Pilot in the Dock for running out of fuel (Update: PILOT CLEARED!)MERGED.
A couple of thoughts:-
- From the statement about fuel, this chap believed that he was arriving with at-most 6 gallons of fuel at Shoreham. Is that enough for a go-around, diversion to Goodwood, and a brief hold in a Seneca. Sounds very tight to me.
- Fuel gauges are not required by law to be accurate except in one case - they must accurately read empty when the tank is, well, empty (as N14HK says). So the chap should have arrived knowing that his tanks were empty. In those circumstance why was he flying a powered approach (by definition, he wouldn't have hit the house otherwise) instead of a high glide approach where an engine stoppage should end on the runway.
- So far as I know he didn't declare a fuel emergency, which would have been an obvious course of action.
I don't like CAA prosecuting people in most cases, it rarely helps anybody - but in this case I think that they have a better case than usual, albeit that I don't think that the fuel-calc is the main offence.
G
- From the statement about fuel, this chap believed that he was arriving with at-most 6 gallons of fuel at Shoreham. Is that enough for a go-around, diversion to Goodwood, and a brief hold in a Seneca. Sounds very tight to me.
- Fuel gauges are not required by law to be accurate except in one case - they must accurately read empty when the tank is, well, empty (as N14HK says). So the chap should have arrived knowing that his tanks were empty. In those circumstance why was he flying a powered approach (by definition, he wouldn't have hit the house otherwise) instead of a high glide approach where an engine stoppage should end on the runway.
- So far as I know he didn't declare a fuel emergency, which would have been an obvious course of action.
I don't like CAA prosecuting people in most cases, it rarely helps anybody - but in this case I think that they have a better case than usual, albeit that I don't think that the fuel-calc is the main offence.
G
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chances of successful action on the basis of the accuracy of the fuel gauges is zero.
'Everyone knows' that aircraft fuel gauges are hopelessly inaccurate. They have done for 40 years. Given that public and general knowledge, how on earth are you going to persuade a court of law that you, in trusting such a device and ignoring the POH and various other cross checks, were not negligent?
Now if the aircraft had a fuel system that was advertised or promoted on the basis of absolute accuracy you might have a case - but you would have to prove that is was n't accurate - which given that it would be certified to allow it to be fitted to the aircraft is going to be a pretty uphill battle. Much more likely you didn't do something i.e. lean, monitor, put enough in, whatever, it would again come back to you proving you were not negligent.
Which in part leads back to why the CAA are generally on a 'good wicket' when they prosecute in these cases.
'Everyone knows' that aircraft fuel gauges are hopelessly inaccurate. They have done for 40 years. Given that public and general knowledge, how on earth are you going to persuade a court of law that you, in trusting such a device and ignoring the POH and various other cross checks, were not negligent?
Now if the aircraft had a fuel system that was advertised or promoted on the basis of absolute accuracy you might have a case - but you would have to prove that is was n't accurate - which given that it would be certified to allow it to be fitted to the aircraft is going to be a pretty uphill battle. Much more likely you didn't do something i.e. lean, monitor, put enough in, whatever, it would again come back to you proving you were not negligent.
Which in part leads back to why the CAA are generally on a 'good wicket' when they prosecute in these cases.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Broadmoor
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope the defence mention [at least for the hell of it] an incident a few years back when a CAA staff pilot ran out of fuel in the Netherlands. He took early retirement soon afterwards
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Outlawed
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lordy there are some strange justifications on this thread. I won't mention the original subject because as mentioned it's sub-judice. However, miscalculating fuel, then crashing into someone's house is always gross negligence. It's no more an 'honest mistake' than driving your car while 3 sheets to the wind. This sort of stupidity kills people every year and (if true) the bloke's lucky he's not facing a manslaughter charge. The apparent desire amongst some ppruners to always take the pilots side is not, in this case, helpful to GA.
PS Whirlybird you're an instructor - is this what you teach your students?
PS Whirlybird you're an instructor - is this what you teach your students?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chessington, UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who say that the CAA always prosecute in cases of fuel starvation are a little out of date. Earlier this year I attended a CAA safety evening at Fairoaks in which we were given a talk by the CAA's current head of enforcement. He mentioned that his predecessor had a particular penchant for prosecuting fuel starvation cases, but made it clear that he personally did not agree with that emphasis. If you run out of fuel and do a successful forced landing with no damage and no injuries, it's unlikely that you'll be prosecuted by the current administration. They're more interested in pursuing illegal public transport nowadays, which is fair enough IMHO.
Also, let's not be too harsh on the pilot for arriving with a small amount of fuel on board. I seem to remember from the original AAIB report on this incident that the aircraft operators put some degree of pressure on pilots not to return the aircraft with too much fuel on board, so that the aircraft could if necessary take a full passenger load on its next flight. That doesn't excuse the error completely of course, but it is perhaps a mitigating factor.
Also, let's not be too harsh on the pilot for arriving with a small amount of fuel on board. I seem to remember from the original AAIB report on this incident that the aircraft operators put some degree of pressure on pilots not to return the aircraft with too much fuel on board, so that the aircraft could if necessary take a full passenger load on its next flight. That doesn't excuse the error completely of course, but it is perhaps a mitigating factor.
Granted, but if I declare a Mayday because I'm low on fuel, it may reasonably be regarded as a "fuel emergency" even if that's not the approved terminology. You do not I believe declare a mayday, you declare an emergency using the word "mayday".
Incidentally reading the report, there are a few things that don't seem to quite make sense and give me a little more sympathy for the pilot.
(1) He reported one gauge reading ¼ and the other reading ½ - even for a light aircraft fuel gauge that is a bit more than mild inaccuracy - that is unserviceable.
(2) What I'd heard on the rumour mill was clearly incorrect, the report does show that he reported an emergency - albeit an engine one, but subsequent pilot and ATC actions would be similar in each case and if he was indicating ¼ tank+ and the engine was faltering, entirely understandable.
(3) The pilot, who didn't have all that many hours and very few on type, had been taught to use a rule-of-thumb in his fuel planning that assumed LOWER fuel burn than was given in the POH for available cruise speeds. Whatever instructor taught that might usefully, it could be argued, be shot. Slowly.
(4) Aparently the operator didn't provide a fuel dipstick, which I'd have thought was standard for a low wing light aircraft in this class.
Ultimately however, the chap wasn't familiar with the POH data on cruise and fuel consumption - or at-least hadn't used it in his flight planning. Any pilot failing to use data available to them in that way deserves criticism - but reading the report in full, it doesn't read like a prosecution case to me.
It strikes me that the pilots biggest failing however, as reported in the AAIB report was failing to stay within glide range of the runway when he'd had what appeared initially to be an engine fault whilst joining overhead.
G
Incidentally reading the report, there are a few things that don't seem to quite make sense and give me a little more sympathy for the pilot.
(1) He reported one gauge reading ¼ and the other reading ½ - even for a light aircraft fuel gauge that is a bit more than mild inaccuracy - that is unserviceable.
(2) What I'd heard on the rumour mill was clearly incorrect, the report does show that he reported an emergency - albeit an engine one, but subsequent pilot and ATC actions would be similar in each case and if he was indicating ¼ tank+ and the engine was faltering, entirely understandable.
(3) The pilot, who didn't have all that many hours and very few on type, had been taught to use a rule-of-thumb in his fuel planning that assumed LOWER fuel burn than was given in the POH for available cruise speeds. Whatever instructor taught that might usefully, it could be argued, be shot. Slowly.
(4) Aparently the operator didn't provide a fuel dipstick, which I'd have thought was standard for a low wing light aircraft in this class.
Ultimately however, the chap wasn't familiar with the POH data on cruise and fuel consumption - or at-least hadn't used it in his flight planning. Any pilot failing to use data available to them in that way deserves criticism - but reading the report in full, it doesn't read like a prosecution case to me.
It strikes me that the pilots biggest failing however, as reported in the AAIB report was failing to stay within glide range of the runway when he'd had what appeared initially to be an engine fault whilst joining overhead.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 2nd Sep 2003 at 21:17.
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So then, just out of interest, how many pilots have never, ever, had a buttock-clenching low fuel moment? Probably fewer than have chipped in to this thread so far.
That doesn’t necessarily excuse it, but without knowing the full facts of the case, I’d be a bit reluctant to cast the first stone.
That doesn’t necessarily excuse it, but without knowing the full facts of the case, I’d be a bit reluctant to cast the first stone.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: near Birmingham Airport
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as a regular flyer of PA34 aircraft , i cannot understand why the pilot concerned , once he calculated his fuel requirements, did not put in an extra , say , 1 hour's worth of fuel- neither weight nor runway length seem to have been a problem and although the operator preferred to have the aircraft returned with less than full tanks i should imagine that to return the aircraft with, say, 2 hours fuel remaining would have been acceptable to the operator.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft doesnt look in all that bad condition considering it just was "partially demolishing" a house.
_
Just reading the AAIB report and he seems to have been thorough with a lot of things and done all he could in the time (apart from the major error of the mis-calculation). He must have had a very high work load, as with any emergency i suppose.
But i think its worth reading to a lot of people commenting on his 'negligence' as it may be.
It could have been the unusable fuel but maybe not...
The pilot and fireman would have had a better view toward this i'd presume and are in a more qualified position to judge.
I havent read it all yet because my breaks about to finish at work but its interesting.
Spike
_
Just reading the AAIB report and he seems to have been thorough with a lot of things and done all he could in the time (apart from the major error of the mis-calculation). He must have had a very high work load, as with any emergency i suppose.
But i think its worth reading to a lot of people commenting on his 'negligence' as it may be.
Both the pilot and a firemen who reached the scene a matter of minutes after the impact, recalled seeing fuel seeping from damage to the right wing, but none of the eyewitnesses were able to recall seeing or smelling fuel in the area of the severely damaged left wing.
The pilot and fireman would have had a better view toward this i'd presume and are in a more qualified position to judge.
I havent read it all yet because my breaks about to finish at work but its interesting.
Spike
Last edited by Spikeee; 2nd Sep 2003 at 21:31.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SX in SX in UK
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis said:-
Dipsticks are only useful if the base of the tank is flat, so 1inch on the dipstick = X gallons, 2 inch = 2X gallons etc etc.
If the wing has dihedral and if the aircraft sits nose-high on the ground, then all the fuel will drain into the lowest corner, as is the case in my aircraft.
If the gauges in my aircraft read 1/4 full, we know that the tanks are actually 1/2 full (by checking the amount of fuel needed to fill them), but the sloping floor of the tank is bone dry. and a dipstick will not be the slightest bit damp.
In this case, it is very difficult to design an accurate fuel sender based on a float mechanism, as if the sender is near the lower end of the tank, the float will register full even when the tank is half full, but if the sender unit is at the top of the tank, the float will drop to the bottom of its travel when the tank is half empty.
Possibly the best method would be to isolate the tank from the airframe on rubber mounts and calculate the weight of fuel by the deflection of the mounts. Until you start to move, when vibration will cause the mounts to move and affect the reading of the gauges.
4) Aparently the operator didn't provide a fuel dipstick, which I'd have thought was standard for a low wing light aircraft in this class
If the wing has dihedral and if the aircraft sits nose-high on the ground, then all the fuel will drain into the lowest corner, as is the case in my aircraft.
If the gauges in my aircraft read 1/4 full, we know that the tanks are actually 1/2 full (by checking the amount of fuel needed to fill them), but the sloping floor of the tank is bone dry. and a dipstick will not be the slightest bit damp.
In this case, it is very difficult to design an accurate fuel sender based on a float mechanism, as if the sender is near the lower end of the tank, the float will register full even when the tank is half full, but if the sender unit is at the top of the tank, the float will drop to the bottom of its travel when the tank is half empty.
Possibly the best method would be to isolate the tank from the airframe on rubber mounts and calculate the weight of fuel by the deflection of the mounts. Until you start to move, when vibration will cause the mounts to move and affect the reading of the gauges.
I beg to differ.
You drain the tank, then fill it a fixed amount at the time - each time you dip it and mark the known fuel level on the diptsick. You get a non-linear scale, but so long as you do it at enough intervals there's no problem at-all, there's no rule that any gauge needs to be linear.
Same applies to sight-tube gauges on tanks such as the PA18.
The same can be applied to any kind of electronic gauge, the Bulldog for example always is calibrated on the aircraft - that's why the twin-tank gauges on that type never have parallel scales.
It's a slightly tedious job, but only needs doing once and is equally valid for float gauges, sight tubes and dipsticks. (Except that the first two you might want on some types, especially taildraggers to do twice - one in the ground attitude and once in the flight attitude, and show two scales).
The problem gauges, which aren't used much on smaller aeroplanes, are capacitance based gauges, because they tend to read differently with different brands of fuel, as fuel make-up is changed with time of year, and with water content in the fuel, which can be storage and conditions dependent. But, even these should read correctly when the tank is empty.
G
You drain the tank, then fill it a fixed amount at the time - each time you dip it and mark the known fuel level on the diptsick. You get a non-linear scale, but so long as you do it at enough intervals there's no problem at-all, there's no rule that any gauge needs to be linear.
Same applies to sight-tube gauges on tanks such as the PA18.
The same can be applied to any kind of electronic gauge, the Bulldog for example always is calibrated on the aircraft - that's why the twin-tank gauges on that type never have parallel scales.
It's a slightly tedious job, but only needs doing once and is equally valid for float gauges, sight tubes and dipsticks. (Except that the first two you might want on some types, especially taildraggers to do twice - one in the ground attitude and once in the flight attitude, and show two scales).
The problem gauges, which aren't used much on smaller aeroplanes, are capacitance based gauges, because they tend to read differently with different brands of fuel, as fuel make-up is changed with time of year, and with water content in the fuel, which can be storage and conditions dependent. But, even these should read correctly when the tank is empty.
G
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Between Galaxies
Age: 39
Posts: 453
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Futher errors like this which endanger lives could be resolved if we used simple universal measuring rules - I dont see why new aircraft coming off the production line keep working in individual US Gallons or liters etc. This should have been figured out ages ago
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: EGLL mostly
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis
On this occasion, you are mistaken. The Seneca, along with many other light twins such as the Baron have filler caps towards the tips of the wings, and wedge-shaped tanks that rapidly drain to the point where there is no fuel visible under the filler point.
After 1 hour's flight, a Baron is "empty" if you go by a visual inspection through the filler.
This makes dipping the tanks completely without value.
Charlie.
On this occasion, you are mistaken. The Seneca, along with many other light twins such as the Baron have filler caps towards the tips of the wings, and wedge-shaped tanks that rapidly drain to the point where there is no fuel visible under the filler point.
After 1 hour's flight, a Baron is "empty" if you go by a visual inspection through the filler.
This makes dipping the tanks completely without value.
Charlie.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same goes for PA32s and the TB range.
FD
There are small tank gauges for the PA32 (Dunno about the PA34) which are not dissimilar to the ones found on Chippies which tell you how much fuel there is in the inboard part of the wingtank. OK give an indication.
FD
There are small tank gauges for the PA32 (Dunno about the PA34) which are not dissimilar to the ones found on Chippies which tell you how much fuel there is in the inboard part of the wingtank. OK give an indication.
Last edited by Flyin'Dutch'; 2nd Sep 2003 at 22:45.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last posts about filler cap positions and dipsticks on low stable wings is absolutely right. The same goes for my Cessna 303. At airfields with low security, there have been fuel theft issues through the drains, and even my Shadin FF totalisers will not help in that case.
I was told that there was a mod for Beech turboprops that allowed sight guages in the underside of the wings where you could visually check fuel at different points of the wing.
Does anyone know if this is possible for piston engine A/C ?
I was told that there was a mod for Beech turboprops that allowed sight guages in the underside of the wings where you could visually check fuel at different points of the wing.
Does anyone know if this is possible for piston engine A/C ?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always wondered, would the presence of auxilary fuel tanks be any help in such a situation. A small additional tank containing perhaps 15 minutes fuel could be kept for use in a fuel shortage. The emergency fuel could be released into the main tank(s) if required and the pilot would then have a short amount of time to put it on the ground safely.
I seem to remember reading of a car (or possibly motorcycle) that had this facility a few years ago. Since lack of fuel in an aircraft is much more critical than it is on the road, I'm sure this is a possibility. Anyone know if this has ever been done?
Down sides: More complexity - an extra tank to check and fill before flight - more fuel lines etc. Also people (idiots) might start including the emergency fuel in calculations if the numbers were really tight.
Up side: Used with comon sense, makes it virtually impossible to "crash into a house" due lack of fuel I'd say.
Tell me to shut up if this is a stupid idea. Was just a thought.
I seem to remember reading of a car (or possibly motorcycle) that had this facility a few years ago. Since lack of fuel in an aircraft is much more critical than it is on the road, I'm sure this is a possibility. Anyone know if this has ever been done?
Down sides: More complexity - an extra tank to check and fill before flight - more fuel lines etc. Also people (idiots) might start including the emergency fuel in calculations if the numbers were really tight.
Up side: Used with comon sense, makes it virtually impossible to "crash into a house" due lack of fuel I'd say.
Tell me to shut up if this is a stupid idea. Was just a thought.