Pilot in the Dock for running out of fuel (Update: PILOT CLEARED!)MERGED.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that the court case is over, I feel inclined to comment - although I still don't feel that I'm in possession of all the facts. From those facts that I do have, though, I can't for the life of me figure out how a court could find the pilot not guilty. I think I must be missing some vital piece of information which was key to the defence - I'd be very curious to know what that was (if not the details, at least whether it was a material fact or a legal issue), although I understand Flying Lawyer's reasons for not being able to divulge any details.
However, whatever happened, I agree with those posters who say that there is nothing to be gained from prosecuting the pilot. He has learnt his lesson. He will probably pay the price, financially, in terms of increased insurance costs. And I guarantee he will never make that mistake again - something which no court action could ever do.
FFF
--------------
However, whatever happened, I agree with those posters who say that there is nothing to be gained from prosecuting the pilot. He has learnt his lesson. He will probably pay the price, financially, in terms of increased insurance costs. And I guarantee he will never make that mistake again - something which no court action could ever do.
FFF
--------------
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 believe this!!!!!
The court decides to acquit the guy. As Heliport says, judges don't advise juries in that manner for no good reason.
Yet STILL, people here know best, and think he should have been convicted.
Don't you think maybe, just maybe, their are some fcts we don't know.
I hope I'm never in the situation to have Trial by PPRuNe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yet STILL, people here know best, and think he should have been convicted.
Don't you think maybe, just maybe, their are some fcts we don't know.
I hope I'm never in the situation to have Trial by PPRuNe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ditto FFF
I too did not want to comment until it was over. We have all made up our own views based on the AAIB report, but it is obvious something went on during the court hearing and I think we would all now like to know the facts of the hearing. Maybe we could all learn a bit more about flying (and the CAA) from it.
Does anyone know where relevant transcript can be read?
EDITED To Add
WB - our posts overlapped.
However I will add one GOOD thing that has come out of this. Many people are discussing fuel management in a depth that they would not normally consider. I can not comment if CAA were right to prosecute or not as obviously there is missing evidence we have not seen (hence my comments above).
I too did not want to comment until it was over. We have all made up our own views based on the AAIB report, but it is obvious something went on during the court hearing and I think we would all now like to know the facts of the hearing. Maybe we could all learn a bit more about flying (and the CAA) from it.
Does anyone know where relevant transcript can be read?
EDITED To Add
WB - our posts overlapped.
However I will add one GOOD thing that has come out of this. Many people are discussing fuel management in a depth that they would not normally consider. I can not comment if CAA were right to prosecute or not as obviously there is missing evidence we have not seen (hence my comments above).
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with FFF. Prosecution will add nothing to safety, and merely satisfies the current thirst for retribution. If concern for your own hide doesn't make you a careful pilot, then the fear of prosecution is unlikely to do the trick.
Exactly the same applies to the foolish decision to prosecute managers for the Hatfield train crash. All that this will do is to stop the railways employing good bold managers, because they will not want to put their freedom at risk, and to make the system even more cringingly risk averse than it is now.
The partial shutdown of the railways after Hatfield almost certainly caused far more deaths than the original accident, by driving traffic onto the dangerous road system.
Exactly the same applies to the foolish decision to prosecute managers for the Hatfield train crash. All that this will do is to stop the railways employing good bold managers, because they will not want to put their freedom at risk, and to make the system even more cringingly risk averse than it is now.
The partial shutdown of the railways after Hatfield almost certainly caused far more deaths than the original accident, by driving traffic onto the dangerous road system.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Outlawed
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm bemused.
The jury were actually directed to acquit by the judge. They didn't decide anything. Maybe he was innocent (in the true meaning of the word) or maybe it was a legal technicality/snafu in our wonderful judical system. Either way he admitted to the gallon/litre conversion error.
I'm still bemused by how so many posters think this a 'mistake' rather than gross negligence. Had he killed the two small children who lived in the house would you have felt differently? I rather suspect you would, but it would only be the outcome of his criminal act that would have changed, rather than the act itself. Drunk driving is not more acceptable if you don't actually crash and neither should it be. There seems to be a lot of support for this guy just because he's a fellow pilot, and non-aviators looking in must be as surprised as I am.
The court decides to acquit the guy. As Heliport says, judges don't advise juries in that manner for no good reason.
I'm still bemused by how so many posters think this a 'mistake' rather than gross negligence. Had he killed the two small children who lived in the house would you have felt differently? I rather suspect you would, but it would only be the outcome of his criminal act that would have changed, rather than the act itself. Drunk driving is not more acceptable if you don't actually crash and neither should it be. There seems to be a lot of support for this guy just because he's a fellow pilot, and non-aviators looking in must be as surprised as I am.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possible explanation on the acquittal from a local news site -
The Argus - News, Sport, Brighton and Hove Albion and Entertainment for Brighton, Hove and Sussex
The Argus - News, Sport, Brighton and Hove Albion and Entertainment for Brighton, Hove and Sussex
Last edited by Heliport; 5th Sep 2003 at 23:34.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drunk driving involves a decision to drive a car when you KNOW you have been drinking. I'm sure this pilot didn't KNOW he'd made a fuel miscalculation...till afterwards. So it's not an exact or appropriate analogy.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Either way he admitted to the gallon/litre conversion error.
It is fairly clear that the guy is either a Free Mason or we arguing around a facts vacuum
Saying that, I too cannot possibly imagine how somebody can mistakenly load too little fuel to complete the journey when it is so easy to chekc the quanitity. All there is in the ANO is a statement that the commander shall reasonably satisfy himself that he has sufficient fuel. I assume that the only officially recognised way of establishing how much fuel there is in the aircraft is by reading the fuel guages. So begins another iteration of the that argument.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help but think that this pilot is a very very lucky man, in more ways than one.
Is it not the sole responsibility of the commander of a powered aircraft to ensure that there is sufficent fuel for the flight?
Is he not required to have sufficient fuel to divert to an alternative field, and to hold there for 45 minutes?
Even if he had not made the calculation error, and had included the extra 23 ltrs surely he would not have met this requirement. I don't know the area, or much about the aircraft, but I'm sure a twin burns more than 31ltrs per hour, therefore he would not have been able to meet the 45 min hold alone...never mind the diversion. Ok, maybe he thought there was an extra 5 gallons in there, but I would still think that a twin would burn more that this in 45 min, and a diversion.
Sure I don't like to see a pilot prosecuted, and I agree that prosecution doesn't do much to improve safety. But neither does something like this do much for the GA cause.
If so many of us see him as getting away with it, then what do the public at large see? I dare say that they see a grossly unprofessional bunch of rich people with little airplanes, who aren't accountable to anyone, and who can get away with anything. Can this be anything but bad for GA, irrespective of any facts in this case?
dp
Is it not the sole responsibility of the commander of a powered aircraft to ensure that there is sufficent fuel for the flight?
Is he not required to have sufficient fuel to divert to an alternative field, and to hold there for 45 minutes?
Even if he had not made the calculation error, and had included the extra 23 ltrs surely he would not have met this requirement. I don't know the area, or much about the aircraft, but I'm sure a twin burns more than 31ltrs per hour, therefore he would not have been able to meet the 45 min hold alone...never mind the diversion. Ok, maybe he thought there was an extra 5 gallons in there, but I would still think that a twin would burn more that this in 45 min, and a diversion.
Sure I don't like to see a pilot prosecuted, and I agree that prosecution doesn't do much to improve safety. But neither does something like this do much for the GA cause.
If so many of us see him as getting away with it, then what do the public at large see? I dare say that they see a grossly unprofessional bunch of rich people with little airplanes, who aren't accountable to anyone, and who can get away with anything. Can this be anything but bad for GA, irrespective of any facts in this case?
dp
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read the Brighton and Hove article, I must be missing something here. 
It seems that as the Concorde pilot found an error of 5 gallons in the fuel log this therefore makes everything ok as without the error he would have had enough fuel to complete the landing.
Good job he didn't have to carry out a go-round or divert - he'd be in exactly in the same position - heading quietly earthwards.
There seems to of been no calculation allowence for diversion or emergency by this chap, the comment that 'it was an accident waiting to happen' could apply to the pilot himself. (note that the mistake had been made before).
No1 Rule of useless things in flying - Fuel in the bowser.
The thought of where the litgation trail will now go is intresting as the finger is now seems to be pointing at the Hire Company with suspect fuel data - I'm sure that the Insurance companies involved will be looking at the case wording and policy small print VERY carefully - they do not like giving money out without seeing if they can find a victim to get that money back from.
It seems that as the Concorde pilot found an error of 5 gallons in the fuel log this therefore makes everything ok as without the error he would have had enough fuel to complete the landing. Good job he didn't have to carry out a go-round or divert - he'd be in exactly in the same position - heading quietly earthwards.
There seems to of been no calculation allowence for diversion or emergency by this chap, the comment that 'it was an accident waiting to happen' could apply to the pilot himself. (note that the mistake had been made before).
No1 Rule of useless things in flying - Fuel in the bowser.
The thought of where the litgation trail will now go is intresting as the finger is now seems to be pointing at the Hire Company with suspect fuel data - I'm sure that the Insurance companies involved will be looking at the case wording and policy small print VERY carefully - they do not like giving money out without seeing if they can find a victim to get that money back from.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: N.E. Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll not comment on the prosecution or acquittal. But I would say;
1) my (limited) experience of a/c fuel gauges is that they're much less accurate than car gauges, but it should be remembered they are (in light aircraft) usually only a gauge, NOT an accurate meter.
2) I once flew a 3hr round trip to Norwich and back in a C150 with the (standard) fuel tanks topped up on the outbound leg. 2/3 of the way back, one gauge read zero and the other only 1/3 of a tank. Based upon the club's approved 18 litres per hour fuel burn figures, the 150 should have around 5 hrs endurance. I carefuly did all the sums - twice - but was still concerned by the low gauges on the return leg. Upon landing and checking the tanks, each had over 1/3 fuel left - as I had expected and calculated, despite the fact that the gauges now both read almost zero. I could easily have been tempted to divert or make a precautionary landing under power if I had trusted the gauges instead of my numbers, BUT on the other hand, how can I be sure that there is no invisible fuel leak? I was operating the a/c nowhere near it's maximum range or endurance, and yet the gauges were so far out as to make me think something was wrong. I would add this wasn't the first time I had flown the a/c but it was the first time I had taken that particular C150 across country as opposed to toodling around the area, hence I wasn't familiar with the way the gauges read in that a/c.
I guess the moral is do the numbers, check the numbers and double-check the numbers, and never rely on fuel gauges that could so easily under-read or over-read.
As for the court case, there but for the grace of God go many.....
1) my (limited) experience of a/c fuel gauges is that they're much less accurate than car gauges, but it should be remembered they are (in light aircraft) usually only a gauge, NOT an accurate meter.
2) I once flew a 3hr round trip to Norwich and back in a C150 with the (standard) fuel tanks topped up on the outbound leg. 2/3 of the way back, one gauge read zero and the other only 1/3 of a tank. Based upon the club's approved 18 litres per hour fuel burn figures, the 150 should have around 5 hrs endurance. I carefuly did all the sums - twice - but was still concerned by the low gauges on the return leg. Upon landing and checking the tanks, each had over 1/3 fuel left - as I had expected and calculated, despite the fact that the gauges now both read almost zero. I could easily have been tempted to divert or make a precautionary landing under power if I had trusted the gauges instead of my numbers, BUT on the other hand, how can I be sure that there is no invisible fuel leak? I was operating the a/c nowhere near it's maximum range or endurance, and yet the gauges were so far out as to make me think something was wrong. I would add this wasn't the first time I had flown the a/c but it was the first time I had taken that particular C150 across country as opposed to toodling around the area, hence I wasn't familiar with the way the gauges read in that a/c.
I guess the moral is do the numbers, check the numbers and double-check the numbers, and never rely on fuel gauges that could so easily under-read or over-read.
As for the court case, there but for the grace of God go many.....
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pardon my ignorance, but can anyone explain how fuel is paid for for this kind of flying in the UK? In my PPL days in the US you paid for the aircraft by the hour and the owner reimbursed you for fuel purchased at distant airports. But this guy's behaviour seems more like someone trying to save money by putting in the minimum possible fuel. Otherwise why didn't he do as has been suggested a couple of times earlier, put in the amount he'd calculated he needed, and so expect to return it with the same fuel load as when he collected it (which was by definition acceptable to the operator).
I must say that (based on obviously limited information) it seems like the guy got off because he had the money for a first class brief and the contacts for impressive expert witnesses.
One indirect benefit of the prosecution, though, has been to make every GA pilot who reads about it think a bit more about fuel calculations - not for fear of prosecution, just because they've been reminded what can go wrong.
I must say that (based on obviously limited information) it seems like the guy got off because he had the money for a first class brief and the contacts for impressive expert witnesses.
One indirect benefit of the prosecution, though, has been to make every GA pilot who reads about it think a bit more about fuel calculations - not for fear of prosecution, just because they've been reminded what can go wrong.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Help me out here.
Some of my colleauges in Aviation seem to be all upset because someone was prosecuted for crashing into a house because he ran out of fuel.
If he had been low flying over the houses in that area... I mean low flying like ten feet above them but not hitting them, and there was irrefutable proof that this happened, should he be prosecuted?
Chuck
Some of my colleauges in Aviation seem to be all upset because someone was prosecuted for crashing into a house because he ran out of fuel.
If he had been low flying over the houses in that area... I mean low flying like ten feet above them but not hitting them, and there was irrefutable proof that this happened, should he be prosecuted?
Chuck
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHY, if the R22, and others, can have reliable gauges and also a low fuel warning light, can't other aircraft?
I know of one very experienced R22 instructor who ran out of fuel with fuel shown on the gauge and no waring light... his mistake was not to dip the fuel...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daily Telegraph report
A brain surgeon accused of crashing his hired light aircraft into a family home because he did not fill up with enough fuel has been cleared of endangering the public.
Prosecutors offered no further evidence on the fourth day of Donald Campbell's trial after a former chief pilot of Concorde and British Airways said the plane was "an accident waiting to happen".
Judge Anthony Thorpe directed not guilty verdicts on two charges of endangering the safety of an aircraft and endangering people and property.
Campbell, 54, was cleared after Capt William Lowe said fuel records for the Piper Seneca were "inadequate" before Mr Campbell had hired the aircraft for a return trip to Sheffield from Shoreham Airport in Sussex.
The court heard that the Piper ran out of fuel as it came in to land at Shoreham and crashed into the roof of a £200,000 property near the airfield. Campbell escaped with cuts and bruises while the occupants of the house were out when the crash happened.
The prosecution had claimed that the plane ran out of fuel because Campbell blundered when he converted US gallons into litres and put 23 too few litres into the plane for the journey. But Capt Lowe, a defence witness, said that although the full tank capacity was 128 gallons, only 123 were usable.
Brain surgeon cleared over air crash
A brain surgeon accused of crashing his hired light aircraft into a family home because he did not fill up with enough fuel has been cleared of endangering the public.
Prosecutors offered no further evidence on the fourth day of Donald Campbell's trial after a former chief pilot of Concorde and British Airways said the plane was "an accident waiting to happen".
Judge Anthony Thorpe directed not guilty verdicts on two charges of endangering the safety of an aircraft and endangering people and property.
Campbell, 54, was cleared after Capt William Lowe said fuel records for the Piper Seneca were "inadequate" before Mr Campbell had hired the aircraft for a return trip to Sheffield from Shoreham Airport in Sussex.
The court heard that the Piper ran out of fuel as it came in to land at Shoreham and crashed into the roof of a £200,000 property near the airfield. Campbell escaped with cuts and bruises while the occupants of the house were out when the crash happened.
The prosecution had claimed that the plane ran out of fuel because Campbell blundered when he converted US gallons into litres and put 23 too few litres into the plane for the journey. But Capt Lowe, a defence witness, said that although the full tank capacity was 128 gallons, only 123 were usable.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still don't really get it - why does "the full tank capacity was 128 gallons, only 123 were usable" make the plane was "an accident waiting to happen"? Was this information not in the POH?
Whirly et al., I'm not attempting "Trial by PPRuNe" ... just trying to understand the verdict.
Whirly et al., I'm not attempting "Trial by PPRuNe" ... just trying to understand the verdict.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck,
I can't comment for other posters, only on my own feelings. I also can't comment on this particular case because, as I said in my earlier post, I feel that there is some vital fact which I'm not in possession of. But in general, there is a key difference between running out of fuel, and low-flying - and that is intent.
I can't concieve of a situation where anyone would be low-flying un-intentionally. It's something which pilots make a conscious decision to do, and they deserve to pay the price for it, IMHO. Having done it once and got away with it, what's to stop a pilot from doing it again, other than fear of prosecution?
On the other hand, no one ever intends to run out of fuel - if you do run out of fuel, it has to be an accident, a mistake. People learn from mistakes, and hopefully don't make the same mistake again. Whatever the cause (or, more likely, causes) of the mistake - whether it be an error in converting between units, or failure to check the accuracy of fuel logs, or failure to dip or visually check a tank's level, or over-relliance on a fuel-guage, it was never the pilots intention to run out of fuel, and you can be pretty sure that next time he will take whatever steps would have avoided the mistake the previous time.
Like I said, just my opinion, and not in any way related to any specific case.
FFF
------------------
Some of my colleauges in Aviation seem to be all upset because someone was prosecuted for crashing into a house because he ran out of fuel.
If he had been low flying over the houses in that area... I mean low flying like ten feet above them but not hitting them, and there was irrefutable proof that this happened, should he be prosecuted?
If he had been low flying over the houses in that area... I mean low flying like ten feet above them but not hitting them, and there was irrefutable proof that this happened, should he be prosecuted?
I can't concieve of a situation where anyone would be low-flying un-intentionally. It's something which pilots make a conscious decision to do, and they deserve to pay the price for it, IMHO. Having done it once and got away with it, what's to stop a pilot from doing it again, other than fear of prosecution?
On the other hand, no one ever intends to run out of fuel - if you do run out of fuel, it has to be an accident, a mistake. People learn from mistakes, and hopefully don't make the same mistake again. Whatever the cause (or, more likely, causes) of the mistake - whether it be an error in converting between units, or failure to check the accuracy of fuel logs, or failure to dip or visually check a tank's level, or over-relliance on a fuel-guage, it was never the pilots intention to run out of fuel, and you can be pretty sure that next time he will take whatever steps would have avoided the mistake the previous time.
Like I said, just my opinion, and not in any way related to any specific case.
FFF
------------------
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the 123/128 issue, I beleive that what the witness was referring to was probably the fact that when the aircraft was full prior to departure, some pilots logged 123 i.e. only the useable amount on the tech log while others logged 128 for the same amount of fuel.
The same could probably be said of records of lesser amounts. Seems to me that the defence found that the tech log was not clear as to the requirement for recoding fuel on board refered to total fuel or just the useable portion of the total fuel (difference 5).
Never mind how the company is feeling. How are the pilots who made the entries in the tech log prior to this flight feeling?
Will the CAA make a second check of the tech log entries?
If one gets the fuel amount on arrival or on departure wrong in the tech log is this a case of falsifying an official document under the ANO?
Me thinks that in future, when flying a similar aircraft with dodgy gauges and invisible fuel level, I will put "not determined" in the fuel on arrival column.
Regards,
DFC
The same could probably be said of records of lesser amounts. Seems to me that the defence found that the tech log was not clear as to the requirement for recoding fuel on board refered to total fuel or just the useable portion of the total fuel (difference 5).
Never mind how the company is feeling. How are the pilots who made the entries in the tech log prior to this flight feeling?
Will the CAA make a second check of the tech log entries?
If one gets the fuel amount on arrival or on departure wrong in the tech log is this a case of falsifying an official document under the ANO?
Me thinks that in future, when flying a similar aircraft with dodgy gauges and invisible fuel level, I will put "not determined" in the fuel on arrival column.
Regards,
DFC