Pilot in the Dock for running out of fuel (Update: PILOT CLEARED!)MERGED.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: here and there
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot in the Dock for running out of fuel
Any Comments?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...es/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.
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.
Last edited by Heliport; 5th Sep 2003 at 23:31.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 2nd Sep 2003 at 08:05.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Io
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot On Trial
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
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!
endangered hundreds of households!
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!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !"
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 !"
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trial by Pprune
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
.....The moral is DONT TRUST THE GUAGES!!! and be extra cautious when calculating endurance in an aircraft you don't know !
Cheers
EA
I was going to write my "fuel story" here, but decided against it for fear of incriminating myself
.....The moral is DONT TRUST THE GUAGES!!! and be extra cautious when calculating endurance in an aircraft you don't know !Cheers
EA
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: don't know, I'll ask
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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