Just read the Brighton and Hove article, I must be missing something here.
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.
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).
No1 Rule of useless things in flying - Fuel in the bowser.
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.
