Could have been a miss-print on the report?

The pilot of the 182 were a high time helicopter pilot and would have helicopter habits ingrained. Whilst some fixed wing drivers are slobs and fill’er up to the brim every time, and even their aircraft as well, helicopter pilots on the other hand are very particular about adding any more weight then needed. …or there may have been a further flight planned latter that he were tanking for.

Apart from the extra several hours of un-needed fuel added at Dalby I don’t see anything out of the ordinary at the Dalby fuel stop. Add fuel, a rolling check run-up, and go. I see rolling check run-ups every day I’m at an airport with commercial operators.

Obviously.

If you note the AGL heights before the actual prang, apart from a hilltop skim, you will see a lowest of 500’ AGL. This were not a tree-top scud running flight.

Did you see the photo of the impact site? Did you note the estimated bank angles? They did not see that hill coming until the last moment. If it wasn't scud running then it certainly wasn't VFR.

I’m not ready to close my mind on the subject just yet. Are you..?

What are your theories, FB? Honest question.

I remember one of your ideas regarding the helicopter fatal near Maitland was that the ATSB should look into the pilot's Covid status. Now you are suggesting that the ATSB made a typo regarding how much fuel the pilot took on in Dalby and that the weather wasn't a factor for an experienced helicopter pilot even though he was in a 182. Its not that my mind is closed its just that yours is full of such conspiratorial bull dust (to be polite) that common sense and rational though are not capable of getting through to you.

Call me a slob, FB, but …

There are actually safety benefits in filling up.

As mentioned earlier, it makes fuel planning simpler.

It also gives you more options than you would otherwise have. (Remember: The list of useless things in flying includes air in your fuel tanks.)

It also keeps Vo higher than it would otherwise be. (Remember: An aeroplane’s Vo reduces as its weight reduces.)

Most ‘high performance singles’ can be filled with fuel plus a few POB and bags and remain within W&B limits. The difference in performance compared with carrying ‘just enough’ fuel (with reserves) is negligible.

I couldn’t find anything in the report about what the operator’s plans were for the next flight in the aircraft. Why refuel twice if you can fill up once and carry enough fuel for the next two or more planned flights? The greater the frequency of refuelling, the slower you are. Maybe the fuel at YBAF was more expensive? (I recall one trip where the cheapest fuel – by more than 10 cents per litre than any other stop – was at - of all places – YTGM.)

In short, I am completely unsurprised that the aircraft was filled with fuel, if that’s what happened, prior to the planned relatively short hop to YBAF. And I would not call a pilot a slob for doing so.

Strange computer glitch. When I’m logged in it comes up with “fill’er up” and when I view without being logged in it is “filler up” ?

Heh, my tongue in check comments didn’t read so well..;)

Carn’t say I disagree with you Lead Ballon. I think it is likely the Dalby fuel stop discussion is not relevant to the prang.


And most of my ‘theories’, or better put ‘possibilities’, have been covered in the thread.

Umm…… where is we ..in a forum for discussing various aviation related subjects. We have just got an interim ATSB report……

Nailed it, PC - though the latest wankspeak is " plan continuation bias" which they define as an internal pressure or desire to get to the destination.

Final report is out. Click HERE.