Originally Posted by
jayteeto
Helicomparator. I gave 2 days of evidence to the enquiry. About a week after the tragedy I was flying an aircraft that had both red warnings come on in flight. The tanks showed 47/26/43 on the gauges and the amber/yellow fuel warning did not show. I landed very quickly, the tanks were drained and were nearly empty. We nearly repeated the accident. So the sherif WAS talking about this scenario.
ultimately, the conclusion is correct. I was confused but believed the “worst” warning. It appears Dave didn’t.
My argument ALWAYS was that whilst it was pilot error, I believed there were possible mitigating circumstances where Dave was confused by what he saw. I’m glad the sheriff has understood this and accepted that he may have been confused.
For the record, the court was totally fair with me, they gave me a hard time but they were also prepared to listen and consider my answers. Hopefully the families can find some peace now
Jayteeto's anecdotal evidence speaks volumes. The "Hill of Hindsight" is a wonderful thing but I will be honest and say that I never truly understood the significance or design intention of the Amber (Capacitance driven) and the Red (Thermistor Driven) indications before this accident. It is really clear to me now.
In Dave's defence, I feel for him to ignore the warnings like he did there must have been a clear mitigation in his assessment to do so. I therefore conclude in my own mind, he saw plenty of fuel indicating in the Supply Tanks....just as Jayteeto did. It is very easy to criticise but the hooded horseman of habit, gossip, routine "getting away with it" all probably coalesced that night to a horrific ending.
The Sherriff has it right and he is only supposed to deliver the facts. It is for the industry to try and work out the response. Note he also recommends a warning light system for the FUEL XFR lights, I am assuming in addition to the CAD notifications.