VH-LBY Skippers C-441
Thread Starter
VH-LBY Skippers C-441
Tried to post on the original thread, only to find it closed (??) Anyway the prelim report is out and shock horror, the obvious guess proved to be the correct one.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2018-019/
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2018-019/
Don't be too quick to stick the boot in Spinex, yes it is Fuel Exhaustion, there is mention of water contamination and there is still no clearly identified reason why it happened, were the fuel gauges faulty perhaps? how significant a water contamination are we talking? Was the aircraft using more fuel than expected or shown? Still plenty of explanations as to what led to the Fuel Exhaustion situation so lets not stick in that boot too soon.
Don't be too quick to stick the boot in Spinex, yes it is Fuel Exhaustion, there is mention of water contamination and there is still no clearly identified reason why it happened, were the fuel gauges faulty perhaps? how significant a water contamination are we talking? Was the aircraft using more fuel than expected or shown? Still plenty of explanations as to what led to the Fuel Exhaustion situation so lets not stick in that boot too soon.
It seems pretty one way here.
I know nothing about the C441, does it have fuel quantity low master caution or warning annunciation?
Thread Starter
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.
Don't be too quick to stick the boot in Spinex, yes it is Fuel Exhaustion, there is mention of water contamination and there is still no clearly identified reason why it happened, were the fuel gauges faulty perhaps? how significant a water contamination are we talking? Was the aircraft using more fuel than expected or shown? Still plenty of explanations as to what led to the Fuel Exhaustion situation so lets not stick in that boot too soon.
Time to call a Spade a Spade!
Or be willing to produce the test equipment and other required documents for the flight off the road.
Christ pilots can be insistent! the wheels were down! don't know how they folded back up!.
******* There is NO reasonable explanation that a engine surged and was shut down and then the other shutdown by itself soon after - other than lack of fuel. Being able to fly away soon after.
Ix: If there were explanations other than the usual, why would the pilot have been sacked by the operator? Wrongful dismissal claim would be a shoe in if the cause was a gauge or water or some other mechanical problem. And as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the problem and the fix would be recorded in the maintenance docs.
Eddie Dean’s smoke and mirrors campaign has been exposed for what it was.
Eddie Dean’s smoke and mirrors campaign has been exposed for what it was.
yes it is Fuel Exhaustion, there is mention of water contamination and there is still no clearly identified reason why it happened, were the fuel gauges faulty perhaps?
JET A1 is available at HLC and as they say in the classics, runway behind you... fuel on the ground... etc.
In other news, I believe a Territory operator has now gained a more-experienced-than-most Conquest driver and I am sure it's an error he'll never make again.
Well said, Horatio.
I think it was a bit rough that the PIC was sacked in the first place. Very bad mistake, but not one that he will make again. And everyone walked away unscathed.
If I were to say ‘there but for the grace of god’, no doubt the usual sky gods will claim perfection...
I think it was a bit rough that the PIC was sacked in the first place. Very bad mistake, but not one that he will make again. And everyone walked away unscathed.
If I were to say ‘there but for the grace of god’, no doubt the usual sky gods will claim perfection...
If the PIC knowingly took off without the required fuel to make the destination, and ignored potential warnings (refer the post about video and low fuel lights), id think sacking is warranted.
If the PIC had planned appropriately and believed that the gauges were correct, but an investigation finds out there were problems with the system (be it fuel system, maintenance system, or even the cultural system) and as a result he has run out, I don't think sacking is warranted.
Big difference. More information is needed. Until then bit hard to say whether sacking is or isn't warranted.
How come the rather vocal and adamant old mate allegedly working on a station next door that posted here saying there was no fuel uplifted isn't saying anything now??
Nonetheless, 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.
JET A1 is available at HLC and as they say in the classics, runway behind you... fuel on the ground... etc.
JET A1 is available at HLC and as they say in the classics, runway behind you... fuel on the ground... etc.
From reading the prelim report this scenario is very possible.
I think he was just saying that there was no fuel uploaded while he was there.
The guys at the site may also have told him that there was no fuel uploaded (as they might well do).
He sort of clarified the point when I asked about a station Toyota being able to get past the aircraft.
Why would a ringer off a station with a pocket full of money and heading for Broome wait around watching for more than a short period of time?
He'd have a new cowdie hat to buy and a barmaid to annoy.
And you seem to have overlooked the fact that inaccurate gauges were not entered in the maintenance documentation then signed off as having been repaired, or the subject of an exemption or PUS granted by CASA at short notice, before departure.
(Eddie’s a ringer off a station? Surprisingly deep knowledge of aircraft maintenance for a ‘ringer’...)
He said he was off a station and he said he was driving a Tojo. That’s not the same as him being off a station and driving a Tojo. Wild guess and pure speculation: Eddie drove a truck load of fuel from Broome to the aircraft...
I would have thought that good airmanship says you believe the warning light until it’s proved that the gauges are overstating FOB.
What really confused me was the following statement:
It was on Sandfire Road, Great Northern H'way, heading to Roebuck Roadhouse when I saw it.
So was SSE of Sandfire and northish of Roebuck.
So was SSE of Sandfire and northish of Roebuck.
That location, if true, would have it in two pieces at least 200 km apart.
I could believe a GA aircraft having one faulty fuel gauge, but two BOTH significantly overreading?
On water in the fuel, surely you can’t just have a double inflight shutdown due to contamination, and then top the tanks up from a drum and get going an hour or two later. Surely with enough contamination to stop both in flight, there’d have been a fairly rigorous maintenance procedure to get the tanks/lines/donks decontaminated and signed off.
On water in the fuel, surely you can’t just have a double inflight shutdown due to contamination, and then top the tanks up from a drum and get going an hour or two later. Surely with enough contamination to stop both in flight, there’d have been a fairly rigorous maintenance procedure to get the tanks/lines/donks decontaminated and signed off.
Shutdown due to water contamination, fill it up and depart.
Bull****.
Bull****.