Pilot in the Dock for running out of fuel (Update: PILOT CLEARED!)MERGED.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a non-flyer I would like to ask if the practice of calculating the amount of fuel in an aircraft, where no visual check is available, by calculating the fuel burn since last 'fill' is widespread. The CAA report of this incident states that the aircraft was last filled 2 weeks previous and a total of fourteen flights had been made since then (including a trip to the engineers where they ground ran the motors).
Is it really common practice to rely on so many other peoples actions? I am a sailor and charter unknown yachts often, but will always check the echo sounder myself with a lead-line despite what anyone else tells me about it's calibration. (Echo sounders can be calibrated to water line or bottom of keel or may not be calibrated at all). Yet you guys seem to be happy if someone tells you that an aircraft you are about to take into the air has x gallons of fuel in it? What ever happened to the 'Runway behind you, altitude above you & air in the tanks' maxim?
Is it really common practice to rely on so many other peoples actions? I am a sailor and charter unknown yachts often, but will always check the echo sounder myself with a lead-line despite what anyone else tells me about it's calibration. (Echo sounders can be calibrated to water line or bottom of keel or may not be calibrated at all). Yet you guys seem to be happy if someone tells you that an aircraft you are about to take into the air has x gallons of fuel in it? What ever happened to the 'Runway behind you, altitude above you & air in the tanks' maxim?
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
I go with you on this, fill your aircraft full and don't dick
around - it just gives you an opportunity to make a
mistake.
I know this is simplistic but I'm a simple person and
it works for me,
-- Andrew
I go with you on this, fill your aircraft full and don't dick
around - it just gives you an opportunity to make a
mistake.
I know this is simplistic but I'm a simple person and
it works for me,
-- Andrew
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
Your CFI would be a worthy candidate for the CAA's legal attack dogs! This sort of omission in your training was tantamount to not explaining how check the oil.
Visually checking the fuel should be the very first action in one's very first flying lesson IMHO.
I did my whole PPL in Cessnas, and not once did anyone show me a physical fuel check.
Visually checking the fuel should be the very first action in one's very first flying lesson IMHO.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Job Centre
Age: 74
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
Price of a full fuel load sounds cheaper than the price of another Seneca.
Plus all the 3rd party stuff.
Plus the (excellent value) legal fees.
Hurrah for us simpletons !!
(But I hope all my errors are soft ones)
SD
Price of a full fuel load sounds cheaper than the price of another Seneca.
Plus all the 3rd party stuff.
Plus the (excellent value) legal fees.
Hurrah for us simpletons !!
(But I hope all my errors are soft ones)
SD
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Flying Lawyer:
Whirly's comments should be examined in another light, if there were no prosecutions what would Lawyers do for a living?
Running out of fuel and crashing into a house is a good example of needing a good Lawyer.
Chuck E.
Whirly's comments should be examined in another light, if there were no prosecutions what would Lawyers do for a living?
Running out of fuel and crashing into a house is a good example of needing a good Lawyer.
Chuck E.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sunny side up pls..
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain doctor huh?
Has anybody noticed the higher the education the more dangerous in Aviation or is that just me?
This guy seems to be worthy to fly a Bonanza....LOL
If you truly cannot be bothered doing fuel calculations just FILL IT UP! Sod the charter they can always drain...
NO..just crash it and give everybody in GA a black eye.
This clown deserves to be stripped of his license
Has anybody noticed the higher the education the more dangerous in Aviation or is that just me?
This guy seems to be worthy to fly a Bonanza....LOL
If you truly cannot be bothered doing fuel calculations just FILL IT UP! Sod the charter they can always drain...
NO..just crash it and give everybody in GA a black eye.
This clown deserves to be stripped of his license
In the absence of reliable fuel gauges, a totaliser would seem to be the best solution. So long as it also has a non resettable scale.
How do you establish the actual fuel quantity if the ac hasn't been refuelled to max for 14 days and the gauges aren't reliable?
If a charter company told someone to return the ac without a high fuel load remaining, the only options would be to say either:
a. "How much is there in it right now? Sign here please."
or
b. "I'll be using it for x hours at y gall per hour, so I'm going to add xy gallons to whatever is in it at the moment if you can't tell me the accurate figure. So you'll be getting it back with the same fuel as it's got right now!"
The xy calculation needs to be carefully checked though. But I agree that the variety of units in current use (US gallons, Imperial gallons, litres, pounds and kilograms) doesn't help. Nor does the fact that many people taking PPL exams don't understand the difference between density and specific gravity, particularly the decimal generation. I would like to see the use of specific gravity banned - the only units used should be mass, volume and density (= mass/volume). Comparing a bucket of fuel to the weight of the same bucket filled with water is an anachronism!
But then there are some total idiots around. An ac was filled with fuel for 5 hours. It flew for an hour, then another pilot went away on a trip of 2 hours, landed and came back later. Sure enough, after exactly 5 hours it all went quiet and he had to put it into a field, fortunately without damage. He could have refuelled before departure, at destination or at any one of about 8 different aerodromes on the way back..... But he thought that he knew better "These gauges must be wrong, we had x gallons and I've flown for y hours at z gallons per hour, so we must have (x-yz) left..." Well - only if x and z were accurately known - and he'd included all the taxying time in his estimate of y.........
NB - This is not to be taken as representing any comment on the current case referred to in this thread.
How do you establish the actual fuel quantity if the ac hasn't been refuelled to max for 14 days and the gauges aren't reliable?
If a charter company told someone to return the ac without a high fuel load remaining, the only options would be to say either:
a. "How much is there in it right now? Sign here please."
or
b. "I'll be using it for x hours at y gall per hour, so I'm going to add xy gallons to whatever is in it at the moment if you can't tell me the accurate figure. So you'll be getting it back with the same fuel as it's got right now!"
The xy calculation needs to be carefully checked though. But I agree that the variety of units in current use (US gallons, Imperial gallons, litres, pounds and kilograms) doesn't help. Nor does the fact that many people taking PPL exams don't understand the difference between density and specific gravity, particularly the decimal generation. I would like to see the use of specific gravity banned - the only units used should be mass, volume and density (= mass/volume). Comparing a bucket of fuel to the weight of the same bucket filled with water is an anachronism!
But then there are some total idiots around. An ac was filled with fuel for 5 hours. It flew for an hour, then another pilot went away on a trip of 2 hours, landed and came back later. Sure enough, after exactly 5 hours it all went quiet and he had to put it into a field, fortunately without damage. He could have refuelled before departure, at destination or at any one of about 8 different aerodromes on the way back..... But he thought that he knew better "These gauges must be wrong, we had x gallons and I've flown for y hours at z gallons per hour, so we must have (x-yz) left..." Well - only if x and z were accurately known - and he'd included all the taxying time in his estimate of y.........
NB - This is not to be taken as representing any comment on the current case referred to in this thread.
Last edited by BEagle; 4th Sep 2003 at 14:02.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I go with you on this, fill your aircraft full.
not so simple when you get to certain aircraft.
I recently went for a twin renewal and arrived at the airfield to find the aircraft (A Seneca - very relevant to this thread) on the pumps and full - I was mortified and cancelled the trip.
As the aircraft get bigger then the W&B becomes more critical - especially when you have to consider single engine performance too. A full Seneca with 2 up front and nothing behind can be close to MTOW but with a CofG so far forward and out of limits as to make it lethal should you lose an engine. This would have been the reasoning behind the hiring company saying don't return it full.
It's not excusing what happened, as I've explained before there was a simple way around the problem.
Just out of interest I wonder how much the "Fill it up" brigade do Weight & Balance calcs
Quite so Chilli.
Would the same people who condemn this guy for being frugal with fuel being condemning him for taking too much if he's had an EFATO on departure from Shoreham and hadn't made it over the high ground off 03?
Aviation is complicated.
Would the same people who condemn this guy for being frugal with fuel being condemning him for taking too much if he's had an EFATO on departure from Shoreham and hadn't made it over the high ground off 03?
Aviation is complicated.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NW,
Thanks for that information. We'll just have to be patient and await further information.
Vis-a-vis instruction as mentioned here before, it just confirms my beliefs that an awful lot of things are not taught to PPL students.
In my opinion because a lot of instructors are just too busy getting through the hours to make the next step up.
FD
Thanks for that information. We'll just have to be patient and await further information.
Vis-a-vis instruction as mentioned here before, it just confirms my beliefs that an awful lot of things are not taught to PPL students.
In my opinion because a lot of instructors are just too busy getting through the hours to make the next step up.
FD
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Midlands
Age: 71
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The red lights are all on..
A very interesting thread.
My Robin has 4 fuel tanks. It is only possible to visibly check the wing tanks. For this reason I included in the new-build spec' an EDM700 engine monitoring system with Fuel flow - a super accurate bit of kit if the blurb is to be believed! - in order to provide me with additional information.
3 years later, the fuel flow transducer is still in the box.
I have given up trying to fit it - beaurocracy has beaten me.
So - here we have a useful bit of kit in wide use in the USA but not here.
What I do now is fill the (4th) long range tank only occasionaly, run the main until the guage is near the empty mark and the fuel light starts flashing (indicating 20 litres - ish remaining) - and only then use the wing tanks. These hold almost exactly an hours fuel each.
My bladder thereafter requires me to land well before I need some gas. Simple!
(Anybody out there want to take over the certification of the Fuel Flow for me? I realise that it will cost.)
As far as my old planes are concerned - even simpler!
I just ignore the guages completely - quaint as they are - and use my calibrated wooden stick.
One of them is weight critical so filling it up with 32 gallons of fuel just aint an option if I want to take a passenger or two (no accident that my lovely girlfriend is built like a racing snake...!
Running out of fuel and hitting a house? These facts alone are pretty damning. However, in case of a conviction - (who can predict this with certainty? - nobody!) - the magistrate will listen intently to mitigating circumstances before the inevitable 'take out your wallet and repeat after me - help yourself'.
There are a lot of 'holier than thou' pilots out there.
Hands up all those who have heard those immortal words from their passenger(s) - 'you've gone a bit quiet. Is everything OK?'
My words of wisdom are these - applicable to many aspects of aviation.
IF THERE IS A DOUBT, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT.
HP
My Robin has 4 fuel tanks. It is only possible to visibly check the wing tanks. For this reason I included in the new-build spec' an EDM700 engine monitoring system with Fuel flow - a super accurate bit of kit if the blurb is to be believed! - in order to provide me with additional information.
3 years later, the fuel flow transducer is still in the box.
I have given up trying to fit it - beaurocracy has beaten me.
So - here we have a useful bit of kit in wide use in the USA but not here.
What I do now is fill the (4th) long range tank only occasionaly, run the main until the guage is near the empty mark and the fuel light starts flashing (indicating 20 litres - ish remaining) - and only then use the wing tanks. These hold almost exactly an hours fuel each.
My bladder thereafter requires me to land well before I need some gas. Simple!
(Anybody out there want to take over the certification of the Fuel Flow for me? I realise that it will cost.)
As far as my old planes are concerned - even simpler!
I just ignore the guages completely - quaint as they are - and use my calibrated wooden stick.
One of them is weight critical so filling it up with 32 gallons of fuel just aint an option if I want to take a passenger or two (no accident that my lovely girlfriend is built like a racing snake...!
Running out of fuel and hitting a house? These facts alone are pretty damning. However, in case of a conviction - (who can predict this with certainty? - nobody!) - the magistrate will listen intently to mitigating circumstances before the inevitable 'take out your wallet and repeat after me - help yourself'.
There are a lot of 'holier than thou' pilots out there.
Hands up all those who have heard those immortal words from their passenger(s) - 'you've gone a bit quiet. Is everything OK?'
My words of wisdom are these - applicable to many aspects of aviation.
IF THERE IS A DOUBT, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT.
HP
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N14HK
I agree, but this is common practice, if the Cessnas are those without a step on the (whatever you call the wing support member) so a ladder is needed, and nobody is bothered to bring one out. When I moved to PA28s I saw 2 cases of a virtually empty tank when there should have been "3 hrs" in it. But low wing planes are easy to check.
Beagle
"In the absence of reliable fuel gauges, a totaliser would seem to be the best solution. So long as it also has a non resettable scale."
I am not sure if there is a tamper-proof one for GA, and the popular Shadin costs far too much to find its way into anything much other than brand new £200k planes. And I still had a case of the FOB figure being tampered with (upwards) by a CFI who borrowed the plane... (not kidding!). He made the mistake of incrementing it past a plausible range, and I had the EDM700 data to check it against (and that cannot be tempered with). Actually, an EDM700/800 with the fuel option would give you a tamper-proof fuel flow LOG, although.... the problem is that somehow you have to set the FOB (fuel on board) figure when you fill up, and that always gives you an avenue to fiddle it, or make a mistake when not filling right up... But a Shadin etc is probably essential if you rent a plane out dry.
I agree with all you say, but such calculations just cannot be done reliably. You've always got to start with a physical check, without it everything you do is worthless no matter how many times you check it.
Chilli Monster
"Just out of interest I wonder how much the "Fill it up" brigade do Weight & Balance calcs"
Depends on the plane, a TB20 you can fill up every time and with 0-2 average passengers and some luggage you will always be OK. I've played with a W&B calculator for it and it's very hard to move it outside. This is also generally true with a PA28 and 1 average passenger, though I was often told by the school to not fill it right up (which I always ignored). Of course it can be argued that any plane which can carry fuel fuel and full passengers is a sub-optimal designl!!
Hairyplane
I am sure you've tried this, but if the FAA has given an STC for the EDM700 for an N-reg plane, the CAA often respects that. Alternatively there is the Shadin, which does not involve fitting all those thermocouple probes... But I have got through a few Shadins in 1 year, like a lot of American avionics they are awfully unreliable. You might have to pay a CAA Level 2 firm to get the approval done for you; there is one in Bournemouth and also Air Touring at Biggin Hill might be able to do it. Cost... maybe £1000.
I agree, but this is common practice, if the Cessnas are those without a step on the (whatever you call the wing support member) so a ladder is needed, and nobody is bothered to bring one out. When I moved to PA28s I saw 2 cases of a virtually empty tank when there should have been "3 hrs" in it. But low wing planes are easy to check.
Beagle
"In the absence of reliable fuel gauges, a totaliser would seem to be the best solution. So long as it also has a non resettable scale."
I am not sure if there is a tamper-proof one for GA, and the popular Shadin costs far too much to find its way into anything much other than brand new £200k planes. And I still had a case of the FOB figure being tampered with (upwards) by a CFI who borrowed the plane... (not kidding!). He made the mistake of incrementing it past a plausible range, and I had the EDM700 data to check it against (and that cannot be tempered with). Actually, an EDM700/800 with the fuel option would give you a tamper-proof fuel flow LOG, although.... the problem is that somehow you have to set the FOB (fuel on board) figure when you fill up, and that always gives you an avenue to fiddle it, or make a mistake when not filling right up... But a Shadin etc is probably essential if you rent a plane out dry.
I agree with all you say, but such calculations just cannot be done reliably. You've always got to start with a physical check, without it everything you do is worthless no matter how many times you check it.
Chilli Monster
"Just out of interest I wonder how much the "Fill it up" brigade do Weight & Balance calcs"
Depends on the plane, a TB20 you can fill up every time and with 0-2 average passengers and some luggage you will always be OK. I've played with a W&B calculator for it and it's very hard to move it outside. This is also generally true with a PA28 and 1 average passenger, though I was often told by the school to not fill it right up (which I always ignored). Of course it can be argued that any plane which can carry fuel fuel and full passengers is a sub-optimal designl!!
Hairyplane
I am sure you've tried this, but if the FAA has given an STC for the EDM700 for an N-reg plane, the CAA often respects that. Alternatively there is the Shadin, which does not involve fitting all those thermocouple probes... But I have got through a few Shadins in 1 year, like a lot of American avionics they are awfully unreliable. You might have to pay a CAA Level 2 firm to get the approval done for you; there is one in Bournemouth and also Air Touring at Biggin Hill might be able to do it. Cost... maybe £1000.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it can be argued that any plane which can carry fuel fuel and full passengers is a sub-optimal designl!!
QDM
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QDM:
Robin DR 400s with the 160 and 180 engines are true four seaters.
IO540:
Unfortunately they are not certified in the States so the STC route is not available.
HP:
May be it is too late now but you were obviously missold this piece of equipment as it is not suitable for the purpose for which it was intended. So that would normally be a case of money back.
FD
Robin DR 400s with the 160 and 180 engines are true four seaters.
IO540:
Unfortunately they are not certified in the States so the STC route is not available.
HP:
May be it is too late now but you were obviously missold this piece of equipment as it is not suitable for the purpose for which it was intended. So that would normally be a case of money back.
FD
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What gets me for the PA28-161 (I think) is the fact that you can pay 1500 quid and get the MTOW increased. But they don't actually do anything to the plane apart from put a line in the POH that means you always take off with one stage of flap.
The speeds are all the same.
Visual check is the only way to be certain. And it is very common to have flights missed out of tech logs by owners. So looking at the times flown since last refill is not an option.
On the m&B if you work out the worst case situations for full and empty fuel. For different pax loadings and then keep a note of them on your Plog it makes life alot easier. So you can have a max all up pax weight on full tanks max in the back etc. Then you only have to get the graphs out when you go over these limits.
But remember every plane is different so as soon as you start flying a different plane of the same type you need to check that its not got 20kilos of pens stashed in the panel work
Also if you work out the TO and landing for max weight, grass, 5knt tail wind etc. Then you don't need to recompute it unless the RW is less than that distance. Saves playing chicken "well i managed to get it into 300m last week" (with of course a completly different load and conditions)
MJ
The speeds are all the same.
Visual check is the only way to be certain. And it is very common to have flights missed out of tech logs by owners. So looking at the times flown since last refill is not an option.
On the m&B if you work out the worst case situations for full and empty fuel. For different pax loadings and then keep a note of them on your Plog it makes life alot easier. So you can have a max all up pax weight on full tanks max in the back etc. Then you only have to get the graphs out when you go over these limits.
But remember every plane is different so as soon as you start flying a different plane of the same type you need to check that its not got 20kilos of pens stashed in the panel work
Also if you work out the TO and landing for max weight, grass, 5knt tail wind etc. Then you don't need to recompute it unless the RW is less than that distance. Saves playing chicken "well i managed to get it into 300m last week" (with of course a completly different load and conditions)
MJ
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There you have it.
Jury instructed to acquit the pilot of the charges!
Will be interesting to find out why but I suspect on something procedural.
FL can you enlighten us?
FD
Jury instructed to acquit the pilot of the charges!
Will be interesting to find out why but I suspect on something procedural.
FL can you enlighten us?
FD
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest I wonder how much the "Fill it up" brigade do Weight & Balance calcs
Not a problem with the Chippy - 18 gallons max and all on or very close to the CG ;~)
The problem is - 18 gallons isn't enough to go many places and come back. So you have to fill up at just about every destinantion - and some destinations have to be planned into the itinerary for only that purpose.
SSD
Not a problem with the Chippy - 18 gallons max and all on or very close to the CG ;~)
The problem is - 18 gallons isn't enough to go many places and come back. So you have to fill up at just about every destinantion - and some destinations have to be planned into the itinerary for only that purpose.
SSD
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anybody read the book "The Naked Pilot"? It describes various airline accidents, many of them wellknown, all caused by HUMAN ERROR. The pilots concerned were experienced, well trained, and the errors shouldn't have happened...but they did. Mistakes DO happen. No-one if perfect all the time. this sort of thing happens time and time again...and just once is too often.
So, let's leave this case out of it for a minute, and talk generally. WHY, in this day and age, do we have unreliable fuel gauges? WHY, if the R22, and others, can have reliable gauges and also a low fuel warning light, can't other aircraft? WHY do we continue with this ridiculous situation of using THREE different units for fuel? WHY don't we make the system, if not completely human-error-proof, at least more so, since whether foregiveable or not, these accidents DO happen?
Condemning and prosecuting is easy. Why aren't we looking at the real issues?
So, let's leave this case out of it for a minute, and talk generally. WHY, in this day and age, do we have unreliable fuel gauges? WHY, if the R22, and others, can have reliable gauges and also a low fuel warning light, can't other aircraft? WHY do we continue with this ridiculous situation of using THREE different units for fuel? WHY don't we make the system, if not completely human-error-proof, at least more so, since whether foregiveable or not, these accidents DO happen?
Condemning and prosecuting is easy. Why aren't we looking at the real issues?