log is this a case of falsifying an official document under the ANO?

Me thinks that in future, when flying a similar aircraft with dodgy gauges and invisible fuel level, I will put "not determined" in the fuel on arrival column.

Regards,

DFC

[bookworm]

The AAIB report says:

The aircraft had last been filled with fuel two weeks before the accident flight and a total of fourteen flights had been made prior to the aircraft's departure from Shoreham on 2 April 2001. The investigation therefore attempted to reconcile fuel uplift receipts with flying hours flown to determine fuel remaining before the flight. Unfortunately a number of factors mitigated against this. During the '50 hour check', a week before the accident flight, extensive engine ground running had been carried out. The amount of fuel used during the ground runs could only be estimated. In addition there had been two errors in entering fuel uplift quantities which in total resulted in 10 USG less fuel on board than indicated by the technical log. However, this error was more than compensated for by an uplift of 26.5 USG that had been omitted. In addition the estimated fuel consumption used by different pilots operating the aircraft on apparently similar flight profiles varied significantly. Lastly the heater on the aircraft uses fuel only from the left wing tank at a rate of roughly one USG per hour. The heater had been used for about two hours on the flights immediately prior to the accident flight. It was therefore not possible to determine accurately the amount of fuel on board prior to the flight by reconciliation.

If the AAIB couldn't manage to determine the amount of fuel on board before the flight in a 5 month investigation, it would seem to be a reasonable defence that the pilot might have difficulty too.

[rustle]

If the AAIB couldn't manage to determine the amount of fuel on board before the flight in a 5 month investigation, it would seem to be a reasonable defence that the pilot might have difficulty too.

Reasonable that the pilot may not have been able determine the amount remaining, yes.

Reasonable as an excuse for running out, no.

If you know you burn 100L p/h and you're planning a 2 hour trip, then you should uplift 200L for the trip, plus 75L for the hold, plus enough to divert, plus 5-10%.

If you can't fit that much in the tanks, you know you're full :)

If you can, then worst case is there's a bit more left when you've finished flying the trip than there was before... (Ignoring W&B for a moment)

[IO540]

bookworm

If the AAIB couldn't manage to determine the amount of fuel on board before the flight in a 5 month investigation, it would seem to be a reasonable defence that the pilot might have difficulty too.

The PIC needs to satisfy himself before the flight there is enough fuel. This responsibility cannot be delegated.... or can it?

The real Q is whether it is enough for the PIC to rely on records made by others. If YES then it is no suprise at all he was acquitted. If NO....

It should be apparent to e.g. anyone running a manufacturing business in which certain procedures need to be followed to avoid delivering defective stuff to customers that the written log method, so widely used by flying schools, is wide open to gross errors. Why is it relied on?

I personally saw two cases where I would have gone down if I had relied on the logs.

[Evo]

The PIC needs to satisfy himself before the flight there is enough fuel. This responsibility cannot be delegated.... or can it?

The real Q is whether it is enough for the PIC to rely on records made by others.


Hasn't it just been demonstrated that from a legal point of view it is? Or am I still missing something. :confused:

It's obviously good airmanship to make sure that there is enough fuel for your flight. However, good airmanship doesn't seem to be a legal requirement :)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

It should be apparent to e.g. anyone running a manufacturing business in which certain procedures need to be followed to avoid delivering defective stuff to customers that the written log method ... is wide open to gross errors. Well, we know that, which is why most quality systems don't rely on everything being recorded only once; when I'm looking for the historical background to a cock-up, which as a software engineer I find myself doing from time to time, it is helpful if the quality system has more than one audit trail - three is nice, then you normally have a reasonable chance of working out which record is wrong, and what actually happened, and who did it.

Here one might hope there would indeed be three records - the log of what people thought was in the plane, as referred to, and the fuel pump log as to what was put into which plane (this must exist because the fuel operator needs it for billing, and billing is important), plus a record of flying hours possibly verifiable by some sort of meter in the airfcraft (this must exist because the airfcraft operator nees it for billing, and billing is important). The log of how much fuel was in the plane at the start of each flight should be reconstructable from the other two records.

Sure, it's unreasonable to expect the pilot to demand to see and check the fuel operator's invoice book, so he wouldn't have access to all three sources. That doesn't explain why the CAA couldn't reconstruct it though.

[bluskis]

Accountants won't accept 'logged' stock movements for year end accounts purposes . and quite rightly too. They insist on a physical stock count.

The idea of putting your life on the line by accepting a trail of additions and subtractions by a bunch of unknown people beggars belief.

The answer has been stated by many people on the current threads ( including me) fill it up, then you know where you stand.

[englishal]

Just goes to show what a waste of time all these records that they insist you do in the UK are. I'm in the US at the moment, and I just take the plane to the pump and fill up....don't have to log it anywhere. I satisfy myself the aircraft if fuelled before I go. Obviously records are only kept to aportion blame in the event of an accident and in this case the records weren't sufficient for this case. Never mind,maybe the aircraft operator will get prosecuted instead for keeping insufficient records. At least someone will be prosecuted and it will keep many people on here happy (and some lawyer in business :D)

One good point about this thread is that it got me thinking and talking. I had a chat with a guy today who nearly had a double engine failure in a seneca (estimated 5 minutes of fuel remaining) due to crossfeed mismanagement, even though one tank was virtually full....scary isn't it? How would you react in a twin flying around at 1500' which suffed double EF?

EA

[Ranger One]

This has been an interesting thread from a variety of perspectives... couple of points:

bluskis:

The idea of putting your life on the line by accepting a trail of additions and subtractions by a bunch of unknown people beggars belief.

Must remember to perform a finite element analysis on the airframe before my next trip... :)

On a more serious note:

The answer has been stated by many people on the current threads ( including me) fill it up, then you know where you stand.

Agreed.

WRT the acquital, it's obvious Tudor can't say more about this case. However, the prosecution decided to offer no further evidence after the former CPs evidence. It seems to me this can happen for a variety of reasons, including:

1. 'We still think He Did It, but after the evidence from the last witness there is no reasonable prospect of conviction... damn he's going to get off'

2. 'Oooops. The defence have proved there's no case to answer... we're lucky there's no such offence as Careless Prosecution'

I suspect scenario 1.

Whatever, I'm utterly certain of one thing: if I ever find myself in hot water with the CAA, I want the Flying Lawyer!

R1

[IO540]

I had a chat with a guy today who nearly had a double engine failure in a seneca (estimated 5 minutes of fuel remaining) due to crossfeed mismanagement, even though one tank was virtually full....scary isn't it?

Actually, a plane ended up doing a forced landing, not a million miles away from the subject of this thread, with one empty tank and one not very empty one... put this together with how often I've walked up to a (rented) PA28 and found virtually nothing in the tank (which itself is clear negligence on the previous pilot's part), people seem to do this quite a lot.

While I believe you could almost teach an ape to fly straight and level, most people out of an average population sample would not get through the PPL exams. Pilots aren't stupid, and most of them are pretty clever. This neurosurgeon has got to be highly intelligent... a 6 year degree+postgrad equivalent?

So, why does it happen? It's got to be the barmy training, and the people on the ground who allow it to happen. When I pointed out to a CFI (probably after my very first lesson) that the system of relying on multiple subtractions to work out the remaining fuel is highly prone to errors, he said it's maintained in two places (a tech log for the plane, and a flight log which has a line per flight) and "if the two agree, it's ok". The holes in this are too obvious to spell out...

It indeed appears that legally it is OK for the pilot to rely on these "records". I wonder what this will do for the CAA policy of prosecuting people who run out of fuel? I bet many/most of them did rely on the paper records to start with.

And all of them could moan about the system which teaches them to do fuel calculations with a ex-WW1 slide rule - a jury would roll over laughing if they heard about that. It's OK for those oldies among us who know how a slide rule works (adding/subtracting logs etc) but for later generations this is just another counter-intuitive way to get into a mess.

[bluskis]

Ranger One

Not to divert the thread, and accepting the humour, but finite element calculations should not be relied on without physical testing of their validity, and I would hope aircraft manufacturers do this.

[Whirlybird]

One afternoon, a long time ago, I took a passenger for a short flight in a school/club C152. The aircraft had been used all day for students, and I was assured it had been filled up after every one-hour lesson. Being short, I need a ladder to visually check the fuel tanks on high wing aircraft, and I was only going for about half an hour, so I believed it. The gauges were registering full - not that I took any notice of that anyway.

When we got back, the person who filled up said there was less than half an hour's worth of fuel remaining!!!!!!!!!!

Needless to say, I now get a ladder, every time.

[Datcon]

I thought it was best to start a new thread so the true facts aren't lost in all the theories on the other thread.
The Press reports are wrong about why the case stopped.

I went to the court for the first day and got gripped. There were a few of us who went every day, including a retired BA Captain and a lawyer making notes.

The case stopped because the CAA prosecutor tried a dirty trick and it backfired big time.

Flying Lawyer wiped the floor with him and said the pilot couldn't have a fair trial now because of what the prosecutor did. The CAA lawyer came up with some rubbish but the judge wasn't having it and said Flying Lawyer could have time to advise the pilot and decide what they wanted to do.

The judge then turned to the CAA side and said if the trial stopped there could be a new trial with a different jury but he thought the CAA ought to "consider their position" about whether they should start again because of everything that had come out about the state of the Tech Log and because it was the CAA's fault the trial was ruined.

It was exciting with everyone waiting around wondering which way it would go. First we heard the CAA was going to go ahead with another trial if the defence stopped this one. Then we heard a Flying Lawyer was going to ask for the trial to stop and for the judge to make the CAA pay all the pilot's legal costs wasted defending this trial.

After the intermission, Flying Lawyer came back and said the trial should be stopped and the judge agreed. The CAA lawyer then said they'd decided not to go ahead with a new trial.

Flying Lawyer said he wasn't asking the judge to make the CAA pay the pilot's legal expenses. The judge looked surprised and so were we until Flying Lawyer said he'd done a deal with the CAA that if they dropped the case he wouldn't ask for them to pay the pilot's legal costs.
He asked for the pilot's costs to be reimbursed from some other fund so the pilot gets his legal costs back anyway.

I've never been inside a court before. It was fascinating and a real eye-opener about what happens if you're done by the CAA.

The CAA don't use independent experts, they use their own people. Their expert was very biassed and a lot of what he said was normal practice in GA was bollox. He was all cocky about visual checks and dipping tanks until he was cross-examined by Flying Lawyer. Then he just looked biassed and stupid.

We all started off on the CAA side but they were so unfair it was a disgrace. The CAA prosecutor was unfair all the time not just the dirty trick that backfired on him. He was trying to be all smarmy to the jury but it didn't take them long to see through him. They were giving each other looks and you could see they didn't like the way he was behaving. He was an A1 sh1t and got nailed by FL.

I started off thinking the pilot didn't have a hope in hell of getting off but after everything the defence brought out our vote in the gallery was the jury wouldn't have convicted him when the CAA didn't prosecute any of the other people in the chain who'd made mistakes. His mistake cost him 6 USG but the Tech Log was about 9 USG out even before that.

Maybe the pilot was lucky but the CAA behaved badly and deserved to lose. I've done a lot of GA flying over the years and things the CAA were saying were normal practice just weren't true.
We all thought it was a fair result.

[Datcon]

I've started a new thread saying why the trial was stopped so the true facts aren't lost among the wild theories on this thread.
I was there every day and saw the whole thing happen.

[Evo]

Good post, Datcon. Thanks.

[mad_jock]

So what did the CAA claim was normal procedure?

Thanks for posting.

MJ

[The Nr Fairy]

For other instances of odd prosecution tactics, there was a prosecution some time ago where an internal CAA memo advised against prosecution, but the CAA went ahead regardless.

Only when FL threatened to sub-poena the person who wrote the memo did the CAA yield. If memory serrves right they paid all costs as well.

If I remember rightly, the CAA is the only (or one of the few) prosecuting organisations which when it gets a conviction extracts the costs of mounting the prosecution in the first place . . .

[Dantruck]

So what was the dirty trick?

And what exactly was the CAA prosecutor saying that was so unfair?

[dublinpilot]

So what was the dirty trick exactly?

[ModernDinosaur]

Another slight diversion from the core topic of this thread, but in a part-answer to why aircraft fuel gauges are inaccurate compared to car gauges, it has something to do with the way the tanks are shaped. Most car tanks are quite "deep", so a small fuel usage results in a large drop in fuel level in the tank. Aircraft tanks, because they are often in the wing, are necessarily "flat" in design, so even a large difference in fuel quantity might be only a few millimetres of level difference. Measuring the level of a fluid sloshing around inside a tank accurately to a millimetre or so is quite complex, hence the gauges (built for cheapness) are often quite inaccurate.

It is interesting to compare the Cessna 172 fuel gauges with the Diamond Katana - the former has "wing tanks" while the latter has a "fuselage tank". I have never know the Katana gauge to be wrong by more than about 5 litres (and even that is a lot in a 76 litre tank) yet the Cessna can be out by 50 litres (out of 230 - the Cessna I'm used to has the long-range tank option).

Modern aircraft use more advance techniques to measure the fuel quantity (e.g. fuel flow, capacitance meters etc) and as a result the systems cost more. They do get reasonable accuracy even on wing-tanks (e.g. the Diamond Star which is accurate to +/-5 litres in 150 litres in my experience). But it does cost more. It is a major mod to fit a new type of sensor/gauge to an old aircraft as far as the CAA are concerned. It's not going to happen, guys and gals.

As to why some flying schools ask for aeroplanes to be returned near-empty when possible, well, there is this little detail of Maximum Takeoff Weight. You might be flying a four seater solo, but the next pilot might have three passengers and a lot of baggage. Full tanks may not be a legal option for them. Would you want to make an over-weight take-off? Even if the plane makes the take-off and crashes on landing at a safe weight, the insurance company is going to be rubbing it's hands with glee while the club wrings its hands in horror.

Now back to the regularly scheduled mud-slinging,

MD.

[Tartan Giant]

The CAA lawyer came up with some rubbish

What sort of "rubbish" ?


I started off thinking the pilot didn't have a hope in hell of getting off

So did I......... what saved the brain surgeon ?

If that aircraft came down on a school and killed a few innocents, would the brain surgeon still have escaped prosecution ?


the CAA didn't prosecute any of the other people in the chain who'd made mistakes.

May we be party to who they were, and what mistakes they made ?

Very interesting case !

TG

[Ranger One]

Datcon,

Thanks for hard facts in other thread. I should have added speculative option 3: 'prosecution blew themselves up'.

R1

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Would you want to make an over-weight take-off? One view is that this is lots safer than risking running out of fuel. Particularly if the MTOW has been determined wrt a 300m farm strip and you have a 2km tarmac runway. It is not, however, terribly legal.

[Aussie Andy]

Thanks ModernDinosaur - thats the first time I've heard that explained!

Andy ;)

[Heliport]

MD

An engineer friend tells me low fuel state warning sensors would cost about £500 for a pair of tanks. On many light aircraft it might even cost less because the sensor could be fitted to the filler cap.
You'd get an early warning on one wing when the aircraft banks, but the sensor would be fitted so that both lights stay lit at a predetermined safe minimum quantity.
Even if the cost was double or treble that estimate, it still seems a very small price to pay for the additional safety.

On many if not most light aircraft, the pre-flight visual check of quantity of fuel in the tanks tells you no more than the tanks are empty, there's some fuel (quantity unknown) or the tanks are full. The only real safety value on many aircraft is that the pilot then knows the filler cap is properly fitted.

[bookworm]

An engineer friend tells me low fuel state warning sensors would cost about £500 for a pair of tanks.

Why would this be any more accurate or reliable than a fuel gauge?

If you want precise and reliable measurement of fuel, you need a fuel totaliser of some sort, to measure the fuel as it is used, like a Shadin Digiflo.

[Frightplan]

AT THE RISK OF SOUNDING STUPID

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT THE MNEUMONIC "FREDA" IS FOR.

(AS MENTIONED IN ONE OF THE FIRST POSTS TO THIS TOPIC)

I assume it is similar to "CLEARO" or some such

COMPASS
LOG
ENGINES
ALTITUDE
AREA
RADIO
ORIENTATION

JUST HAVEN'T HEARD OF FREDA THAT'S ALL!

CHEERS

[Evo]

FREDA is one of the common UK mnemonics

F - Fuel (contents sufficient, change tank if appropriate)
R - Radio (next frequency selected, navaids selected/idented)
E - Engine (Carb heat, Ts & Ps, Mixture, suction/ammeter ok etc.)
D - DI (check, sync with compass)
A - Altimeter (set as required)

[bluskis]

Heli
In a coordinated turn the fuel should stay put relative to the tank, nothing to stop an uncordinated movement to check fuel remaining though, but in some aircraft this could indicate low fuel even with a quarter tank left.

[IO540]

bookworm

I have a Shadin and agree that something like that helps a great deal. However I would say that without a physical check of tank content, or an accurate fuel gauge (and in the context of GA the latter should not be relied on even if you have it, particularly as the former is so easy to do) anything one does is pretty worthless.

When my plane was delivered, the Shadin was reading 25% out. After some messing about, over a few months and much calibration against the pump, I got it down to 2%. However they do fail; I am on my 3rd one now within 1 year; the current unit goes to sleep occassionally! They all have a bug which causes them to occassionally lose the FOB setting one puts in; the work-around appears to be to not switch it off too soon after setting the new FOB figure.

I find the Shadin's best feature being the accurate fuel flow RATE indication. Knowing one has say 86USG in the tank to start with, and with the Shadin showing 12GPH flow rate, there is no reason to run out. Especially as one knows what the flow rate is at a given power setting. I would NEVER entirely rely on a Shadin as a totaliser, i.e. to tell me how much is actually left in the tank.

In the context of this thread (a low hour pilot renting a self fly hire plane) I've got a feeling that neither did he know the flow rates at different power settings, nor did anyone else know, nor was there any way (due to lack of instrumentation) for him to find out. In that situation, a gross over-fill is the only way. All the debate about how much he should have put in, etc, seems to be the difference between him returning with a nearly empty tank, and him returning with a completely empty tank. Neither is very clever.

As regards other posts about solid state (capacitive) fuel gauges being expensive, they are no more expensive to make than the WW1 systems fitted to most planes presently operating. I think it is simply a matter of nobody being willing to process an STC for an item because few operators would buy it as a retrofit item. With a largely decrepit fleet, almost nobody will spend money on "non essential" items. The planes I used to fly often didn't even have working lights; the school would not spend the money unless one was doing a night rating in it.

[Heliport]

bluskis
I'm not an engineer so I'll take your word for it that sensors can't be fitted to operate at lower levels than quarter tanks but I'd prefer that to no warning at all.

It's odd that light aircraft seem to be the only form of engine-driven transport which don't have reasonably accurate fuel gauges and/or low fuel state warnings, yet the consequences of running out of fuel in the air are far more serious than on land or water.

[down&out]

Datcon,

Thanks very much for your first post - you have wetted our appetite - any chance of some answers to the follow-up questions?

[Datcon]

Sorry about the delay. I had to ring up another pilot I met in court to check on a few things.

More detail.
Before the jury came in the CAA lawyer told the judge he wanted the jury to be given the AAIB report but the defence objected. Flying Lawyer said the CAA didn't give any advance warning they were going to try to use the report, and anyway an AAIB report can't just be given to a jury. They had two experts each who'd given opinions and the prosecution shouldn't be allowed to slip in extra stuff unless they brought the investigators to court to be questioned. The whole point of the AAIB is to find out what went wrong so everyone can learn from it and improve flight safety, not to blame people. If an investigator or anyone else is worried what they say may be used in a criminal case the system wouldn't work and flight safety would suffer.
The judge said he knew about accident investigations from his time in the Navy and agreed with Flying Lawyer. He said there wasn't to be any mention of the AAIB report.

The case started off well for the CAA and it looked like the pilot had no chance but as the case went on Flying Lawyer was doing a lot of damage to the prosecution witnesses. They came across well at first but when he questioned them he was catching them out.
Some examples from 4 days not in order.
He got the CFI to agree tanks should be filled every 3-4 flights to reset to a known quantity and any more than that was dangerous because of errors accumalating. He then showed they hadn't been filled for 14 flights before the pilot hired the Seneca.
And worse, when it was filled the wrong figure was put in the Tech Log so everyone after had 5 USG less than they thought.
The CFI agreed it's important Tech Logs are accurate and checked for errors but there were a whole list of errors nobody picked up.

The CAA had been going on about how official the Flying Order book was and how serious it was not to comply with it but the FO book said tanks should be filled after the last flight of the day and the CFI told people not to do that and the pilot had been told off for filling his tanks for his trips to Sheffield.

The CAA wanted to show nothing wrong with the engines to caused excessive fuel consumption so they got the engineer who adjusted the fuel flow a few days before the crash. He said he did lots of high power runs and the engines were perfect . Another shot in the foot! There was nothing in the Tech Log to show the fuel he used doing the engine runs.

The CAA expert went on about visual inspection of the tanks but then agreed visual checks are useless on a Seneca unless the tanks are over half to three quarters full you can't see any fuel.

He started off saying pilots should go through the Tech Log to see if there were any fuel calculation errors by other pilots but the CAA hadn't checked how many pages the club left in the working Tech Log file so he didn't even know how far back the pilot could check.
So he changed his tune and said a pilot should check the previous entry to see if there was anything to put him on warning the Tech Log figure was wrong. Flying Lawyer asked him to examine the previous entry (4 long sectors) and say if there was anything to put him on warning. He said there weren't. FL then pointed out there were and he had to admit if he as an expert couldn't spot the errors it was a bit much to expect a PPL to spot them.
He then admitted it was reasonable for a pilot to assume the figure shown in the Tech Log for fuel remaining was accurate within small margins for error and idn't have much option unless he filled the tanks which this pilot had been told not to do. He agreed the errors in this Tech Log were way outside what was acceptable and admitted there was no way any pilot could be expected to allow for such big errors.
This all took a very long time because the CAA expert wouldn't answer a straight question if it helped the defence.

The build-up is important because by the time Captain Lowe the first defence expert gave evidence the CAA's case was already beginning to look shaky.
The prosecutor was getting nowhere with Lowe and tried to make out hee wasn't answering simple questions yes or no, but Lowe said the questions were so wide you couldn't give a yes or no answer. That was true. He was trying to patronise Lowe - big mistake! Lowe is a very clever man, very experienced and everyone could see he was just being precise.
Lowe said the defence experts had been asked to analyse the Tech Logs and he calculated the amount of fuel remaining when the pilot hired was 21 USG. The Tech Log said 30 USG.
The CAA expert hadn't even done this calculation but the prosecutor said Lowe's opinion was wrong and asked him if he'd read the AAIB report. We thought this was odd because of what the judge said about the AAIB report and the lawyer taking notes near us was shaking his head.
We saw Flying Lawyer leaning across whispering something to the prosecutor. He didn't reply and asked Lowe a second time if he'd read the AAIB report. FL got up and asked the judge if he could speak to the prosecutor again. We thought he'd back off but he turned to Lowe and asked him if the AAIB agreed with his opinion about the fuel. The lawyer next to us almost fell off his seat!
Mr Owen stood up and said he needed to speak to the judge about a point of law. The judge said he knew what it was and sent the jury to their room. Mr Owen said what the prosecutor did was deliberate not innocent because he reminded him twice what the judge said about not mentioning the AAIB report. You could see it was a foul and the judge looked annoyed.

What was the rubbish the prosecutor came out with?
He said he hadn't done anything wrong because he never actually said what was in the report. :rolleyes: The judge wasn't having it. He said jurors aren't stupid and they'd realise the AAIB must have come to a different conclusion to Lowe or the prosecutor wouldn't have asked the question. It was unfair tactics. I've already said what happened next in my first post.

In what way were the CAA unfair?
Two main ways.
One - Trying to get the pilot convicted on emotion.
When the prosecutor told the jury at the beginning what the CAA's case was you had to be there to see how unfair it was. He said the pilot didn't have a defence, his lawyers would try to "blind them with science" and went on and on and on about how children could have been killed, trying to make the jury prejudiced against the pilot. All that emotional stuff in the Daily Mail. There was a funny moment when Flying Lawyer in a stage whisper said he hasn't mentioned children for 5 minutes. It was so obvious what the prosecutor was trying to do and the jury all grinned.
The CAA brought the house-owner to say how upset they all were and was even getting her to point out her children's toys in the garden. That's my 5 year old's tricycle, that's my 6 year old's ball etc. When he'd finished, Flying Lawyer got up and said he didn't ask for the lady to be brought to court her statement could have been read to the jury. He said the CAA had obviously brought her for their own ulterior reasons. The judge ticked FL off for making a comment, but then said you can leave that to me! The judge wasn't stupid. Everyone could see what the prosecutor was up to.

Two - Making out anything less than perfect airmanship meant the pilot was guilty of negligence.
It looked like the judge was falling for it until Flying Lawyer got up and said what the jury had to decide wasn't whether the pilot could have made a better job of it but whether his flight planning was "below the standard it was reasonable to expect from a competent and prudent pilot". (I wrote that bit down.) And did his conversion mistake endanger the a/c and people. The judge agreed. We didn't understand the last bit at the time because we thought if the pilot made a mistake and ran out of fuel that must be endangering but when all the stuff about the Tech Log came out you could see the pilot error cost him 6 USG but he was another 9 USG short because of other people's mistakes and the club not filling the tanks regularly.

I said before we thought the jury wouldn't convict him when the Tech Log was so bad and other people were negligent and they weren't prosecuted.
I'm not saying we didn't think he was negligent but it was up to the CAA to prove he was guilty and Mr Owen's job was to get him off and he did.
The CAA ended up with egg all over their faces and they only threw in the towel so they didn't have to pay the expense of the wasted trial.
The pilot was lucky but he'll never fly without full tanks again that's for sure so he's learnt a lesson.
Maybe the prosecutor learnt a few lessons as well.


There's no point in asking me any more questions, that's everything I can remember.



Edited to say the young lawyer taking notes was very helpful and he made it much more interesting for us. I didn't find out his name but if any of the legal eagles on Prune know him please thank him.

[DSR10]

Previous "run outs" include one of CAA's own a few years back.....he took early retirement on full pension and no prosecution

[vancouv]

A couple of people have said you can't check high-wing fuel tanks without a ladder. Can't speak for other types, but every C152 I've flown has a step on the strut so you can visually check the fuel, and indeed the top of the wings. Is this not the case on all 152's?

I've rented planes where the fuel is entered on the techlog, and I've always assumed it was purely to satisfy some legal requirement rather than being intended as a proper measurement.

How could it possible be right? Not everyone leans correctly, or indeed at all, and when doing the calculation a fixed amount is normally used. OK, it's going to be alright to see if the tanks are empty rather than full, but there's no way I would rely on it to tell me how much I was starting with.

When I fly, I start from the position that I will fill up - simple as that. Then I consider weight and balance to see whether I can actually do that or not, but I will go with the maximum amount of fuel I can take - right up to the MTOW.

Admittedly even this isn't always possible if you are flying from shorter strips, but as a general principle it makes me feel a lot more comfortable.

As for fuel gauge accuracy, well, everyone knows they don't work, so they should not be taken as any indication of the fuel contents.

[Datcon]

I've now put a lot more detail on the other thread


Ranger One
Are you a tennis fan? I'd say a 'forced error'.
The prosecutor was all very confident until he lost a few sets, then he got rattled and took a chance with a shot he should never have tried. Game, set and match to Flying Lawyer.
I'm being generous with that.
The other way of putting it is he started losing, tried a sneaky foul and got disqualified. :D

[Mr Wolfie]

Datcon - Thanks for a very detailed and enlightening account of the case. I think that details of many CAA prosecutions (successful or otherwise) would make for very interesting reading. In the absence of any other source for such material your presence at the trail for those few days has shone a light on the way the CAA investigates & pursues "offenders".

To try to introduce undisclosed evidence on 4 occasions (3 after being told not to by the presiding Judge) seems as desperate a tactic as it was dispicable.

As an aside, in another thread, the content of the 3 main UK GA mags is criticised as unoriginal and uninspired. Perhaps they ought to appoint a Court Reporter.

Mr. W

[down&out]

Thanks very much Datcon.

The detail is very interesting and does show up the CAA. I do hope they learn from it and don't waste money in this way again.

As you say, I'm sure the pilot has learnt his lesson too.

But what about the school? We all have seen how badly out the fuel log was AND they were encouraging pilots to keep fuel loads down (against the flying order book). I have seen a similar situation in a training environments where they would have a number of low-time PPL hirers who might be pressured into a similar situation. Surely this practice would make a worthy investigation. Any thoughts anyone?

[Saab Dastard]

Datcon,

Thanks for your excellent post.

Regards

SD

[EKKL]

So what is the name of this dodgy school and are they based at Shoreham?

[dublinpilot]

Thanks for the detailed response Datcon. It was very informative.

The CAA expert went on about visual inspection of the tanks but then had to agree visual checks are useless on a Seneca unless the tanks were over half to three quarters full you can't see any fuel because the tanks are inboard and the filler caps out near the wing-tips.

How do other people check the fuel on these? Personally I would never be happy with a fuel level I couln't see. However I can imagine a situation where it was necessarry to have less than half tanks to keep weight within MTOW. Is relying on logs the only way then?

[IO540]

How can anybody rely on logs without a physical check, in the absence of accurate fuel gauges?

[IO540]

vancouv

but every C152 I've flown has a step on the strut so you can visually check the fuel, and indeed the top of the wings. Is this not the case on all 152's?

I don't think it is universal; I used to fly several C152s in my PPL training and none of them had that step. I never saw anyone use a ladder with them either; if the tank is fairly full you can reach up and poke a finger into the tank and if the end of it gets wet then you have a nearly full tank.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I don't think it is universal; I used to fly several C152s in my PPL training and none of them had that step. All the ones I've flown have had the step. And a dipstick.

[Onan the Clumsy]

From page 1 I am reminded of the Fireman's statement after a light aircraft ran out of fuel and landed in a residential area (of Los Angeles ?), "Lucky there was no fuel on board or the situation could have been much worse !" We had a similar one here where a jump plane came down and the cause looked like the pilot forgot to retrim after landing causing it to stall. The TV guy said "Lucky the plane was so low when it got into difficulties or this could have been much worse" :confused:

[BEagle]

I wonder what view the aircraft insurers will now take, given the evidence which Tudor presented concerning the way the aeroplane was routinely operated?

[Papa Charlie]

EKKL - I believe it was Sky Leisure based at Shoreham.....

PC

[IO540]

BEagle

What happened here is pretty standard in my experience during PPL training. Admittedly I had never seen a plane fly (or be run) 14 times in between physical fuel checks but I had seen plenty of things which came close to that.

I can't avoid observing that any moderately intelligent non-flying observer who has followed this saga has got to be wondering what on earth stops these little planes falling out of the sky left right and centre... perhaps it's because instructors tend to know how close to the wind they can sail, PPL holders tend to not fly very much, and most people do a physical check in low-wing planes.

In my view there are issues with both operating practice and the stuff that is taught. We could start a whole new thread on how to overhaul PPL training :O

[18greens]

It was also interesing that the club did not want him to fill the tanks presumably because of MTOW considerations for later flights. I wonder if this rule will now change.

Fascinating case.

[Whirlybird]

I've never seen a C152 without a step, BUT unless it had been pointed out, you might not realise it was there; it's not obvious. In any case, unless the tanks are full, it's hard to tell how much fuel you've got without a dipstick - and I've never seen a C152 with one of those. According to an instructor who'd worked it out, if I can just touch fuel with a fully extended finger in the tank, that'll be about three-quarters full; his fingers were longer and measured down to half tanks! Not the most scientific way of checking...but it's worked so far. :eek: :eek: :eek: And before anyone criticises that comment, I fly with full tanks whenever physically and legally possible.

[rustle]

I wonder what view the aircraft insurers will now take...

Whatever view they take, inevitably it will now cost more to insure an aircraft - so we all lose.

If they decide to pay out hull loss, premiums will rise to pick up the tab.

If, as normal insurance practice, they argue about paying out and it goes to Court, premiums will rise to pick up the tab.

Heads I win, tails you lose - ye olde insurance motto.

[A and C]

Almost every time that I go to work now the secruity people try to take my screwdriver off me ( as if I cant hi-jack the aircraft I command without a screwdriver )

Without this screwdriver I cant drop the mesuring sticks to phisicly check the fuel if the gauges are suspect.

Are the BAA security people going to be held to account for me running out of fuel ?.

This case raises some interesting points and seems to let the pilot off the hook if he cannot check something reasonably.

With the security tail now wagging the flight safety dog in this industry I am left to wonder who is responsable for aircraft saftey when some half witted security guard can inssist on removing items that I need to assure the safety of the aircraft that I command.

[GK430]

The Sneca III is a very poor aircraft loadwise to utilise for Public Transport Flying. I used to fly the last model off the production line which was dual instrumented and had radar. Half tanks and 4 adults took you over MTOW. And apart from reliance on guages, how did you know what fuel level you really had.

I would suggest to anyone hiring from any organisation that you have to bear in mind that if you are in the left hand seat, the responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight lies with you. If too many constraints are placed on you, find a plane from elsewhere.

In reading the AAIB report and both threads, the thing that amazes me was this organisation's desire to have the plane returned with minimum fuel so not to cock up the potential for a subsequent charter. Obviously the kind of aerial work carried out is unknown, but who would be flying the aircraft next that would not rquire at least an hours fuel plus some safety margin:oh:
Therefore to quibble about it suggests that their weight & balance / loadsheets may perhaps have been "marginal"! (for want of a more cynical way of putting it).

I learned to fly in the U.K. but recall validating my licence in Australia many moons ago and on x-country flight planning out there fuel calcs were a high priority. If memory serves me right, there was no mention of taking taxiing fuel quantities into account - only airborne consumption - WHY?

[Onan the Clumsy]

The strut steps on the 100 series cessna wasn't standard until quite late in the product line. It's now standard, but you'd expext that for a hundred and fifty grand. Lots of the earlier models have this retrofitted, or I guess it could have been an option at the time of purchase.

IMO it is one of the best mods available for the aircraft, but one that seems to be recognised about as much in the breach as in the observance.

BTW, I used to dip my fingers in there, but I gave up because that stuff does really nasty things to your skin. Paint stirer sticks are common in the States - especially as Home Depot gives them out for free. We figure on about 5 gals per inch for the 182. Obviously a swag though as this would require rectangular fuel cells, level ground etc, but it's a good starting point.

[GroundBound]

Let's look at some of the facts from the AIB report.

1) Analysis of GPS and radar data indicates that the flight took a total of 2 hrs and 13 minutes and 55.5 USG would have been burned …
The total fuel capacity was 128 US gallons, with 5 US gallons unusable.
So assuming he had about 60 USG on departure, the gauges for both sides should have read about half full. According to the accident report "After refuelling the pilot noted that the fuel gauges indicated 'full' on the left and 'three quarters full' on the right."

2) Having completed the calculation, the pilot asked the refueller to put 45 litres (12 US gallons) of fuel in each wing. So, his calculation error was 3 US gals per wing. 6 USG total would be about 15-20 minutes flight time- assuming 20-22 USG per hour consumption.

3) The pilot based his fuel plan on a 'rule of thumb' provided to him during his type-conversion training. In common with many such 'rules' nothing was written formally, but the 'rule' was based on cruising at about 140kt IAS with 2,200 RPM and 30 to 32 inches of MAP giving fuel consumption of about 20 USG per hour. However, the pilot planned to fly at 154 kt TAS which the AFM indicates requires 23.3 USG per hour. Analysis of GPS and radar data indicates that the flight took a total of 2 hrs and 13 minutes and 55.5 USG would have been burned compared to the 2 hrs flying time and 40 USG fuel consumption calculated by the pilot.
The pilot calculated his reserve fuel by adding 10 USG to the fuel burn and by adding a further safety factor by converting the final figure into Imperial gallons. He thus planned to carry a total of 60 USG compared to the 73 USG that would have been required if the flight had been planned in accordance with the AFM and the FOB.



I cannot see that the conversion error in the fuel calculation is the primary cause of this accident. At most. It constituted about 15-20 minutes flying time, which would be far too small a margin for a planned 2-hour flight.

The pilot's calculations were based on the 'rule of thumb', which was about 10% on the wrong side of the operating conditions. However he planned for 60 USG, which would have been 50% more than his predicted fuel burn. Although it would not have met with the 73 USG which would have been required for the AFM and FOB, it would have been enough for the flight, without diversion.

Based on the aircraft technical log, the fuel on board prior to refuelling ought to have been around 30 USG. Thus he assumed residual fuel existed which would have been a further 50% margin above his planning.

He was also aware that G-OMAR was occasionally used for charter flights and that in order to avoid potential weight problems the aircraft operator had an unwritten policy that the aircraft should not be returned with very high residual fuel loads. So he is under pressure not to take unnecessary fuel.

The fuel gauges indicated 'full' on the left and 'three quarters full' on the right in other words, about 7/8 of 128 USG - or well over 100 USG - at least 4 hours for a 2 hour flight. Based on the tech log, 30 USG would be around 90 minutes flying time. So he thinks he has loaded 2 hours of fuel, he has 1.5 hours residual fuel from the tech log, and his fuel gauges are showing at least 4 hours. Look pretty consistent and not unreasonable for the flight. The flight to Sheffield was uneventful with an airborne time of 1 hour 2 minutes and a block time (start of taxi at Shoreham to end of taxi at destination) of 1 hour and 5 minutes. So there should be about 3 hours fuel left for a 1 hour flight.

Now, the fact that he has loaded 6 USG less than he thought (about 15-20 minutes flying) is hardly going to make a big difference to the 3 hours that looks to be in the tanks.

I can't see that this is negligence. It looks to me like this guy has been caught out by faulty fuel gauges - remember he can't visually check the tanks - and a reluctance to fill the aircraft because of the operator's policy.

The only fault I can see is that his original fuel planning of 60 US Gal, instead of the 73 USG as recommended was re-miss, because he used rule-of thumb values (who doesn't?), and he doesn't seem to have planned for sufficient diversion fuel (but he wasn't in a diversion situation).

I think he has been unlucky, and perhaps a little lax in diversion planning, but I don't think he should have been prosecuted.

[Julian]

Seems a very weird method of operation from the flying school, all the schools/FBOs I have used have always asked you refill to tabs on your return unless SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED by the following hirer not to!

I always refill to tabs (unless W&B prevents), before taking an aircraft out and will sometimes fillup at a midpoint enroute even if it doesnt require it.

You can never have too much fuel...unless you are on fire!

[strafer]

An intelligent and well-thought out post Groundbound but as you've pointed out, in the chain of events which led to this crash, 4 were made by the PIC.
I still think a prosecution was warranted. (All facts being true, obviously).

[The Nr Fairy]

strafer :

I'm having a "thickie" afternoon. Could you elucidate on the 4 mistakes ?

My reading of Groundbound's post is that he didn't act negligently, but was let down by the Tech Log, an unwritten policy, and the unwritten rule of thumb. Other elements in the chain were in place long before he got to the aircraft - I don't think he had any control over those.

[Dunc]

Julian

The Seneca in question does not have tabs or any visual way of inspecting the tanks unless the outer tanks has a good quantity of fuel (meaning the inner tank has to be full). So its a case of full or trust teh tech log (dangerous) or guages (more dangerous) - its just a bad design compared to tanks with tabs or fuel you can see or dip.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I;m kind of puzzled by the fuel gauges showing one tank full, and yet you can't see the fuel on a visual inspection.

Why can't you see the fuel in a full tank?

[englishal]

A Very simple way around these problems would be to have load cells fitted to each of the wheels giving an indication of weight in the cockpit. This could then tell you fuel load, aircraft weight and even CofG....

I wonder if someone would be prosecuted if they crashed while over weight becasue their pax under-estimated their weight?

EA

[strafer]

Nr Fairy

1 - Original fuel planning calc error
2 - Error on calculating RPM/MP setting
3 - Didn't plan sufficient diversion fuel
4 - 'Reluctance to fill' due to operator's policy - he's the PIC, not them.
And 5) I would also be surprised if that house was his only possible landing place (although I don't know)

[QNH 1013]

The only time I have needed to offload fuel was when I hired a Piper Arrow at Madison in the USA and had a very oversized passenger. I asked the renting company and they said "no-problem". It wasn't either... the fuel truck pulled up, a special nozzle was put into the tanks and I was asked how much avgas I wanted offloaded. I seemed like a routine job to them and took all of a couple of minutes.

Don't ask me if the avgas went into a separate tank on the fuel truck because I simply don't know, but the speed and efficiency suggested it was a routine operation. I've never seen it done in the UK, although to be fair I have never needed to ask.

[GroundBound]

Chuck

Yes its a valid point and indicates something not quite right somewhere.

However, consider the following (its not in the AIB report - just surmising).

Guy turns up at aircraft, sees the tech log, and guestimates there is about 30 USG residual fuel. This would be about 1/4 tanks. No point making an inspection, you can't see it when its that low, apparently (from the AIB report). However, he asks the refueller to put in his route fuel, 30USG each side, which would bring it up to about 3/4 tanks each side. Maybe a visual inspection will show fuel, but no telling how much - besides the refueller has just put in enough, hasn't he? Jump in the aircraft, throw the switches, look at the gauges, one says 3/4 - yep, OK. The other says full - "oh, there must have been more left over in that tank than I thought!"

How about the tanks on the return? Nothing said here in the AIB report. However, if an hours fuel had been used, the gauges would show 3/4 and 1/2 - plenty for the return flight of one hour. Plus, no point in a visual check, you can't see the fuel that low down, it seems.

After an hour's flight on the return, the tanks would be showing about 1/2 an 1/4.
From the AIB report, when arriving over Shoreham and performing his checks: "As he did so he noted that the fuel gauges indicated 'half full' for the left wing tanks and a 'quarter full' for the right tanks. Sounds about right doesn't it?

Then the engines quit, presumably because the tanks were empty! Now, the gauges are supposed to be accurate when empty - but they were reading 1/2 and 1/4 full - hey that's WAY out.

Now, if the aircraft landed without fuel there are two reasons, not enough fuel uplifted, or fuel leak en-route. Take a look at the AIB report. Does it even mention this second possibility? Does it even try to investigate this possibility? No! The only comment is "The left wing, outboard of the engine, was almost detached. The right wing was still attached, but the inboard section of the right wing fuel tank had been ruptured by an impact with a low concrete wall. There was little evidence of fuel at the site; some fuel had drained from the right wing down the wall, destroying a small amount of vegetation beneath. There was no evidence of fuel from the left wing."

A fuel leak is not even contemplated, researched or denied. There is no mention that a fuel gauge reading 1/2 or 1/4 for an empty tank is outside the tolerance error on the gauges.

No, either the pilot is lying, or he was genuinely caught out by gross errors in the gauges or there is more to this which has not been properly investigated.

[IO540]

Groundbound

There is no mention that a fuel gauge reading 1/2 or 1/4 for an empty tank is outside the tolerance error on the gauges.

Is this really a requirement? Most planes I trained in were at least that bad, and IIRC G-OMAR was a pretty old plane.

On the one hand people are going over these "details", on the other all this is standard practice in the business...

[GroundBound]

IO540
it has been my understanding that the only requirement for accuracy on fuel gauges is that they must be correct when reading zero. This, from an instructor.

I think I also remember someone saying this earlier on this forum, Genghis maybe?

Hence, if the tanks were dry the gauges should have indicated zero. If they didn't, then there would seem to be a problem.

[mad_jock]

All the C150 I have flown have had them

Only the areobat C152's have had them.

All C172's have had them

Lucky I am not a short arse and can still get my leg up high enough so can climb onto the spar with out the step (although this has cost me a pair of jeans splitting). Although normally I only do my first flight in that plane then I go by time after that.
MJ

[Chuck Ellsworth]

OK, here is what I am driving at.

Pilot visually checks tanks, Cannot determine how much fuel there is.

Pilot checks fuel guage after getting in airplane and sees one tank indicating full. However he did not see the fuel tank full when he looked into it.

Anyone see something wrong here?

[Tartan Giant]

The first thing to say, is thank the Gods and fate that nobody was killed.

If the flight had been “authorised” by someone other than the Commander, that someone showed a distinct lack of management come Airmanship skills in allowing the flight to depart with half-tanks, knowing, or ought reasonably to have known, the aircraft would arrive back O/H Shoreham with less than what HIS own FOB said it should arrive back with.
What “Authorisation” process did this chap employ – Mickey Mouse’s ?

That the PIC (even a PPL with very limited experience, never mind twin-time) did not ‘twig’ that having filled the machine to half-full (FOB intended at departure 60 US galls) yet in evidence noted after refuelling the Left Tank said “FULL” and the Right Tank said “3/4” - was not too bright for a man with a superior brain - regardless of previous tech log entries he may or not persued.

His intent was that the aircraft departed with HALF its FM quoted TOTAL fuel capacity (128 inc 5 unusable). It did not; even after taking note of the stupid wish of the Clubs management that he returns the aircraft with basically minimum fuel, that should have triggered a warning sign that something was amiss at this early stage ….
eg I’m departing with the aircraft indicating nearly FULL tanks……..how do I get back with basically minimum fuel using my 20 gal/hr Rule of Thumb for a round trip of 2 hrs (plus 2 mins) ?

It was never going to work if he was to please the idiot who “authorised” the flight.

What does this brain surgeon do in his theatre when an oxygen bottle says “FULL” knowing he’s been operating for 6 hours ?

AAIB Report excerpts with my comments in RED.

Ref : http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_502314.hcsp

After refuelling the pilot noted that the fuel gauges indicated 'full' on the left and 'three quarters full' on the right.

As the aircraft passed through the Shoreham overhead, the pilot began a shallow left turn and started to carry out the Pre-Landing checks. As he did so he noted that the fuel gauges indicated 'half full' for the left wing tanks and a 'quarter full' for the right tanks.

Was that the one and only check he did of FOB ?

In the limited time available the pilot was unable to refer to the emergency checklist during the restart attempts and he cannot recall whether he selected the AUX fuel pump to HI in accordance with the checklist.

Flying solo and having an engine failure, there’s not much spare metal capacity to confirm by check-list your “Engine Failure” drills.

at about 400 feet and pointing directly at the airfield, the pilot realised that he would be unable to glide to the runway and he began looking for a suitable place to land.

It’s a bit late at 400 feet looking for a suitable place to make an emergency landing.

The total fuel capacity is 128 US gallons, with 5 US gallons unusable.

So if you want to depart with HALF tanks……..why accept the situation that tells you the machine is only a quarter of a tank away from MAX fuel load ?

Fuel planning
The evening before the flight the pilot had carried out his navigation planning using a computer based navigation planning aid.
The computer was programmed to assume zero wind for the route and a cruising true airspeed (TAS) of 154 kt with a fuel consumption of 25.5 US gallons per hour (GPH). The computer printout of the plan, which the pilot took with him on the flight, showed a total flight time for the return trip of 2 hrs and 2 minutes and a fuel burn of 52 gallons.
The pilot later stated that he did not rely on his computer programme for fuel calculations but used a 'rule of thumb' rate of fuel consumption of 20 US GPH which had been given to him by instructors during his type conversion training.

The PIC was certainly ‘let down’ by these “instructors” giving him duff gen which was NOT on the side of safety.

He was also aware that G-OMAR was occasionally used for charter flights and that in order to avoid potential weight problems the aircraft operator had an unwritten policy that the aircraft should not be returned with very high residual fuel loads.

As has been said by others, this policy should NEVER deter any PIC of what fuel HE wants over-head.

Accordingly, the pilot calculated he would need 40 US gallons for the 2 hour flight plus 10 US gallons reserve giving a total requirement of 50 US gallons. The pilot further stated that he was in the habit of converting the US gallon figure to Imperial gallons to provide an extra safety margin. Thus for this flight he planned to have 50 Imperial (60 US gallons) on board for the flight.

Fair enough. Having taken into account this logic, it is disappointing to know a mental process failed in further logic after the refuel operation.

Fuel uplift

The aircraft technical log indicates that 30 US gallons remained on board after the previous flight, but the pilot states that he based his uplift calculation on 30 Imperial gallons (36 US gallons) remaining.
To achieve his planned total fuel of 50 Imperial gallons (60 US gallons) the pilot calculated that he needed to load a further 20 Imperial gallons (24 US gallons); he therefore requested the refueller to load 45 litres (12 USG) in each wing tank.
The pilot was unable to explain why he had indicated in the aircraft technical log that he would uplift a total of 30 USG.

If there was 30 US on board already, he needed another 30 to make the FOB 60 he wanted, that is what he planned to depart with. No ?


the fuel gauges in the Seneca III provide a general indication of fuel on board but cannot be relied upon for fine tolerance readings.

“FULL” and “3/4” Full are not noted for being fine tolerance readings.

with an evenly balanced fuel load of 50% or less the fuel is carried only in the two inboard tanks and there is therefore no fuel to be seen in the outboard tank.

Having noted 30 galls before refuelling, and wanting to depart with HALF the full capacity of the machine, it was very unfortunate the PIC did not have a look to verify what the gauges were telling him after the refuel.
If they were in any way reliable (forget fine tolerance readings) he would have seen fuel in the tanks.

The aircraft technical log has a record of arrival fuel, fuel uplift and fuel on board for each flight.

The aircraft had last been filled with fuel two weeks before the accident flight and a total of fourteen flights had been made prior to the aircraft's departure from Shoreham on 2 April 2001.

I cannot believe, having read about this dumb “unwritten” charter flight restriction on returning the aircraft with low fuel states, this machine actually flew 14 flights and NEVER refuelled.
Who would hire this twin (any twin) for anything less than 30 minutes ? So let’s say we have 7 hours flying and using that erroneous Rule of Thumb of 20 gal/hr that’s 140 gallons burnt off……… more than the damn thing can carry. Some Operations department ! Or am I reading this wrong ?

PA 34 qualified pilots of the operating company questioned during the investigation were all aware that the unwritten, but generally widely used consumption figure of 20 USG per hour was applicable to the 55% power settings.

General Aviation Safety Sense Leaflet 1C 'Good Airmanship Guide', published by the CAA, recommends that the AFM fuel consumption figures should be increased by 20% to allow for in-service wear.

The owners who hired this machine out obviously do not subscribe to the above publication.

The Flying Order Book (FOB) for the aircraft operating company requires pilots to take account of the fuel burn for the entire route plus five per cent and carry additional fuel to allow a diversion to a nominated alternate from overhead destination plus a further 45 minutes reserve. A fuel plan calculated in accordance with the AFM and the FOB and using Lydd as an alternate for the return flight shows a total fuel required for the return flight of 73 USG.

Having “Authorised” this flight, what steps did this gent take to ensure his own FOB was being followed ? Very small ones !


Safety Sense Leaflet 1C 'Good Airmanship Guide' recommends that pilots should 'plan to land by the time the tanks(s) are down to the greater of 1/4 tank or 45 minutes, but do not rely solely on the gauges which may be unreliable'.
The Safety Sense leaflet's fuel planning advice applied to the pilot's calculated fuel burn would have given a total fuel required of 71 USG.

I have not read that the PIC intended to follow this good advice – or that he was even aware of it.

FUEL PLANNING.

The pilot based his fuel plan on a 'rule of thumb' provided to him during his type-conversion training.
However, the pilot planned to fly at 154 kt TAS which the AFM indicates requires 23.3 USG per hour.

The pilot calculated his reserve fuel by adding 10 USG to the fuel burn and by adding a further safety factor by converting the final figure into Imperial gallons.
He thus planned to carry a total of 60 USG compared to the 73 USG that would have been required if the flight had been planned in accordance with the AFM and the FOB.

Any “Authorising” Officer worth his salt would know 60 US gallons were not going to be enough for this trip. A terrible management failure. Slack is not the word.

The pilot's fuel plan gave him less fuel than either the FOB or CAA recommend.....

it appears that the fuel on board prior to refuelling was at or very close to the 30 USG shown in the aircraft technical log.

Does not explain how the machine flew 14 trips without a refuel along the way !


Conclusion

The fuel on board prior to departure from Shoreham was at least 54 US gallons.
The actual fuel burned during the flight was approximately 55 USG.
It is therefore possible, but perhaps unlikely, that both aircraft wing tanks emptied within a few seconds of each other.
It seems more likely that the fuel remaining on board when the aircraft arrived overhead Shoreham was very low with perhaps slightly more in the right tank than the left.
At 90 kt the windmill RPM would have been above the maximum for starter motor engagement and the pilot's attempts to restart with the electric starter motor would have had no effect.

A lesson for all.

Running out of fuel can be fatal.
Running short of common sense likewise. I hope owners and operators brush-up on their FOB’s and eradicate stupid and negligent items, and those who plan to be PIC take careful note of this accident and its catalogue of pitfalls and bear traps.

TG

ps Edit was me spelling colour the real way instead of color for the UBBCODE

[englishal]

Anyone see something wrong here?
Of course not, the tech log said there was plenty of fuel :D

[Heliport]

TG
Agree with much of what you say but, unless I've misread Datcon's post, you've misunderstood a few points.
eg The aircraft was refuelled several times, but the tanks hadn't been filled for 14 flights. So the last time the actual qty of fuel on board was known for certain was 14 flights previously.
Also, when they were filled, the full quantity fuel on board (128 gals) was wrongly put in the Tech Log, not the usable fuel (123 gals) so everyone after that had been flying with 5 gals less than they thought. And that was before the rest of the errors crept in which made the true figure about 9 gals less than shown in the Tech Log.

[GroundBound]

I suspect that there was no visual inspection prior to refuelling, since the tech log suggested only about 1/4 tanks - which would not be visible (the AIB report doesn't mention a visual inspection, only checking the drains).

After refuelling, I suppose there was no visual inspection either - since he'd presumably seen it being fuelled with his desired amount.

Back in the cockpit, and the gauges show 4/4 and 3/4, and he thinks "gee, there must have been more fuel left over than I thought", but doesn't get out again to make a visual inspection - to what purpose? He has just seen his route fuel put in, and knows there is enough (ignoring his poor fuel planning and conversion errors) for the flight. Any extra is a bonus, and he doesn't want to bring it back with a lot of fuel - because of the local operators requirements.

Lets suppose he does get out and make a visual check, and sees the left tank is not full. What would he think? "Well, these fuel guages are notoriously inaccurate (just read this thread :)) - but I have put in enough route fuel, plus a half hour spare, so I'm all right."

Doesn't seem an unlikely scenario, and I'm sure a lot of other people would have done the same (excluding the poor fuel burn planning, diversion, and conversion error, of course :) ).

I still think that if the gauges showed 1/2 and 1/4 when the engines quit, as the pilot claims, then this is a serious fault, and merits more comment than has been given in the AIB report.

It doesn't mean that his planning was not at fault. However, without the conversion error, he would have made it back without an accident. Maybe the next pilot who didn't 'fill to the brim' would have had the accident? There had been 14 flights before where the aircraft had not been fuelled to the top. Perhaps they too made mistakes, but no-one is noticing, because they did not fall in someone's garden. Why has none of these previous pilots reported the severe discrepancy in the gauges - they must have noticed surely, since none of them were negligent?

I think the guy's fuel planing was poor, and it was the last link in the chain of events leading to an accident, but I still wouldn't say he was negligent.

[IO540]

groundbound

Why has none of these previous pilots reported the severe discrepancy in the gauges - they must have noticed surely, since none of them were negligent?

Because fuel gauges that barely work are standard in the 1970s general aviation fleet. I don't have my logbook handy but I have flown at least 10 different planes, PA28-161, PA28-181, PA38, C150 C152 and not one of them had gauges which bore more than a passing resemblance to what was actually in the tank. Only on a newish £200k plane have I seen accurate (capacitive sensor) gauges.

When flying with an instructor I didn't worry about the lack of physical checks, even when I knew it was marginal. Stupidly in retrospect, I assumed that HE would do a good forced landing and then I would have rubbed his nose in it. Except once when I knew there wasn't enough (but he thought there was), I refused to fly. But on my own, I used to always go to the pumps and fill right up (or to tabs if a PA28), even if only say 20L went in and I got told off for it afterwards.

Because of the duff gauges, nobody should use them for anything. One fills up with a physical check of some sort, and one uses a timer to change tanks en route (I used to use a cooking timer). The other reason to not rely on gauges is because it is awfully awkward to be flying along and have to stop at a pump when the gauge reads rather low (like one does in a car).

Negligent? That's a legal term, and evidently relying on others' log of operations isn't negligent. But it is pretty stupid. Or is it, when you are taught to do that, and nearly everyone does it? I don't know. I only know what I would not do.

This can go on for ever, because most operators are unable/unwilling to change their procedures They are certainly not going to fix their gauges :O

[Tartan Giant]

Heliport

Many thanks for sorting out my understanding of the 14 days nightmare, with the word "filled" being the operative word. It would explain things a bit better.

Does that aircraft's particular Tech Log state,
FOB includes "unusable". Or does it state clearly anywhere, "enter only usable fuel" or words to that effect ?

To me, FOB is exactly that..........pilots are expected to know what's "unusable".

Any PIC, on any aircraft, knows even with FULL tanks not all of it will be employable for powering the machine.

Cheers

TG

[The Nr Fairy]

As an aside on the practicalities of checking fuel, in the R22 the CAA have MANDATED that a secondary method of fuel checking is available, other than the gauges.

For those who don't know, the R22 has one main fuel tank, on the left hand side just below the pylon. There is sometimes an optional aux tank on the right hand side, smaller in capacity. All up about 3 hours worth of fuel. You can see to the bottom of both tanks but there are no markings on the tank to provide any calibration to the naked eye.

There is also a low fuel light which gives about 5 minutes warning of fuel exhaustion.

Anyway - back to the point. The secondary aid is a calibrated piece of metal which is dipped into the tanks. It works well, and if you correlate with the gauges and the amount uplifted you should be OK. It seems that the Seneca, and lots of other types, don't have the ability to even do this, so why aren't we tackling the problem at source rather than blaming a pilot for running out of fuel when there's no easy, simple way to measure fuel contents at source ?

P.S. I preferred the wooden broomstick with marking on it that we used at Bankstown when I was learning to subdue helicopters - it stayed wet for a time after you took it out, and the markings were accurate !

[GroundBound]

IO540

I don't fundamentally disagree with you. I have been told repeatedly not to trust the fuel gauges - they are only accurate when reading zero - and then its too late!

If I take a C172 or PA28 for a ride, I always look at the fuel gauge and make a visual check of the wing tanks. I also try to check when it was last filled and the flight time since, but not every pilot enters the refuelling into the log book, so its no guarantee.

However, If I am going for a 1 hour jolly in the local area, and the fuel gauges show half tanks and I can see the fuel, I will probably not fill it up, on the (perhaps mistaken) belief that 1/2 tank indication may not be exact but it will not be close to empty, and there should be at least an hour's flight in it.

If I am making a trip, I always fill up before leaving, so I know what I've got.

I even invested in one of those dip stick thingy's which you calibrate yourself by filling the tanks and marking the calibration sheet. However, I left it in the aircraft and it disappeared, as did several of my fuel testers.

The bottom line is that though the fuel gauges are not exact, I am horrified at the thought that they could be wrong by such an order of magnitude as 1/2 tank, or around 30USG, in the case in point.

I rather like Nr Fairy's broomstick idea. If I leave it in the aircraft, nobody's going to steal it as its too old fashioned. :)

[Whirlybird]

Groundbound,

In any C150/152 or 172, IGNORE the fuel gauges. I mean it!! On this thread somewhere I described how I took out a club C152 that was close to empty after I was told it had been filled after every flight. The gauges were showing over half full. I recently got a share in a C150. We filled it completely with fuel, and I was shown that one gauge showed three-quarters full and the other a quarter full! :eek: It made the point for me - you cannot rely on these things AT ALL! As far as I remember, they work by float thingies in the tank, and these can stick...in virtually any position. Hopefully someone will tell me if I'm remembering that wrong, but the bottom line is: IGNORE THE GAUGES!!! Work out your fuel by some other means, or fill up completely if weight and balance means you can.

[Heliport]

Unusable fuel shouldn't be included in Tech Logs. Reading Datcon's post, that is also the CAA view.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Heliport the only fuel figure that should ever be written down anywhere is total fuel on board...as Tarten says it's the PIC's responsibility to know what proportion is deemed unusable.

GK430

I can only assume that because the taxi fuel is such a small amount in most 2 or 4 seat trainers a level of complacency comes into play.

My aircraft, an IO550 powered A36, has a EDM700 with fuel flow transducer/computer giving extremely accurate readings (+/- < 1lt) and I use on average about 2 liters from start to airborne. And yes I make allowance for that in fuel calcs.

While fuel gauges on light aircraft in general aren't great I find if I compare fuel gage readings AS CORRECTED BY THE FUEL CALIBRATION CARD and compare that to fuel remaining via the computer I can get pretty good results. Mind you my aircraft would be refuelled to full tanks on average every second or third flight thereby resetting the fuel computer to the programmed full tanks fuel total of 280 liters. A Baron I fly occasionally does not have the fuel computer but comparing corrected fuel gage readings to estimated FOB using realistic FFs and slightly buffering required reserves keeps that safe.

Chuck.

PS so your CAA are very much like our CASA...Cretins Against Sensible Avation.

[IO540]

I agree, ignore fuel gauges. However if they are accurate then they are handy for changing tanks over.

They aren't any good for anything else because one has to take care of fuel in the planning stage.

[bookworm]

Heliport the only fuel figure that should ever be written down anywhere is total fuel on board...as Tarten says it's the PIC's responsibility to know what proportion is deemed unusable.

So you're saying that the figure written in the tech log should be total fuel, and that I should subtract unusable fuel before every flight when making my W&B calculations? And I should subtract unusable fuel when setting the fuel totaliser, which I expect to read zero when there's no usable fuel left?

Isn't it rather more straightforward to record usable fuel and treat unusable fuel as part of the basic aircraft, as is done on W&B sheets? That strikes me as less error prone, given what I've seen of pilots' arithmetic skills after flight.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Unusable fuel is not included in the aircraft basic weights..only oil is.

Chuck.

[IO540]

Srely, relying on unusable fuel is not only pointless (you can't use it) but also if one's fuel planning is THAT close.....?

[down&out]

Chuck,

I'm afraid your wrong. To quote from safety sense leaflet 9A:

Standard Empty Weight
The weight of the aircraft and all its basic equipment including unusable fuel, full oil and full operating fluids

Basic Empty Weight
Standard empty weight plus installed optional equipment

I can also say I have always seen unusable fuel included in the BEW data in the POH.;)

D&O

[Heliport]

Obviously it shouldn't make a difference in practice but in extreme circumstances, whether of your own making or someone else's, you could find yourself in the garden of a house on the approach instead of landing on the airfield with 4 gallons to spare if someone has wrongly included 5 gallons of unusable fuel in the Tech Log.