Pilot in the Dock for running out of fuel (Update: PILOT CLEARED!)MERGED.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vancouv
but every C152 I've flown has a step on the strut so you can visually check the fuel, and indeed the top of the wings. Is this not the case on all 152's?
I don't think it is universal; I used to fly several C152s in my PPL training and none of them had that step. I never saw anyone use a ladder with them either; if the tank is fairly full you can reach up and poke a finger into the tank and if the end of it gets wet then you have a nearly full tank.
but every C152 I've flown has a step on the strut so you can visually check the fuel, and indeed the top of the wings. Is this not the case on all 152's?
I don't think it is universal; I used to fly several C152s in my PPL training and none of them had that step. I never saw anyone use a ladder with them either; if the tank is fairly full you can reach up and poke a finger into the tank and if the end of it gets wet then you have a nearly full tank.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I don't think it is universal; I used to fly several C152s in my PPL training and none of them had that step.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From page 1
We had a similar one here where a jump plane came down and the cause looked like the pilot forgot to retrim after landing causing it to stall. The TV guy said "Lucky the plane was so low when it got into difficulties or this could have been much worse" 
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 !"
I wonder what view the aircraft insurers will now take, given the evidence which Tudor presented concerning the way the aeroplane was routinely operated?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
What happened here is pretty standard in my experience during PPL training. Admittedly I had never seen a plane fly (or be run) 14 times in between physical fuel checks but I had seen plenty of things which came close to that.
I can't avoid observing that any moderately intelligent non-flying observer who has followed this saga has got to be wondering what on earth stops these little planes falling out of the sky left right and centre... perhaps it's because instructors tend to know how close to the wind they can sail, PPL holders tend to not fly very much, and most people do a physical check in low-wing planes.
In my view there are issues with both operating practice and the stuff that is taught. We could start a whole new thread on how to overhaul PPL training
What happened here is pretty standard in my experience during PPL training. Admittedly I had never seen a plane fly (or be run) 14 times in between physical fuel checks but I had seen plenty of things which came close to that.
I can't avoid observing that any moderately intelligent non-flying observer who has followed this saga has got to be wondering what on earth stops these little planes falling out of the sky left right and centre... perhaps it's because instructors tend to know how close to the wind they can sail, PPL holders tend to not fly very much, and most people do a physical check in low-wing planes.
In my view there are issues with both operating practice and the stuff that is taught. We could start a whole new thread on how to overhaul PPL training
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was also interesing that the club did not want him to fill the tanks presumably because of MTOW considerations for later flights. I wonder if this rule will now change.
Fascinating case.
Fascinating case.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never seen a C152 without a step, BUT unless it had been pointed out, you might not realise it was there; it's not obvious. In any case, unless the tanks are full, it's hard to tell how much fuel you've got without a dipstick - and I've never seen a C152 with one of those. According to an instructor who'd worked it out, if I can just touch fuel with a fully extended finger in the tank, that'll be about three-quarters full; his fingers were longer and measured down to half tanks! Not the most scientific way of checking...but it's worked so far. 
And before anyone criticises that comment, I fly with full tanks whenever physically and legally possible.
And before anyone criticises that comment, I fly with full tanks whenever physically and legally possible.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what view the aircraft insurers will now take...
Whatever view they take, inevitably it will now cost more to insure an aircraft - so we all lose.
If they decide to pay out hull loss, premiums will rise to pick up the tab.
If, as normal insurance practice, they argue about paying out and it goes to Court, premiums will rise to pick up the tab.
Heads I win, tails you lose - ye olde insurance motto.
Whatever view they take, inevitably it will now cost more to insure an aircraft - so we all lose.
If they decide to pay out hull loss, premiums will rise to pick up the tab.
If, as normal insurance practice, they argue about paying out and it goes to Court, premiums will rise to pick up the tab.
Heads I win, tails you lose - ye olde insurance motto.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
security and my screwdriver !
Almost every time that I go to work now the secruity people try to take my screwdriver off me ( as if I cant hi-jack the aircraft I command without a screwdriver )
Without this screwdriver I cant drop the mesuring sticks to phisicly check the fuel if the gauges are suspect.
Are the BAA security people going to be held to account for me running out of fuel ?.
This case raises some interesting points and seems to let the pilot off the hook if he cannot check something reasonably.
With the security tail now wagging the flight safety dog in this industry I am left to wonder who is responsable for aircraft saftey when some half witted security guard can inssist on removing items that I need to assure the safety of the aircraft that I command.
Without this screwdriver I cant drop the mesuring sticks to phisicly check the fuel if the gauges are suspect.
Are the BAA security people going to be held to account for me running out of fuel ?.
This case raises some interesting points and seems to let the pilot off the hook if he cannot check something reasonably.
With the security tail now wagging the flight safety dog in this industry I am left to wonder who is responsable for aircraft saftey when some half witted security guard can inssist on removing items that I need to assure the safety of the aircraft that I command.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: U.K.
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Sneca III is a very poor aircraft loadwise to utilise for Public Transport Flying. I used to fly the last model off the production line which was dual instrumented and had radar. Half tanks and 4 adults took you over MTOW. And apart from reliance on guages, how did you know what fuel level you really had.
I would suggest to anyone hiring from any organisation that you have to bear in mind that if you are in the left hand seat, the responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight lies with you. If too many constraints are placed on you, find a plane from elsewhere.
In reading the AAIB report and both threads, the thing that amazes me was this organisation's desire to have the plane returned with minimum fuel so not to cock up the potential for a subsequent charter. Obviously the kind of aerial work carried out is unknown, but who would be flying the aircraft next that would not rquire at least an hours fuel plus some safety margin
Therefore to quibble about it suggests that their weight & balance / loadsheets may perhaps have been "marginal"! (for want of a more cynical way of putting it).
I learned to fly in the U.K. but recall validating my licence in Australia many moons ago and on x-country flight planning out there fuel calcs were a high priority. If memory serves me right, there was no mention of taking taxiing fuel quantities into account - only airborne consumption - WHY?
I would suggest to anyone hiring from any organisation that you have to bear in mind that if you are in the left hand seat, the responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight lies with you. If too many constraints are placed on you, find a plane from elsewhere.
In reading the AAIB report and both threads, the thing that amazes me was this organisation's desire to have the plane returned with minimum fuel so not to cock up the potential for a subsequent charter. Obviously the kind of aerial work carried out is unknown, but who would be flying the aircraft next that would not rquire at least an hours fuel plus some safety margin
Therefore to quibble about it suggests that their weight & balance / loadsheets may perhaps have been "marginal"! (for want of a more cynical way of putting it).
I learned to fly in the U.K. but recall validating my licence in Australia many moons ago and on x-country flight planning out there fuel calcs were a high priority. If memory serves me right, there was no mention of taking taxiing fuel quantities into account - only airborne consumption - WHY?
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The strut steps on the 100 series cessna wasn't standard until quite late in the product line. It's now standard, but you'd expext that for a hundred and fifty grand. Lots of the earlier models have this retrofitted, or I guess it could have been an option at the time of purchase.
IMO it is one of the best mods available for the aircraft, but one that seems to be recognised about as much in the breach as in the observance.
BTW, I used to dip my fingers in there, but I gave up because that stuff does really nasty things to your skin. Paint stirer sticks are common in the States - especially as Home Depot gives them out for free. We figure on about 5 gals per inch for the 182. Obviously a swag though as this would require rectangular fuel cells, level ground etc, but it's a good starting point.
IMO it is one of the best mods available for the aircraft, but one that seems to be recognised about as much in the breach as in the observance.
BTW, I used to dip my fingers in there, but I gave up because that stuff does really nasty things to your skin. Paint stirer sticks are common in the States - especially as Home Depot gives them out for free. We figure on about 5 gals per inch for the 182. Obviously a swag though as this would require rectangular fuel cells, level ground etc, but it's a good starting point.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's look at some of the facts from the AIB report.
1) Analysis of GPS and radar data indicates that the flight took a total of 2 hrs and 13 minutes and 55.5 USG would have been burned …
The total fuel capacity was 128 US gallons, with 5 US gallons unusable.
So assuming he had about 60 USG on departure, the gauges for both sides should have read about half full. According to the accident report "After refuelling the pilot noted that the fuel gauges indicated 'full' on the left and 'three quarters full' on the right."
2) Having completed the calculation, the pilot asked the refueller to put 45 litres (12 US gallons) of fuel in each wing. So, his calculation error was 3 US gals per wing. 6 USG total would be about 15-20 minutes flight time- assuming 20-22 USG per hour consumption.
3) The pilot based his fuel plan on a 'rule of thumb' provided to him during his type-conversion training. In common with many such 'rules' nothing was written formally, but the 'rule' was based on cruising at about 140kt IAS with 2,200 RPM and 30 to 32 inches of MAP giving fuel consumption of about 20 USG per hour. However, the pilot planned to fly at 154 kt TAS which the AFM indicates requires 23.3 USG per hour. Analysis of GPS and radar data indicates that the flight took a total of 2 hrs and 13 minutes and 55.5 USG would have been burned compared to the 2 hrs flying time and 40 USG fuel consumption calculated by the pilot.
The pilot calculated his reserve fuel by adding 10 USG to the fuel burn and by adding a further safety factor by converting the final figure into Imperial gallons. He thus planned to carry a total of 60 USG compared to the 73 USG that would have been required if the flight had been planned in accordance with the AFM and the FOB.
I cannot see that the conversion error in the fuel calculation is the primary cause of this accident. At most. It constituted about 15-20 minutes flying time, which would be far too small a margin for a planned 2-hour flight.
The pilot's calculations were based on the 'rule of thumb', which was about 10% on the wrong side of the operating conditions. However he planned for 60 USG, which would have been 50% more than his predicted fuel burn. Although it would not have met with the 73 USG which would have been required for the AFM and FOB, it would have been enough for the flight, without diversion.
Based on the aircraft technical log, the fuel on board prior to refuelling ought to have been around 30 USG. Thus he assumed residual fuel existed which would have been a further 50% margin above his planning.
He was also aware that G-OMAR was occasionally used for charter flights and that in order to avoid potential weight problems the aircraft operator had an unwritten policy that the aircraft should not be returned with very high residual fuel loads. So he is under pressure not to take unnecessary fuel.
The fuel gauges indicated 'full' on the left and 'three quarters full' on the right in other words, about 7/8 of 128 USG - or well over 100 USG - at least 4 hours for a 2 hour flight. Based on the tech log, 30 USG would be around 90 minutes flying time. So he thinks he has loaded 2 hours of fuel, he has 1.5 hours residual fuel from the tech log, and his fuel gauges are showing at least 4 hours. Look pretty consistent and not unreasonable for the flight. The flight to Sheffield was uneventful with an airborne time of 1 hour 2 minutes and a block time (start of taxi at Shoreham to end of taxi at destination) of 1 hour and 5 minutes. So there should be about 3 hours fuel left for a 1 hour flight.
Now, the fact that he has loaded 6 USG less than he thought (about 15-20 minutes flying) is hardly going to make a big difference to the 3 hours that looks to be in the tanks.
I can't see that this is negligence. It looks to me like this guy has been caught out by faulty fuel gauges - remember he can't visually check the tanks - and a reluctance to fill the aircraft because of the operator's policy.
The only fault I can see is that his original fuel planning of 60 US Gal, instead of the 73 USG as recommended was re-miss, because he used rule-of thumb values (who doesn't?), and he doesn't seem to have planned for sufficient diversion fuel (but he wasn't in a diversion situation).
I think he has been unlucky, and perhaps a little lax in diversion planning, but I don't think he should have been prosecuted.
1) Analysis of GPS and radar data indicates that the flight took a total of 2 hrs and 13 minutes and 55.5 USG would have been burned …
The total fuel capacity was 128 US gallons, with 5 US gallons unusable.
So assuming he had about 60 USG on departure, the gauges for both sides should have read about half full. According to the accident report "After refuelling the pilot noted that the fuel gauges indicated 'full' on the left and 'three quarters full' on the right."
2) Having completed the calculation, the pilot asked the refueller to put 45 litres (12 US gallons) of fuel in each wing. So, his calculation error was 3 US gals per wing. 6 USG total would be about 15-20 minutes flight time- assuming 20-22 USG per hour consumption.
3) The pilot based his fuel plan on a 'rule of thumb' provided to him during his type-conversion training. In common with many such 'rules' nothing was written formally, but the 'rule' was based on cruising at about 140kt IAS with 2,200 RPM and 30 to 32 inches of MAP giving fuel consumption of about 20 USG per hour. However, the pilot planned to fly at 154 kt TAS which the AFM indicates requires 23.3 USG per hour. Analysis of GPS and radar data indicates that the flight took a total of 2 hrs and 13 minutes and 55.5 USG would have been burned compared to the 2 hrs flying time and 40 USG fuel consumption calculated by the pilot.
The pilot calculated his reserve fuel by adding 10 USG to the fuel burn and by adding a further safety factor by converting the final figure into Imperial gallons. He thus planned to carry a total of 60 USG compared to the 73 USG that would have been required if the flight had been planned in accordance with the AFM and the FOB.
I cannot see that the conversion error in the fuel calculation is the primary cause of this accident. At most. It constituted about 15-20 minutes flying time, which would be far too small a margin for a planned 2-hour flight.
The pilot's calculations were based on the 'rule of thumb', which was about 10% on the wrong side of the operating conditions. However he planned for 60 USG, which would have been 50% more than his predicted fuel burn. Although it would not have met with the 73 USG which would have been required for the AFM and FOB, it would have been enough for the flight, without diversion.
Based on the aircraft technical log, the fuel on board prior to refuelling ought to have been around 30 USG. Thus he assumed residual fuel existed which would have been a further 50% margin above his planning.
He was also aware that G-OMAR was occasionally used for charter flights and that in order to avoid potential weight problems the aircraft operator had an unwritten policy that the aircraft should not be returned with very high residual fuel loads. So he is under pressure not to take unnecessary fuel.
The fuel gauges indicated 'full' on the left and 'three quarters full' on the right in other words, about 7/8 of 128 USG - or well over 100 USG - at least 4 hours for a 2 hour flight. Based on the tech log, 30 USG would be around 90 minutes flying time. So he thinks he has loaded 2 hours of fuel, he has 1.5 hours residual fuel from the tech log, and his fuel gauges are showing at least 4 hours. Look pretty consistent and not unreasonable for the flight. The flight to Sheffield was uneventful with an airborne time of 1 hour 2 minutes and a block time (start of taxi at Shoreham to end of taxi at destination) of 1 hour and 5 minutes. So there should be about 3 hours fuel left for a 1 hour flight.
Now, the fact that he has loaded 6 USG less than he thought (about 15-20 minutes flying) is hardly going to make a big difference to the 3 hours that looks to be in the tanks.
I can't see that this is negligence. It looks to me like this guy has been caught out by faulty fuel gauges - remember he can't visually check the tanks - and a reluctance to fill the aircraft because of the operator's policy.
The only fault I can see is that his original fuel planning of 60 US Gal, instead of the 73 USG as recommended was re-miss, because he used rule-of thumb values (who doesn't?), and he doesn't seem to have planned for sufficient diversion fuel (but he wasn't in a diversion situation).
I think he has been unlucky, and perhaps a little lax in diversion planning, but I don't think he should have been prosecuted.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems a very weird method of operation from the flying school, all the schools/FBOs I have used have always asked you refill to tabs on your return unless SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED by the following hirer not to!
I always refill to tabs (unless W&B prevents), before taking an aircraft out and will sometimes fillup at a midpoint enroute even if it doesnt require it.
You can never have too much fuel...unless you are on fire!
I always refill to tabs (unless W&B prevents), before taking an aircraft out and will sometimes fillup at a midpoint enroute even if it doesnt require it.
You can never have too much fuel...unless you are on fire!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Outlawed
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An intelligent and well-thought out post Groundbound but as you've pointed out, in the chain of events which led to this crash, 4 were made by the PIC.
I still think a prosecution was warranted. (All facts being true, obviously).
I still think a prosecution was warranted. (All facts being true, obviously).
strafer :
I'm having a "thickie" afternoon. Could you elucidate on the 4 mistakes ?
My reading of Groundbound's post is that he didn't act negligently, but was let down by the Tech Log, an unwritten policy, and the unwritten rule of thumb. Other elements in the chain were in place long before he got to the aircraft - I don't think he had any control over those.
I'm having a "thickie" afternoon. Could you elucidate on the 4 mistakes ?
My reading of Groundbound's post is that he didn't act negligently, but was let down by the Tech Log, an unwritten policy, and the unwritten rule of thumb. Other elements in the chain were in place long before he got to the aircraft - I don't think he had any control over those.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Le Touquet
Age: 57
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Julian
The Seneca in question does not have tabs or any visual way of inspecting the tanks unless the outer tanks has a good quantity of fuel (meaning the inner tank has to be full). So its a case of full or trust teh tech log (dangerous) or guages (more dangerous) - its just a bad design compared to tanks with tabs or fuel you can see or dip.
The Seneca in question does not have tabs or any visual way of inspecting the tanks unless the outer tanks has a good quantity of fuel (meaning the inner tank has to be full). So its a case of full or trust teh tech log (dangerous) or guages (more dangerous) - its just a bad design compared to tanks with tabs or fuel you can see or dip.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Very simple way around these problems would be to have load cells fitted to each of the wheels giving an indication of weight in the cockpit. This could then tell you fuel load, aircraft weight and even CofG....
I wonder if someone would be prosecuted if they crashed while over weight becasue their pax under-estimated their weight?
EA
I wonder if someone would be prosecuted if they crashed while over weight becasue their pax under-estimated their weight?
EA