VH-LBY Skippers C-441
Quite where the boot is involved in pointing out the blindingly obvious, I fail to see. It is however increasingly tempting to apply said size12s to the tails of those who persist in trying to whitewash a set of circumstances that would earn a newly minted PPL a well deserved raspberry, never mind a CPL with paying pax in the back.
Bend Alot, it certainly seems like it was a matter of not having sufficient fuel on-board, but WHY was there insufficient fuel on board? Did the Pilot believe he had the right amount? Why did he believe so?
Lead Balloon, I don't recall seeing anything about the PIC being let go by the Operator, was that posted on the other thread or did you hear that from a source? If it was indeed a faulty Gauge that caused it then it's probably on a Maintenance Release somewhere that it has been fixed but would not have necessarily needed to be done before take off, just a dispensation sought to get it out of there to be fixed back at Broome.
Horatio, is that a video from a pax that was taken? Pretty damning if true, off that such a video didn't warrant mention in the Prelim report, seems to be a pretty glaring fact that is easily confirmed if it was presented, assuming it was presented before the report was released.
Personally, if this crew took off with a Low Fuel Light, especially from somewhere that had fuel available without any mitigating circumstances such as maintenance issues for example then sacking would be the least of their concerns and I would dare say warranted, I'd expect the same if I'd committed the same error, doesn't mean they don't deserve a second chance though, but that'll depend somewhat on how CASA decides to proceed when the investigation is completed.
Oh and Eddie did indeed clarify that he didn't see any fuel whilst he was passing by and chatted with the FO, which means there was plenty of time otherwise for fuel to have been uplifted and he was clear about that part when someone asked him.
So you’re taking what Eddie posted as gospel, despite the evident evasiveness and geographical oddities in what he posted?
If something was wrong with the aircraft so as to have misled the PIC as to FOB, that would have been mentioned in the ATSB report, would it not? If there was something wrong with the aircraft, there would have to been some maintenance investigation and documentation, would there not? Do you seriously believe that CASA would have issued the necessary paperwork to let the operator kick the tyres and light the fires after a forced landing where there was a suggestion of aircraft defects being causally connected with the forced landing?
You need to sharpen and apply Ockham’s Razor.
If something was wrong with the aircraft so as to have misled the PIC as to FOB, that would have been mentioned in the ATSB report, would it not? If there was something wrong with the aircraft, there would have to been some maintenance investigation and documentation, would there not? Do you seriously believe that CASA would have issued the necessary paperwork to let the operator kick the tyres and light the fires after a forced landing where there was a suggestion of aircraft defects being causally connected with the forced landing?
You need to sharpen and apply Ockham’s Razor.
Why was he low on fuel to the point of Exhaustion? As I mentioned there could be a number of reasons that were NOT the Pilots fault. Personally I was not aware he had been let go by the company and can't remember reading that anywhere, if the case it does seem to point towards him being the source of the overall problem but without any actual facts I wouldn't be keen to stick the boot into anyone whilst there are other possbilities. As mentioned Spinex, all we know is that this was caused by Fuel Exhaustion but what we do NOT know is the events that lead to the Fuel Exhaustion, thusly putting the boot into the Crew as you seem to be doing is unwarranted at this point.
Bend Alot, it certainly seems like it was a matter of not having sufficient fuel on-board, but WHY was there insufficient fuel on board? Did the Pilot believe he had the right amount? Why did he believe so?
.
Bend Alot, it certainly seems like it was a matter of not having sufficient fuel on-board, but WHY was there insufficient fuel on board? Did the Pilot believe he had the right amount? Why did he believe so?
.
Often this required (if dipping or other options not available) filling to full tank or tabs at regular intervals.
This dramatically reduces the compound error of fuel consumption vs gauge reading - don't forget L/H and R/H tanks and gauges are completely independent on the 441 as are the low fuel lights.
So it being an RPT Aircraft fuel records, flight plan and maintenance records should all point to the fuel on-board the pilot actually took command of that day (RPT is a very big paper trail).
Either the engine(s) were burning too much fuel that day for some reason or not enough fuel was added for the required flight.
Maybe he just forgot to retract the gear and flaps that day - but we would have seen a slow speed on the FW24.
So you’re taking what Eddie posted as gospel, despite the evident evasiveness and geographical oddities in what he posted?
If something was wrong with the aircraft so as to have misled the PIC as to FOB, that would have been mentioned in the ATSB report, would it not? If there was something wrong with the aircraft, there would have to been some maintenance investigation and documentation, would there not? Do you seriously believe that CASA would have issued the necessary paperwork to let the operator kick the tyres and light the fires after a forced landing where there was a suggestion of aircraft defects being causally connected with the forced landing?
You need to sharpen and apply Ockham’s Razor.
If something was wrong with the aircraft so as to have misled the PIC as to FOB, that would have been mentioned in the ATSB report, would it not? If there was something wrong with the aircraft, there would have to been some maintenance investigation and documentation, would there not? Do you seriously believe that CASA would have issued the necessary paperwork to let the operator kick the tyres and light the fires after a forced landing where there was a suggestion of aircraft defects being causally connected with the forced landing?
You need to sharpen and apply Ockham’s Razor.
LB, you seem to have a lot of inside information here, you're suggesting you know that there was nothing entered into the Maintenance Release after the Forced Landing or that any sort of exemption was granted by CASA to fly it back out? You suggest that Good Airmanship says that if the Low Fuel Light is on you should believe it, which I agree with, and according to Horatio he possibly took off with those lights on which would be extremely poor Airmanship, the sort that CASA would likely have him grounded for right? Yet apparently he is already flying with someone else now, the fact that CASA have apparently not grounded him I think alludes to there being more to this whole event than just simply taking off without enough fuel. Also if was so cut and dry then why does the report mention that the ATSB are bothering to check the following:
- information from the pilot
- flight logs and fuel records
- operational policy, procedures and practices applicable to fuel management including regulatory aspects
- serviceability of the aircraft fuel system components
- aircraft maintenance requirements and records
- fuel tank contaminant detection processes
- fuel quantity indication systems
- other fuel exhaustion or starvation occurrences.
Also, I'm not casting doubt on the info that LB and Horatio have, but once again, I don't know the source of their info and therefore am not relying on it to draw any conclusions as of yet.
So a low capacity RPT or charter aircraft carrying fare paying passengers is forced to land and the ATSB didn’t inquire into the aircraft’s serviceability?
I know the ATSB is busted, but I didn’t know it was that busted.
I know the ATSB is busted, but I didn’t know it was that busted.
sources close to the investigation say there is a video of the aircraft taxiing out at FTZ or HLC with the LOW FUEL lights illuminated on the annunciator
The ATSB mention of water is interesting, in as much could it have affected any of the five capacitance probes in each tank? My experience is that water will give an over reading on the gauge. Be an interesting report.
Lead Balloon, if they walked up, found an Aircraft devoid of fuel in the tanks with video evidence of it taxiing out with Low Fuel Lights on and being able to see that the fuel at the start of the day and fuel uplifted throughout didn't allow for the flight to be done safely, do you think they'd waste much more time looking through for more Maintenance defects? Not unless they've got an axe to grind I'd say. The fact that they specifically singled out the "Fuel Quantity Indication Systems" and not just the "aircraft maintenance requirements and records" says to me there's a bit more to it than just someone taking off without enough fuel and hoping for the best but that's just my opinion based on what I can see so far presented.
Well Ix, if it’s true the pilot was sacked but the fuel indication system was over-reading for reasons other than pilot error and the pilot had done proper calculations independent of the fuel gauge indications, the pilot is a shoe in for a wrongful dismissal claim.
The only time I believe my fuel gauges is when they read zero.
Water in the fuel has been mentioned as a possible cause of over-reading fuel gauges. I thought pilots did fuel drains to detect water in fuel. Is that not done or doable on a 441?
Maybe the “more to it” is that there was water that should have been but wasn’t discovered and calculations that should have been but weren’t done?
The only time I believe my fuel gauges is when they read zero.
Water in the fuel has been mentioned as a possible cause of over-reading fuel gauges. I thought pilots did fuel drains to detect water in fuel. Is that not done or doable on a 441?
Maybe the “more to it” is that there was water that should have been but wasn’t discovered and calculations that should have been but weren’t done?
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 11th May 2018 at 23:59. Reason: Correct a spelling error and grammatical atrocity.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A fuel drain in a conquest is like every other fuel drain in a GA aircraft. 3 drains per side and to be done after every refuel and first flight of the day. If the correct procedures were followed, I find it hard for the gauges to be over-reading due to water contamination.
Many aircraft have evidence of water based contamination.i
cton
Water often gets into fuel systems and creates corrosion. These corrosion deposits are often found in the bottom of fuel filter housings, lower corners of wet wing fuel panels and on fuel drains themselves.
What is extremely concerning is the aircraft seems to have departed the highway with no approval to do so. (open MR entry - Mayday called)
I would love to see the MR and what was and was not done.
WHO flew it out??? and under who's instruction???
More than one involved in this cover up I think!
cton
Water often gets into fuel systems and creates corrosion. These corrosion deposits are often found in the bottom of fuel filter housings, lower corners of wet wing fuel panels and on fuel drains themselves.
What is extremely concerning is the aircraft seems to have departed the highway with no approval to do so. (open MR entry - Mayday called)
I would love to see the MR and what was and was not done.
WHO flew it out??? and under who's instruction???
More than one involved in this cover up I think!
Many aircraft have evidence of water based contamination.i
cton
Water often gets into fuel systems and creates corrosion. These corrosion deposits are often found in the bottom of fuel filter housings, lower corners of wet wing fuel panels and on fuel drains themselves.
What is extremely concerning is the aircraft seems to have departed the highway with no approval to do so. (open MR entry - Mayday called)
I would love to see the MR and what was and was not done.
WHO flew it out??? and under who's instruction???
More than one involved in this cover up I think!
cton
Water often gets into fuel systems and creates corrosion. These corrosion deposits are often found in the bottom of fuel filter housings, lower corners of wet wing fuel panels and on fuel drains themselves.
What is extremely concerning is the aircraft seems to have departed the highway with no approval to do so. (open MR entry - Mayday called)
I would love to see the MR and what was and was not done.
WHO flew it out??? and under who's instruction???
More than one involved in this cover up I think!
A fuel drain in a conquest is like every other fuel drain in a GA aircraft. 3 drains per side and to be done after every refuel and first flight of the day. If the correct procedures were followed, I find it hard for the gauges to be over-reading due to water contamination.
DF.
Was there an open MR entry? It just ran out of fuel. Add fuel and it's good to go. The prelim report states it was refuelled, flown home and then examined by LAMEs with the involvement of ATSB and CASA. Presumably it was then the evidence of contamination was found in the fuel system. It'll be interesting to see if fuel contamination was a factor in this or just something peripheral discovered during the investigation.
I doubt there is any reference to enter in the MR or work sheets that refers to "run out of fuel" land on road "Just refuel and go" ref CH 20 - standard dodgy opps.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Back too the hot bits again
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few times I have seen pilots conduct a fuel drain, the plastic bottle is full of water and it is assumed to be full of fuel with no blob of water in the bottom, ( mainly GA piston types )
I would be surprised if it was lack of fuel considering the scrutiny after a brazilia was in a sticky situation with a fuel qty issue
Bend alot, how do you know it was not done by the book?
I would be surprised if it was lack of fuel considering the scrutiny after a brazilia was in a sticky situation with a fuel qty issue
Bend alot, how do you know it was not done by the book?
Bend Alot, have you seen the MR? Has anyone here seen the MR? Because a few people keep saying things about the MR but I highly doubt anyone here has seen it at all so perhaps unless you've ACTUALLY seen it then perhaps those people can stop acting like they know what was or was not written on it.
Lot of speculation here about things that I doubt anyone here actually has any first hand knowledge of such as whether they did or did not have any approval from CASA to do what they do when they flew it back out. I'm all for speculation but there's too many people in here acting like they've seen the MR or knew of every communication between the Operator and CASA that day.
Lot of speculation here about things that I doubt anyone here actually has any first hand knowledge of such as whether they did or did not have any approval from CASA to do what they do when they flew it back out. I'm all for speculation but there's too many people in here acting like they've seen the MR or knew of every communication between the Operator and CASA that day.
Lead Balloon, if that was the case then sure, there would be grounds for coming at the operator, I have no first hand knowledge of the sacking that has been mentioned or the reasons behind it whatsoever and would love to hear from the person who originally told us about it what the reasons were behind it specifically, was this Pilot actually sacked or asked to leave? What was the conversation between this Pilot and Management? Did the Pilot say something during said conversation that got them subsequently sacked? Once again, someone has mentioned vaguely that the Pilot was fired but no particular reason why and we're left to assume it was specifically due to this incident but there could be a myriad of other reasons that went into it if that person even was sacked which, without any real official confirmation none of us seem to really know.
We've really gone into tin foil hat territory here with reading into a lot of things with very little facts and drawing big conclusions of them based on third hand knowledge that is so far unverifiable, so far as I can see the only real verified facts that have come out are contained in the ATSB report and that leaves open a bunch of possible avenues as to the whole "Who, What, Where, Why..." questions.
We've really gone into tin foil hat territory here with reading into a lot of things with very little facts and drawing big conclusions of them based on third hand knowledge that is so far unverifiable, so far as I can see the only real verified facts that have come out are contained in the ATSB report and that leaves open a bunch of possible avenues as to the whole "Who, What, Where, Why..." questions.
You’re the only one in tin foil territory.
I say again: You need to sharpen and use Ockham’s razor.
I say again: You need to sharpen and use Ockham’s razor.
