Pilot in the Dock for running out of fuel (Update: PILOT CLEARED!)MERGED.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Would you want to make an over-weight take-off?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD
An engineer friend tells me low fuel state warning sensors would cost about £500 for a pair of tanks. On many light aircraft it might even cost less because the sensor could be fitted to the filler cap.
You'd get an early warning on one wing when the aircraft banks, but the sensor would be fitted so that both lights stay lit at a predetermined safe minimum quantity.
Even if the cost was double or treble that estimate, it still seems a very small price to pay for the additional safety.
On many if not most light aircraft, the pre-flight visual check of quantity of fuel in the tanks tells you no more than the tanks are empty, there's some fuel (quantity unknown) or the tanks are full. The only real safety value on many aircraft is that the pilot then knows the filler cap is properly fitted.
An engineer friend tells me low fuel state warning sensors would cost about £500 for a pair of tanks. On many light aircraft it might even cost less because the sensor could be fitted to the filler cap.
You'd get an early warning on one wing when the aircraft banks, but the sensor would be fitted so that both lights stay lit at a predetermined safe minimum quantity.
Even if the cost was double or treble that estimate, it still seems a very small price to pay for the additional safety.
On many if not most light aircraft, the pre-flight visual check of quantity of fuel in the tanks tells you no more than the tanks are empty, there's some fuel (quantity unknown) or the tanks are full. The only real safety value on many aircraft is that the pilot then knows the filler cap is properly fitted.
An engineer friend tells me low fuel state warning sensors would cost about £500 for a pair of tanks.
If you want precise and reliable measurement of fuel, you need a fuel totaliser of some sort, to measure the fuel as it is used, like a Shadin Digiflo.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FREDA
AT THE RISK OF SOUNDING STUPID
CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT THE MNEUMONIC "FREDA" IS FOR.
(AS MENTIONED IN ONE OF THE FIRST POSTS TO THIS TOPIC)
I assume it is similar to "CLEARO" or some such
COMPASS
LOG
ENGINES
ALTITUDE
AREA
RADIO
ORIENTATION
JUST HAVEN'T HEARD OF FREDA THAT'S ALL!
CHEERS
CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT THE MNEUMONIC "FREDA" IS FOR.
(AS MENTIONED IN ONE OF THE FIRST POSTS TO THIS TOPIC)
I assume it is similar to "CLEARO" or some such
COMPASS
LOG
ENGINES
ALTITUDE
AREA
RADIO
ORIENTATION
JUST HAVEN'T HEARD OF FREDA THAT'S ALL!
CHEERS
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FREDA is one of the common UK mnemonics
F - Fuel (contents sufficient, change tank if appropriate)
R - Radio (next frequency selected, navaids selected/idented)
E - Engine (Carb heat, Ts & Ps, Mixture, suction/ammeter ok etc.)
D - DI (check, sync with compass)
A - Altimeter (set as required)
F - Fuel (contents sufficient, change tank if appropriate)
R - Radio (next frequency selected, navaids selected/idented)
E - Engine (Carb heat, Ts & Ps, Mixture, suction/ammeter ok etc.)
D - DI (check, sync with compass)
A - Altimeter (set as required)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heli
In a coordinated turn the fuel should stay put relative to the tank, nothing to stop an uncordinated movement to check fuel remaining though, but in some aircraft this could indicate low fuel even with a quarter tank left.
In a coordinated turn the fuel should stay put relative to the tank, nothing to stop an uncordinated movement to check fuel remaining though, but in some aircraft this could indicate low fuel even with a quarter tank left.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bookworm
I have a Shadin and agree that something like that helps a great deal. However I would say that without a physical check of tank content, or an accurate fuel gauge (and in the context of GA the latter should not be relied on even if you have it, particularly as the former is so easy to do) anything one does is pretty worthless.
When my plane was delivered, the Shadin was reading 25% out. After some messing about, over a few months and much calibration against the pump, I got it down to 2%. However they do fail; I am on my 3rd one now within 1 year; the current unit goes to sleep occassionally! They all have a bug which causes them to occassionally lose the FOB setting one puts in; the work-around appears to be to not switch it off too soon after setting the new FOB figure.
I find the Shadin's best feature being the accurate fuel flow RATE indication. Knowing one has say 86USG in the tank to start with, and with the Shadin showing 12GPH flow rate, there is no reason to run out. Especially as one knows what the flow rate is at a given power setting. I would NEVER entirely rely on a Shadin as a totaliser, i.e. to tell me how much is actually left in the tank.
In the context of this thread (a low hour pilot renting a self fly hire plane) I've got a feeling that neither did he know the flow rates at different power settings, nor did anyone else know, nor was there any way (due to lack of instrumentation) for him to find out. In that situation, a gross over-fill is the only way. All the debate about how much he should have put in, etc, seems to be the difference between him returning with a nearly empty tank, and him returning with a completely empty tank. Neither is very clever.
As regards other posts about solid state (capacitive) fuel gauges being expensive, they are no more expensive to make than the WW1 systems fitted to most planes presently operating. I think it is simply a matter of nobody being willing to process an STC for an item because few operators would buy it as a retrofit item. With a largely decrepit fleet, almost nobody will spend money on "non essential" items. The planes I used to fly often didn't even have working lights; the school would not spend the money unless one was doing a night rating in it.
I have a Shadin and agree that something like that helps a great deal. However I would say that without a physical check of tank content, or an accurate fuel gauge (and in the context of GA the latter should not be relied on even if you have it, particularly as the former is so easy to do) anything one does is pretty worthless.
When my plane was delivered, the Shadin was reading 25% out. After some messing about, over a few months and much calibration against the pump, I got it down to 2%. However they do fail; I am on my 3rd one now within 1 year; the current unit goes to sleep occassionally! They all have a bug which causes them to occassionally lose the FOB setting one puts in; the work-around appears to be to not switch it off too soon after setting the new FOB figure.
I find the Shadin's best feature being the accurate fuel flow RATE indication. Knowing one has say 86USG in the tank to start with, and with the Shadin showing 12GPH flow rate, there is no reason to run out. Especially as one knows what the flow rate is at a given power setting. I would NEVER entirely rely on a Shadin as a totaliser, i.e. to tell me how much is actually left in the tank.
In the context of this thread (a low hour pilot renting a self fly hire plane) I've got a feeling that neither did he know the flow rates at different power settings, nor did anyone else know, nor was there any way (due to lack of instrumentation) for him to find out. In that situation, a gross over-fill is the only way. All the debate about how much he should have put in, etc, seems to be the difference between him returning with a nearly empty tank, and him returning with a completely empty tank. Neither is very clever.
As regards other posts about solid state (capacitive) fuel gauges being expensive, they are no more expensive to make than the WW1 systems fitted to most planes presently operating. I think it is simply a matter of nobody being willing to process an STC for an item because few operators would buy it as a retrofit item. With a largely decrepit fleet, almost nobody will spend money on "non essential" items. The planes I used to fly often didn't even have working lights; the school would not spend the money unless one was doing a night rating in it.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bluskis
I'm not an engineer so I'll take your word for it that sensors can't be fitted to operate at lower levels than quarter tanks but I'd prefer that to no warning at all.
It's odd that light aircraft seem to be the only form of engine-driven transport which don't have reasonably accurate fuel gauges and/or low fuel state warnings, yet the consequences of running out of fuel in the air are far more serious than on land or water.
I'm not an engineer so I'll take your word for it that sensors can't be fitted to operate at lower levels than quarter tanks but I'd prefer that to no warning at all.
It's odd that light aircraft seem to be the only form of engine-driven transport which don't have reasonably accurate fuel gauges and/or low fuel state warnings, yet the consequences of running out of fuel in the air are far more serious than on land or water.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry about the delay. I had to ring up another pilot I met in court to check on a few things.
More detail.
Before the jury came in the CAA lawyer told the judge he wanted the jury to be given the AAIB report but the defence objected. Flying Lawyer said the CAA didn't give any advance warning they were going to try to use the report, and anyway an AAIB report can't just be given to a jury. They had two experts each who'd given opinions and the prosecution shouldn't be allowed to slip in extra stuff unless they brought the investigators to court to be questioned. The whole point of the AAIB is to find out what went wrong so everyone can learn from it and improve flight safety, not to blame people. If an investigator or anyone else is worried what they say may be used in a criminal case the system wouldn't work and flight safety would suffer.
The judge said he knew about accident investigations from his time in the Navy and agreed with Flying Lawyer. He said there wasn't to be any mention of the AAIB report.
The case started off well for the CAA and it looked like the pilot had no chance but as the case went on Flying Lawyer was doing a lot of damage to the prosecution witnesses. They came across well at first but when he questioned them he was catching them out.
Some examples from 4 days not in order.
He got the CFI to agree tanks should be filled every 3-4 flights to reset to a known quantity and any more than that was dangerous because of errors accumalating. He then showed they hadn't been filled for 14 flights before the pilot hired the Seneca.
And worse, when it was filled the wrong figure was put in the Tech Log so everyone after had 5 USG less than they thought.
The CFI agreed it's important Tech Logs are accurate and checked for errors but there were a whole list of errors nobody picked up.
The CAA had been going on about how official the Flying Order book was and how serious it was not to comply with it but the FO book said tanks should be filled after the last flight of the day and the CFI told people not to do that and the pilot had been told off for filling his tanks for his trips to Sheffield.
The CAA wanted to show nothing wrong with the engines to caused excessive fuel consumption so they got the engineer who adjusted the fuel flow a few days before the crash. He said he did lots of high power runs and the engines were perfect . Another shot in the foot! There was nothing in the Tech Log to show the fuel he used doing the engine runs.
The CAA expert went on about visual inspection of the tanks but then agreed visual checks are useless on a Seneca unless the tanks are over half to three quarters full you can't see any fuel.
He started off saying pilots should go through the Tech Log to see if there were any fuel calculation errors by other pilots but the CAA hadn't checked how many pages the club left in the working Tech Log file so he didn't even know how far back the pilot could check.
So he changed his tune and said a pilot should check the previous entry to see if there was anything to put him on warning the Tech Log figure was wrong. Flying Lawyer asked him to examine the previous entry (4 long sectors) and say if there was anything to put him on warning. He said there weren't. FL then pointed out there were and he had to admit if he as an expert couldn't spot the errors it was a bit much to expect a PPL to spot them.
He then admitted it was reasonable for a pilot to assume the figure shown in the Tech Log for fuel remaining was accurate within small margins for error and idn't have much option unless he filled the tanks which this pilot had been told not to do. He agreed the errors in this Tech Log were way outside what was acceptable and admitted there was no way any pilot could be expected to allow for such big errors.
This all took a very long time because the CAA expert wouldn't answer a straight question if it helped the defence.
The build-up is important because by the time Captain Lowe the first defence expert gave evidence the CAA's case was already beginning to look shaky.
The prosecutor was getting nowhere with Lowe and tried to make out hee wasn't answering simple questions yes or no, but Lowe said the questions were so wide you couldn't give a yes or no answer. That was true. He was trying to patronise Lowe - big mistake! Lowe is a very clever man, very experienced and everyone could see he was just being precise.
Lowe said the defence experts had been asked to analyse the Tech Logs and he calculated the amount of fuel remaining when the pilot hired was 21 USG. The Tech Log said 30 USG.
The CAA expert hadn't even done this calculation but the prosecutor said Lowe's opinion was wrong and asked him if he'd read the AAIB report. We thought this was odd because of what the judge said about the AAIB report and the lawyer taking notes near us was shaking his head.
We saw Flying Lawyer leaning across whispering something to the prosecutor. He didn't reply and asked Lowe a second time if he'd read the AAIB report. FL got up and asked the judge if he could speak to the prosecutor again. We thought he'd back off but he turned to Lowe and asked him if the AAIB agreed with his opinion about the fuel. The lawyer next to us almost fell off his seat!
Mr Owen stood up and said he needed to speak to the judge about a point of law. The judge said he knew what it was and sent the jury to their room. Mr Owen said what the prosecutor did was deliberate not innocent because he reminded him twice what the judge said about not mentioning the AAIB report. You could see it was a foul and the judge looked annoyed.
What was the rubbish the prosecutor came out with?
He said he hadn't done anything wrong because he never actually said what was in the report.
The judge wasn't having it. He said jurors aren't stupid and they'd realise the AAIB must have come to a different conclusion to Lowe or the prosecutor wouldn't have asked the question. It was unfair tactics. I've already said what happened next in my first post.
In what way were the CAA unfair?
Two main ways.
One - Trying to get the pilot convicted on emotion.
When the prosecutor told the jury at the beginning what the CAA's case was you had to be there to see how unfair it was. He said the pilot didn't have a defence, his lawyers would try to "blind them with science" and went on and on and on about how children could have been killed, trying to make the jury prejudiced against the pilot. All that emotional stuff in the Daily Mail. There was a funny moment when Flying Lawyer in a stage whisper said he hasn't mentioned children for 5 minutes. It was so obvious what the prosecutor was trying to do and the jury all grinned.
The CAA brought the house-owner to say how upset they all were and was even getting her to point out her children's toys in the garden. That's my 5 year old's tricycle, that's my 6 year old's ball etc. When he'd finished, Flying Lawyer got up and said he didn't ask for the lady to be brought to court her statement could have been read to the jury. He said the CAA had obviously brought her for their own ulterior reasons. The judge ticked FL off for making a comment, but then said you can leave that to me! The judge wasn't stupid. Everyone could see what the prosecutor was up to.
Two - Making out anything less than perfect airmanship meant the pilot was guilty of negligence.
It looked like the judge was falling for it until Flying Lawyer got up and said what the jury had to decide wasn't whether the pilot could have made a better job of it but whether his flight planning was "below the standard it was reasonable to expect from a competent and prudent pilot". (I wrote that bit down.) And did his conversion mistake endanger the a/c and people. The judge agreed. We didn't understand the last bit at the time because we thought if the pilot made a mistake and ran out of fuel that must be endangering but when all the stuff about the Tech Log came out you could see the pilot error cost him 6 USG but he was another 9 USG short because of other people's mistakes and the club not filling the tanks regularly.
I said before we thought the jury wouldn't convict him when the Tech Log was so bad and other people were negligent and they weren't prosecuted.
I'm not saying we didn't think he was negligent but it was up to the CAA to prove he was guilty and Mr Owen's job was to get him off and he did.
The CAA ended up with egg all over their faces and they only threw in the towel so they didn't have to pay the expense of the wasted trial.
The pilot was lucky but he'll never fly without full tanks again that's for sure so he's learnt a lesson.
Maybe the prosecutor learnt a few lessons as well.
There's no point in asking me any more questions, that's everything I can remember.
Edited to say the young lawyer taking notes was very helpful and he made it much more interesting for us. I didn't find out his name but if any of the legal eagles on Prune know him please thank him.
More detail.
Before the jury came in the CAA lawyer told the judge he wanted the jury to be given the AAIB report but the defence objected. Flying Lawyer said the CAA didn't give any advance warning they were going to try to use the report, and anyway an AAIB report can't just be given to a jury. They had two experts each who'd given opinions and the prosecution shouldn't be allowed to slip in extra stuff unless they brought the investigators to court to be questioned. The whole point of the AAIB is to find out what went wrong so everyone can learn from it and improve flight safety, not to blame people. If an investigator or anyone else is worried what they say may be used in a criminal case the system wouldn't work and flight safety would suffer.
The judge said he knew about accident investigations from his time in the Navy and agreed with Flying Lawyer. He said there wasn't to be any mention of the AAIB report.
The case started off well for the CAA and it looked like the pilot had no chance but as the case went on Flying Lawyer was doing a lot of damage to the prosecution witnesses. They came across well at first but when he questioned them he was catching them out.
Some examples from 4 days not in order.
He got the CFI to agree tanks should be filled every 3-4 flights to reset to a known quantity and any more than that was dangerous because of errors accumalating. He then showed they hadn't been filled for 14 flights before the pilot hired the Seneca.
And worse, when it was filled the wrong figure was put in the Tech Log so everyone after had 5 USG less than they thought.
The CFI agreed it's important Tech Logs are accurate and checked for errors but there were a whole list of errors nobody picked up.
The CAA had been going on about how official the Flying Order book was and how serious it was not to comply with it but the FO book said tanks should be filled after the last flight of the day and the CFI told people not to do that and the pilot had been told off for filling his tanks for his trips to Sheffield.
The CAA wanted to show nothing wrong with the engines to caused excessive fuel consumption so they got the engineer who adjusted the fuel flow a few days before the crash. He said he did lots of high power runs and the engines were perfect . Another shot in the foot! There was nothing in the Tech Log to show the fuel he used doing the engine runs.
The CAA expert went on about visual inspection of the tanks but then agreed visual checks are useless on a Seneca unless the tanks are over half to three quarters full you can't see any fuel.
He started off saying pilots should go through the Tech Log to see if there were any fuel calculation errors by other pilots but the CAA hadn't checked how many pages the club left in the working Tech Log file so he didn't even know how far back the pilot could check.
So he changed his tune and said a pilot should check the previous entry to see if there was anything to put him on warning the Tech Log figure was wrong. Flying Lawyer asked him to examine the previous entry (4 long sectors) and say if there was anything to put him on warning. He said there weren't. FL then pointed out there were and he had to admit if he as an expert couldn't spot the errors it was a bit much to expect a PPL to spot them.
He then admitted it was reasonable for a pilot to assume the figure shown in the Tech Log for fuel remaining was accurate within small margins for error and idn't have much option unless he filled the tanks which this pilot had been told not to do. He agreed the errors in this Tech Log were way outside what was acceptable and admitted there was no way any pilot could be expected to allow for such big errors.
This all took a very long time because the CAA expert wouldn't answer a straight question if it helped the defence.
The build-up is important because by the time Captain Lowe the first defence expert gave evidence the CAA's case was already beginning to look shaky.
The prosecutor was getting nowhere with Lowe and tried to make out hee wasn't answering simple questions yes or no, but Lowe said the questions were so wide you couldn't give a yes or no answer. That was true. He was trying to patronise Lowe - big mistake! Lowe is a very clever man, very experienced and everyone could see he was just being precise.
Lowe said the defence experts had been asked to analyse the Tech Logs and he calculated the amount of fuel remaining when the pilot hired was 21 USG. The Tech Log said 30 USG.
The CAA expert hadn't even done this calculation but the prosecutor said Lowe's opinion was wrong and asked him if he'd read the AAIB report. We thought this was odd because of what the judge said about the AAIB report and the lawyer taking notes near us was shaking his head.
We saw Flying Lawyer leaning across whispering something to the prosecutor. He didn't reply and asked Lowe a second time if he'd read the AAIB report. FL got up and asked the judge if he could speak to the prosecutor again. We thought he'd back off but he turned to Lowe and asked him if the AAIB agreed with his opinion about the fuel. The lawyer next to us almost fell off his seat!
Mr Owen stood up and said he needed to speak to the judge about a point of law. The judge said he knew what it was and sent the jury to their room. Mr Owen said what the prosecutor did was deliberate not innocent because he reminded him twice what the judge said about not mentioning the AAIB report. You could see it was a foul and the judge looked annoyed.
What was the rubbish the prosecutor came out with?
He said he hadn't done anything wrong because he never actually said what was in the report.
The judge wasn't having it. He said jurors aren't stupid and they'd realise the AAIB must have come to a different conclusion to Lowe or the prosecutor wouldn't have asked the question. It was unfair tactics. I've already said what happened next in my first post.In what way were the CAA unfair?
Two main ways.
One - Trying to get the pilot convicted on emotion.
When the prosecutor told the jury at the beginning what the CAA's case was you had to be there to see how unfair it was. He said the pilot didn't have a defence, his lawyers would try to "blind them with science" and went on and on and on about how children could have been killed, trying to make the jury prejudiced against the pilot. All that emotional stuff in the Daily Mail. There was a funny moment when Flying Lawyer in a stage whisper said he hasn't mentioned children for 5 minutes. It was so obvious what the prosecutor was trying to do and the jury all grinned.
The CAA brought the house-owner to say how upset they all were and was even getting her to point out her children's toys in the garden. That's my 5 year old's tricycle, that's my 6 year old's ball etc. When he'd finished, Flying Lawyer got up and said he didn't ask for the lady to be brought to court her statement could have been read to the jury. He said the CAA had obviously brought her for their own ulterior reasons. The judge ticked FL off for making a comment, but then said you can leave that to me! The judge wasn't stupid. Everyone could see what the prosecutor was up to.
Two - Making out anything less than perfect airmanship meant the pilot was guilty of negligence.
It looked like the judge was falling for it until Flying Lawyer got up and said what the jury had to decide wasn't whether the pilot could have made a better job of it but whether his flight planning was "below the standard it was reasonable to expect from a competent and prudent pilot". (I wrote that bit down.) And did his conversion mistake endanger the a/c and people. The judge agreed. We didn't understand the last bit at the time because we thought if the pilot made a mistake and ran out of fuel that must be endangering but when all the stuff about the Tech Log came out you could see the pilot error cost him 6 USG but he was another 9 USG short because of other people's mistakes and the club not filling the tanks regularly.
I said before we thought the jury wouldn't convict him when the Tech Log was so bad and other people were negligent and they weren't prosecuted.
I'm not saying we didn't think he was negligent but it was up to the CAA to prove he was guilty and Mr Owen's job was to get him off and he did.
The CAA ended up with egg all over their faces and they only threw in the towel so they didn't have to pay the expense of the wasted trial.
The pilot was lucky but he'll never fly without full tanks again that's for sure so he's learnt a lesson.
Maybe the prosecutor learnt a few lessons as well.
There's no point in asking me any more questions, that's everything I can remember.
Edited to say the young lawyer taking notes was very helpful and he made it much more interesting for us. I didn't find out his name but if any of the legal eagles on Prune know him please thank him.
Last edited by Datcon; 9th Sep 2003 at 16:36.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of people have said you can't check high-wing fuel tanks without a ladder. Can't speak for other types, but every C152 I've flown has a step on the strut so you can visually check the fuel, and indeed the top of the wings. Is this not the case on all 152's?
I've rented planes where the fuel is entered on the techlog, and I've always assumed it was purely to satisfy some legal requirement rather than being intended as a proper measurement.
How could it possible be right? Not everyone leans correctly, or indeed at all, and when doing the calculation a fixed amount is normally used. OK, it's going to be alright to see if the tanks are empty rather than full, but there's no way I would rely on it to tell me how much I was starting with.
When I fly, I start from the position that I will fill up - simple as that. Then I consider weight and balance to see whether I can actually do that or not, but I will go with the maximum amount of fuel I can take - right up to the MTOW.
Admittedly even this isn't always possible if you are flying from shorter strips, but as a general principle it makes me feel a lot more comfortable.
As for fuel gauge accuracy, well, everyone knows they don't work, so they should not be taken as any indication of the fuel contents.
I've rented planes where the fuel is entered on the techlog, and I've always assumed it was purely to satisfy some legal requirement rather than being intended as a proper measurement.
How could it possible be right? Not everyone leans correctly, or indeed at all, and when doing the calculation a fixed amount is normally used. OK, it's going to be alright to see if the tanks are empty rather than full, but there's no way I would rely on it to tell me how much I was starting with.
When I fly, I start from the position that I will fill up - simple as that. Then I consider weight and balance to see whether I can actually do that or not, but I will go with the maximum amount of fuel I can take - right up to the MTOW.
Admittedly even this isn't always possible if you are flying from shorter strips, but as a general principle it makes me feel a lot more comfortable.
As for fuel gauge accuracy, well, everyone knows they don't work, so they should not be taken as any indication of the fuel contents.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've now put a lot more detail on the other thread
Ranger One
Are you a tennis fan? I'd say a 'forced error'.
The prosecutor was all very confident until he lost a few sets, then he got rattled and took a chance with a shot he should never have tried. Game, set and match to Flying Lawyer.
I'm being generous with that.
The other way of putting it is he started losing, tried a sneaky foul and got disqualified.
Ranger One
Are you a tennis fan? I'd say a 'forced error'.
The prosecutor was all very confident until he lost a few sets, then he got rattled and took a chance with a shot he should never have tried. Game, set and match to Flying Lawyer.
I'm being generous with that.
The other way of putting it is he started losing, tried a sneaky foul and got disqualified.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Datcon - Thanks for a very detailed and enlightening account of the case. I think that details of many CAA prosecutions (successful or otherwise) would make for very interesting reading. In the absence of any other source for such material your presence at the trail for those few days has shone a light on the way the CAA investigates & pursues "offenders".
To try to introduce undisclosed evidence on 4 occasions (3 after being told not to by the presiding Judge) seems as desperate a tactic as it was dispicable.
As an aside, in another thread, the content of the 3 main UK GA mags is criticised as unoriginal and uninspired. Perhaps they ought to appoint a Court Reporter.
Mr. W
To try to introduce undisclosed evidence on 4 occasions (3 after being told not to by the presiding Judge) seems as desperate a tactic as it was dispicable.
As an aside, in another thread, the content of the 3 main UK GA mags is criticised as unoriginal and uninspired. Perhaps they ought to appoint a Court Reporter.
Mr. W
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks very much Datcon.
The detail is very interesting and does show up the CAA. I do hope they learn from it and don't waste money in this way again.
As you say, I'm sure the pilot has learnt his lesson too.
But what about the school? We all have seen how badly out the fuel log was AND they were encouraging pilots to keep fuel loads down (against the flying order book). I have seen a similar situation in a training environments where they would have a number of low-time PPL hirers who might be pressured into a similar situation. Surely this practice would make a worthy investigation. Any thoughts anyone?
The detail is very interesting and does show up the CAA. I do hope they learn from it and don't waste money in this way again.
As you say, I'm sure the pilot has learnt his lesson too.
But what about the school? We all have seen how badly out the fuel log was AND they were encouraging pilots to keep fuel loads down (against the flying order book). I have seen a similar situation in a training environments where they would have a number of low-time PPL hirers who might be pressured into a similar situation. Surely this practice would make a worthy investigation. Any thoughts anyone?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the detailed response Datcon. It was very informative.
How do other people check the fuel on these? Personally I would never be happy with a fuel level I couln't see. However I can imagine a situation where it was necessarry to have less than half tanks to keep weight within MTOW. Is relying on logs the only way then?
The CAA expert went on about visual inspection of the tanks but then had to agree visual checks are useless on a Seneca unless the tanks were over half to three quarters full you can't see any fuel because the tanks are inboard and the filler caps out near the wing-tips.