jayteeto
And yet had the Glasgow helicopter landed safely back at base, the fuel level would still have been below the standard operational limits. Clearly the aircraft commander must have been comfortable with the overall quantity of fuel he had on board, because no mention of low fuel was made to air traffic control. Not that there was any real need as he anticipated landing back at base within a few minutes and in terms of overall fuel quantity, there was more than enough to return safely to base.
Would there have been any sanction against the pilot if the aircraft had landed safely?
Are fuel limits stretched a bit on a regular basis in order to get the job done?
No employer would ever admit to pushing pilots to operate in an unsafe manner. But the psychological pressures to accept another quick task on the way back to base must be immense at times. Units on the ground are at an incident and in trouble. An extra five minutes in the air could make the difference between life and death. Who wouldn't weigh that up in favour of accepting the call if you know you have a good margin of fuel reserve?
It would be interesting to know how often aircraft land back at base with fuel below the standard operating limits. I can't believe this was an isolated incident, so either the limits are set too high, or perhaps some pilots are complacent about ignoring the rules governing minimum fuel on landing knowing that there is a large safety margin.
I know that the vast majority of pilots will tell me that things don't work that way, but I suspect it is not a rare event. Maybe that is why the minimum landing fuel requirements are set at the levels they are? (Ignoring the fuel sensor issues).
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if unrealistic goals are set in the pursuit of safety, so that pilots are tempted on occasion to break those limits in order to get the job done, doesn't that actually compromise safety, rather than improve it?