Pilot in the Dock for running out of fuel (Update: PILOT CLEARED!)MERGED.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: this side of heaven
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This reminds me of the now deseaced Pop star Aaliyah who died in a plane crash coming from the Bahamas because;
1) The Pilot didn caculate the amount of fuel he would need for the journey bearing in mind weight he was carrying (Pop star, her stuff, her enotourage, their stuff,
2) Don't remember the details but the Piot had been convicted of some drug felon and was flying some sort of twin Engine Cessna Caravan with all the experience behind him of PPL without an IR (I'm starting to use these abbrevaitions like a pro)
But of course these matters didn't mean much to the pop star until the Pilot said
'Uh Oh!
The plane went down shorty after take off and as a result the victims familis families in compensation were entiled to the middle part of donut because the Pilot in question was only qualified to fly a singe engine aircrfat and probably a loawn mower.
Pax beware
1) The Pilot didn caculate the amount of fuel he would need for the journey bearing in mind weight he was carrying (Pop star, her stuff, her enotourage, their stuff,
2) Don't remember the details but the Piot had been convicted of some drug felon and was flying some sort of twin Engine Cessna Caravan with all the experience behind him of PPL without an IR (I'm starting to use these abbrevaitions like a pro)
But of course these matters didn't mean much to the pop star until the Pilot said
'Uh Oh!
The plane went down shorty after take off and as a result the victims familis families in compensation were entiled to the middle part of donut because the Pilot in question was only qualified to fly a singe engine aircrfat and probably a loawn mower.
Pax beware
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
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.
What the AAIB actually said was
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.
Now IMHO coming back with 60 minutes fuel remaining for example does not represent a 'high residual fuel load'. In any case if on the next future flight the aircraft weight allowed no more than 60 minutes of fuel to be loaded, the aircraft is effectively useless. No need to run it so close.
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.
What the AAIB actually said was
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.
Now IMHO coming back with 60 minutes fuel remaining for example does not represent a 'high residual fuel load'. In any case if on the next future flight the aircraft weight allowed no more than 60 minutes of fuel to be loaded, the aircraft is effectively useless. No need to run it so close.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there is a reserve tank it is just another thing to go wrong, to be serviced and inspected etc.
Unfortunately the low fuel situation is normally learn't solo. This is due to the fact that most instructor s have been there done that and now are very careful about fuel required etc. In fact most I know would prefer to go over weight than have anything other than full tanks (this is training puddle hoppers not twins).
I had my scare in FL, which now I have more experence wasn't proberly as bad as I thought, but it did focus my mind on the fuel issues. And it was nice and easy in FL with a airfield every10 miles which sold fuel. (the handel jammed on the fuel tank selector on a PA28)
But it isn't uncommon enough that you see more fuel than the usable fuel getting put into a plane after a ppl hire has come back.(I have seen it 4 times in the last 2 years).
The only method i can think of,is if a Fuel supplier fills up with more than x amount for a given type they have to put a report in.
But that just generates more paper work which we have to pay for and smacks a bit of big brother. And its pretty easy to get round by only taking a half load.
MJ
Unfortunately the low fuel situation is normally learn't solo. This is due to the fact that most instructor s have been there done that and now are very careful about fuel required etc. In fact most I know would prefer to go over weight than have anything other than full tanks (this is training puddle hoppers not twins).
I had my scare in FL, which now I have more experence wasn't proberly as bad as I thought, but it did focus my mind on the fuel issues. And it was nice and easy in FL with a airfield every10 miles which sold fuel. (the handel jammed on the fuel tank selector on a PA28)
But it isn't uncommon enough that you see more fuel than the usable fuel getting put into a plane after a ppl hire has come back.(I have seen it 4 times in the last 2 years).
The only method i can think of,is if a Fuel supplier fills up with more than x amount for a given type they have to put a report in.
But that just generates more paper work which we have to pay for and smacks a bit of big brother. And its pretty easy to get round by only taking a half load.
MJ
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
The only method i can think of,is if a Fuel supplier fills up with more than x amount for a given type they have to put a report in.
But that just generates more paper work which we have to pay for and smacks a bit of big brother. And its pretty easy to get round by only taking a half load.
Or alternatively saying to the fueller 'This aircraft is fitted with long-range tanks'!
The only method i can think of,is if a Fuel supplier fills up with more than x amount for a given type they have to put a report in.
But that just generates more paper work which we have to pay for and smacks a bit of big brother. And its pretty easy to get round by only taking a half load.
Or alternatively saying to the fueller 'This aircraft is fitted with long-range tanks'!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That article that NewsWatcher posted a link to is a bit strange.
Why would the instructor be commenting on his landings? Unless I'm missing something his (on airport) landings are completely irrelevant to this incident. In any case why did the instructor allow him to go solo if he wasn't happy that his landings were safe?
They also mention that he mad numerious previous errors, including fuel errors. If they felt that these were serioius enough, then surely they were serious enough to require further training, until they were happy with him, before letting him hire the plane solo?
Does the club not owe a duty of care to the public at large to make sure that they don't hire an aircraft to someone that they have serious concerns about their safety? If not, then surely they owe a duty of care to the aircraft insurers not to hire it to someone they has concerns about.
dp
Why would the instructor be commenting on his landings? Unless I'm missing something his (on airport) landings are completely irrelevant to this incident. In any case why did the instructor allow him to go solo if he wasn't happy that his landings were safe?
They also mention that he mad numerious previous errors, including fuel errors. If they felt that these were serioius enough, then surely they were serious enough to require further training, until they were happy with him, before letting him hire the plane solo?
Does the club not owe a duty of care to the public at large to make sure that they don't hire an aircraft to someone that they have serious concerns about their safety? If not, then surely they owe a duty of care to the aircraft insurers not to hire it to someone they has concerns about.
dp
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lorry driver or Brain surgeon, he/she who leaves the ground with too little fuel to get to his/her destination has made a mistake, not a small forgivable mistake, but a HUGE and unforgivable one, if the said Lorry driver or Brain Surgeon has not the ability to work out his fuel load and then DOUBLE check the tanks, then sorry, Unforgivable Mistake, do not pass go without paying severe funds to Mr Blair, or John Prescott(whoevers turn it is this week)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dp,
That is the problem with these news snippets, they seem far detached from the issue, no doubt this was brought up in context.
In court both parties will want to try and give a bit of background to a defendant's abilities, character etc.
FD
PS: Vfrpilotpb, did I miss something? Did anyone refer to this person's vocation being a factor or otherwise?
That is the problem with these news snippets, they seem far detached from the issue, no doubt this was brought up in context.
In court both parties will want to try and give a bit of background to a defendant's abilities, character etc.
FD
PS: Vfrpilotpb, did I miss something? Did anyone refer to this person's vocation being a factor or otherwise?
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.
I don't know about anyone else but my motivation goes more along the lines of "I'd better load enough fuel or I'll crash" rather than "I'd better load enough fuel or I'll be prosecuted".
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The incident took place in Apl 2001, what was the procedure regarding licence, insurance and willing hirers in the intervening period?
This is a generalised question, but based on this incident for ease of asking.
This is a generalised question, but based on this incident for ease of asking.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
But it isn't uncommon enough that you see more fuel than the usable fuel getting put into a plane after a ppl hire has come back.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Expat Kiwi living in London
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have noted all the comments about the notorious inaccuracy of fuel gauges. I use to fly a 310Q and its gauges were dreadfully inaccurate - in fact almost worse than having no gauges at all. Not to be trusted.
However, the gauges in the Yak 50 and 52 are a different matter. They are excellent and surprisingly accurate. I recently took my 50 up to Sweden and back and reconfirmed that the gauges were accurate almost to the litre.
Now if the Russians were able to make simple fuel gauges for their ("GA") aeroplanes in the 1970's, why couldn't the American or European manufacturers do likewise? Bear in mind that Yaks were not designed for cross country work either so accurate fuel gauges were perhaps less required than in say a Cessna, Piper or Beech.
However, the gauges in the Yak 50 and 52 are a different matter. They are excellent and surprisingly accurate. I recently took my 50 up to Sweden and back and reconfirmed that the gauges were accurate almost to the litre.
Now if the Russians were able to make simple fuel gauges for their ("GA") aeroplanes in the 1970's, why couldn't the American or European manufacturers do likewise? Bear in mind that Yaks were not designed for cross country work either so accurate fuel gauges were perhaps less required than in say a Cessna, Piper or Beech.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about anyone else but my motivation goes more along the lines of "I'd better load enough fuel or I'll crash" rather than "I'd better load enough fuel or I'll be prosecuted".
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accurate fuel gauges, inacurate fuel gages or no fuel guages.
It is the responsibility of the pilot to ensure that there is sufficient fuel to fly the planned trip plus reserve, depending on if you are VFR or IFR.
There is one thing certain if you do not have enough fuel you will have a forced landing.
And then there is no excuse..... Unless you can show that the fuel leaked out or some other unusual mechanical problem.
Chuck E.
It is the responsibility of the pilot to ensure that there is sufficient fuel to fly the planned trip plus reserve, depending on if you are VFR or IFR.
There is one thing certain if you do not have enough fuel you will have a forced landing.
And then there is no excuse..... Unless you can show that the fuel leaked out or some other unusual mechanical problem.
Chuck E.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you read the report then several facts become apparent.
1) This was a flight that could have been carried out safely, without loading up the aircraft, even if the fuel gauges were completely unserviceable - I'll explain how later.
2) This was a classic example of someone trying to be too clever by 'supposedly' calculating a fuel load and getting it wrong - like everything in aviation instead of deciding what was needed and then trying to convert it, he should have used the time honoured practice of KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid
He wanted 60USG in the aircraft. In the Seneca that equates to approx 2:45 of flying and certainly isn't round trip fuel Shoreham Sheffield and Return. Where was the contingency fuel? Where was the holding fuel? Where was the Div Fuel? In short - his preflight planning wasn't up to the standard of someone who flies that class of aircraft.
Next - the refuelling itself. Keep it simple like I said. You can't dip the tanks in a Seneca with less than 130 litres (approx) in the tank for reasons stated before. There is however a small rib in the tank just below the filler cap. Instead of asking for a set amount and doing a (wrong) conversion why didn't he do what most people would do and fill it to this step. It gives a visual check that there is fuel on board and, with the fuel up to it on both sides equates to 280 litres of fuel - 3:30 and plenty for the trip with contingency. It's not the refuellers responsibility for ensuring there's enough fuel - it's the aircraft commanders and if this is the only way to make sure there is sufficient then you damn well do it or pay the consequences.
This is an incident that should never have happened - at least hopefully it's something that people will learn from.
1) This was a flight that could have been carried out safely, without loading up the aircraft, even if the fuel gauges were completely unserviceable - I'll explain how later.
2) This was a classic example of someone trying to be too clever by 'supposedly' calculating a fuel load and getting it wrong - like everything in aviation instead of deciding what was needed and then trying to convert it, he should have used the time honoured practice of KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid
He wanted 60USG in the aircraft. In the Seneca that equates to approx 2:45 of flying and certainly isn't round trip fuel Shoreham Sheffield and Return. Where was the contingency fuel? Where was the holding fuel? Where was the Div Fuel? In short - his preflight planning wasn't up to the standard of someone who flies that class of aircraft.
Next - the refuelling itself. Keep it simple like I said. You can't dip the tanks in a Seneca with less than 130 litres (approx) in the tank for reasons stated before. There is however a small rib in the tank just below the filler cap. Instead of asking for a set amount and doing a (wrong) conversion why didn't he do what most people would do and fill it to this step. It gives a visual check that there is fuel on board and, with the fuel up to it on both sides equates to 280 litres of fuel - 3:30 and plenty for the trip with contingency. It's not the refuellers responsibility for ensuring there's enough fuel - it's the aircraft commanders and if this is the only way to make sure there is sufficient then you damn well do it or pay the consequences.
This is an incident that should never have happened - at least hopefully it's something that people will learn from.
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 4th Sep 2003 at 04:59.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gertrude, in the very first response to this post, wisely pointed out: "Well, that's a report of the prosecution case, it looks like the other side of the story hasn't been put yet. So we'll have to wait and see."
A few posts later, after some had seen fit to condemn the pilot on the basis of nothing more than newspaper reports of the prosecution's allegations
, Flyin 'Dutch' made a reasonable and sensible appeal: "Once this case has come to an end it may be useful to discuss fuel calcs on here but I think that it would be unhelpful at the moment to go into detail."
A few posts later, FD tried again: "Should we not hold back until we have seen what the defence is?"
Still no luck, so FD tried yet again, this time spelling out the very real dangers in simple terms: "However since this case is still in court it seemed prudent not to add comments which could influence people involved in the current case."
Then, not surprisingly, he gave up.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if a juror read this thread, or was told by a friend who does, that the majority of posters on the pilots website think the pilot is guilty. Just the sort of thing the pilot on trial needs.
I only hope the jury will approach this case with more sense, and more fairly, than those who've condemned him here.
Unwell_Raptor asks who's defending the pilot? Some barrister called Tudor Owen.
Whirlybird: I agree with you 100%. Prosecutions are not an effective means of achieving flight safety.
Got to go now. I've got a lot of work to do for a trial at Chichester Crown Court.
My client says the allegations against him aren't true.
FL
A few posts later, after some had seen fit to condemn the pilot on the basis of nothing more than newspaper reports of the prosecution's allegations
, Flyin 'Dutch' made a reasonable and sensible appeal: "Once this case has come to an end it may be useful to discuss fuel calcs on here but I think that it would be unhelpful at the moment to go into detail."A few posts later, FD tried again: "Should we not hold back until we have seen what the defence is?"
Still no luck, so FD tried yet again, this time spelling out the very real dangers in simple terms: "However since this case is still in court it seemed prudent not to add comments which could influence people involved in the current case."
Then, not surprisingly, he gave up.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if a juror read this thread, or was told by a friend who does, that the majority of posters on the pilots website think the pilot is guilty. Just the sort of thing the pilot on trial needs.
I only hope the jury will approach this case with more sense, and more fairly, than those who've condemned him here.
Unwell_Raptor asks who's defending the pilot? Some barrister called Tudor Owen.
Whirlybird: I agree with you 100%. Prosecutions are not an effective means of achieving flight safety.
Got to go now. I've got a lot of work to do for a trial at Chichester Crown Court.
My client says the allegations against him aren't true.
FL
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my 2p's worth.
I read the original AAIB report on this (G-OMAR, I think) at the time it came out, and it (or something related I read at the time) mentioned that the firm he rented the plane from used it for charter work, and since in that line you never know if you will get five fat blokes with a load of golfing gear turning up, you don't keep much fuel in the tanks. Especially in a Seneca. This renter was told to not return the plane with too much fuel in the tanks, and he did his best to do as he was told. He made some fuel miscalculations on top of that.
On a more general point, I did my whole PPL in Cessnas, and not once did anyone show me a physical fuel check. This would have involved bringing out a ladder. I was told to check the two documents back at the office and if they agree it must be OK. It was immediately obvious that they were filled in by the same person each time....
I have never flown a self fly hire plane with usable fuel gauges. I always filled the tanks right up (even if the CFI moaned about it, one does not get charged for time to/from the pumps) and knew that gave me say 4 hrs range, and if the trip would take 2 hrs that was fine. Then you didn't need working fuel gauges, dip the tanks, etc. I think the whole business of fuel calculations and conversions, as taught in the PPL, with that stupid ex-WW1 ex-Wehrmacht circular slide rule, is an accident looking for a place to happen.
I read the original AAIB report on this (G-OMAR, I think) at the time it came out, and it (or something related I read at the time) mentioned that the firm he rented the plane from used it for charter work, and since in that line you never know if you will get five fat blokes with a load of golfing gear turning up, you don't keep much fuel in the tanks. Especially in a Seneca. This renter was told to not return the plane with too much fuel in the tanks, and he did his best to do as he was told. He made some fuel miscalculations on top of that.
On a more general point, I did my whole PPL in Cessnas, and not once did anyone show me a physical fuel check. This would have involved bringing out a ladder. I was told to check the two documents back at the office and if they agree it must be OK. It was immediately obvious that they were filled in by the same person each time....
I have never flown a self fly hire plane with usable fuel gauges. I always filled the tanks right up (even if the CFI moaned about it, one does not get charged for time to/from the pumps) and knew that gave me say 4 hrs range, and if the trip would take 2 hrs that was fine. Then you didn't need working fuel gauges, dip the tanks, etc. I think the whole business of fuel calculations and conversions, as taught in the PPL, with that stupid ex-WW1 ex-Wehrmacht circular slide rule, is an accident looking for a place to happen.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL,
Thanks for your comments, as you say one can only try so much!
Is there an update about the court case. Been looking on the Beeb site but could not find anything.
Newswatcher?
FD
Thanks for your comments, as you say one can only try so much!
Is there an update about the court case. Been looking on the Beeb site but could not find anything.
Newswatcher?
FD
