Beech Baron, probably out of fuel...
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: UK
Beech Baron, probably out of fuel...
Life's too short for ironing
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
From: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Julian Firth, from the Air Accident Investigation Branch, said based on the evidence, the plane would have had about an hour of fuel when it set off.
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
From: Liverpool
If the facts are as stated at the inquest then the scenario is unbelievable. As has been alluded to earlier full tanks on departure would have resulted in drawback from HMRC being paid on the unused fuel remaining in the tanks as the aircraft left UK Airspace. The tanks could then have been topped up duty free in either Guernsey or at an airfield in France. That is the safest and most economic method of operation.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: Toulouse
IO540
I think that's the original advert from before the accident. It was quite badly damaged and broken up in the accident and, on top of that, spent 6 months underwater. The BEA report stated that it was pretty corroded and didn't give any useful information to the investigation!
Looks like the Baron has been recovered - for sale now.
I think that's the original advert from before the accident. It was quite badly damaged and broken up in the accident and, on top of that, spent 6 months underwater. The BEA report stated that it was pretty corroded and didn't give any useful information to the investigation!
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: UK
IO540 Surely the 'for sale' notice was prior to the accident and not a recovery. The sale says no damage history and the French accident report states L'avion est detruit, the aircraft is destroyed.
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
From: Abroad
The sketch on page 8 (9 on the PDF) of the report kind of makes it clear that this fuselage is not in much of a state to be sold (although you never know).
What I like is the frankness of the BEA reports. The last paragraph before the conclusion reads, translated:
And the conclusion, in characteristic "what do you mean no blame culture?" BEA style reads:
As an aside, do you make a note in the tech log when you fill the tanks full (or to tabs or some other identifiable level)? I tend to do, if nothing else to make life easier to the investigators should I have any mishaps they would be interested on.
What I like is the frankness of the BEA reports. The last paragraph before the conclusion reads, translated:
For those two flights, it is surprising, considering the small margins respect to the minimum reserves required for VFR flights, and the uncertainty on the consumption rate of the engines, that the pilot and his employer didn't determine in a more precise manner the amount of fuel available to perform those two flights over water. These elements tend to show that the monitoring of remaining fuel wasn't being carried out diligently.
The accident was probably caused by running out of fuel, due to inadequate preflight planning.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
Even with the fuel totaliser I feel better when it has been reset to a known quantity.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Apologies, chaps; my comment on it being for sale was tongue in cheek.
I think this accident was the tip of a large iceberg of dodgy fuelling practices, involving people leaving the UK with minimal fuel, so they get the biggest benefit of the cheaper fuel in the Channel Islands. But surely the benefit of the cheaper fuel is much less than they think, due to the possibility of the UK duty drawback. But to get the maximum DD you want to leave the UK with full tanks! This is safer and avoids a fuel stop in the CI (hassle, time, 12/24hrs police notice required, extra fuel burn in the subsequent climb). I bet that if they worked it out, they wouldn't bother in most cases. I never stop in the CI unless I actually want to stay there a bit. The one exception would be someone, with big tanks, who is based close to the CI (say Plymouth or Exeter) and who flies a lot internationally so he cannot make much use of the DD (the DD allows the duty to be reclaimed just once for each fuel load, obviously). He can then use the CI as his local refuel station. But the 12hr police notice is a hassle so you want to be based at an airport where you don't need to do that.
This Covertry - Guernsey - France flight was completely pointless. A Baron can do Coventry - Biarritz on something like half a fuel load. The TB20 has a 1300nm range (roughly, Coventry to Malaga) and I doubt the Baron is much worse.
One has to wonder about the psychology underneath this.
OTOH, what I would call dodgy fuel practices are not uncommon in twins. This is because every plane allows you to trade payload versus range, and on twins this trade is wider than on most singles. To carry 6 (or even 4) people in a Seneca, you need to depart with fuel way below what can be physically inspected, which is OK if you really know the plane, or have a fuel totaliser fitted which you know nobody could have fiddled with (when I used to rent out the TB20, one renter - an instructor - fiddled with the Shadin to get a smaller fuel invoice; he got caught with the EDM700 downloaded logs which he didn't know about).
So we probably have a lot more people cutting it fine in twins than in singles but OTOH a lot fewer twins are on the rental scene so most are flown by pilots who know them well. G-OMAR (google for the AAIB report) is an absolute classic worst-case where a pilot was renting a twin whose (flying school) previous flight records were dodgy (plus some other factors which didn't help).
If you have a fuel totaliser you can do it precisely but I suspect only a few % of "seriously used" piston planes have them. This I find bizzare because it is relatively cheap to install (a tiny fraction of the 5 digits which some owners dump at some avionics shop for a load of fancy gear which gives them precisely nil new capability or safety) and solves the major issue of dodgy fuel gauges which are the norm and not the exception.
I think this accident was the tip of a large iceberg of dodgy fuelling practices, involving people leaving the UK with minimal fuel, so they get the biggest benefit of the cheaper fuel in the Channel Islands. But surely the benefit of the cheaper fuel is much less than they think, due to the possibility of the UK duty drawback. But to get the maximum DD you want to leave the UK with full tanks! This is safer and avoids a fuel stop in the CI (hassle, time, 12/24hrs police notice required, extra fuel burn in the subsequent climb). I bet that if they worked it out, they wouldn't bother in most cases. I never stop in the CI unless I actually want to stay there a bit. The one exception would be someone, with big tanks, who is based close to the CI (say Plymouth or Exeter) and who flies a lot internationally so he cannot make much use of the DD (the DD allows the duty to be reclaimed just once for each fuel load, obviously). He can then use the CI as his local refuel station. But the 12hr police notice is a hassle so you want to be based at an airport where you don't need to do that.
This Covertry - Guernsey - France flight was completely pointless. A Baron can do Coventry - Biarritz on something like half a fuel load. The TB20 has a 1300nm range (roughly, Coventry to Malaga) and I doubt the Baron is much worse.
One has to wonder about the psychology underneath this.
OTOH, what I would call dodgy fuel practices are not uncommon in twins. This is because every plane allows you to trade payload versus range, and on twins this trade is wider than on most singles. To carry 6 (or even 4) people in a Seneca, you need to depart with fuel way below what can be physically inspected, which is OK if you really know the plane, or have a fuel totaliser fitted which you know nobody could have fiddled with (when I used to rent out the TB20, one renter - an instructor - fiddled with the Shadin to get a smaller fuel invoice; he got caught with the EDM700 downloaded logs which he didn't know about).
So we probably have a lot more people cutting it fine in twins than in singles but OTOH a lot fewer twins are on the rental scene so most are flown by pilots who know them well. G-OMAR (google for the AAIB report) is an absolute classic worst-case where a pilot was renting a twin whose (flying school) previous flight records were dodgy (plus some other factors which didn't help).
If you have a fuel totaliser you can do it precisely but I suspect only a few % of "seriously used" piston planes have them. This I find bizzare because it is relatively cheap to install (a tiny fraction of the 5 digits which some owners dump at some avionics shop for a load of fancy gear which gives them precisely nil new capability or safety) and solves the major issue of dodgy fuel gauges which are the norm and not the exception.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
From: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
I remember speaking to a Baron a few years back whilst en-route Islay to Blackpool. The aircraft lost one engine ( without telling me!!) and whilst trying to do a restart the other one stopped whilst over the Lakes......eventually one was restarted very low over lake Windermere in not very nice weather!!! and the aircraft crawled back to Carlisle......I seem to remember at the time this was a fuel miss management problem, there was still fuel onboard but the transfer valves had been operated incorrectly !!!!
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
The danger is in some twins is that if you have full tanks and crossfeed (accidentally) only one engine, the fuel return is pumped into the opposite (full) tank and hence overboard. Combined with two thirsty engines feeding off one tank at say 30+ gals per hour (total) and you can run it dry in double quick time and end up with double engine failure but a full fuel tank. If you spot it of course you can crossfeed back and save the day but you have pumped half your fuel o/b and now your range is significantly impacted.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
From: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
By so doing he recovered the situation. Then he could talk to ATC.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 2
From: GLASGOW
Full tanks
I just do not get the phsycology. Whilst I appreciate a well calculated weight/performance/fuel load pre flight, for a loda that will require it, I frequently watch as pilots add 30 litres a side, because I am travelling 'x' miles
Climb in solo or 2 up in a four seat and off they go.
I always fly on full tanks. Better in the tank than back at the airfield.
Climb in solo or 2 up in a four seat and off they go.I always fly on full tanks. Better in the tank than back at the airfield.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
People have all kinds of motivations for not filling right up.
- cannot carry more than e.g. 2 people
- the owner requires the plane to be returned nearly empty (esp. true for AOC/charter schools which may get a "heavy load" turning up the next day)
- there is friction within the group so nobody wants to put too much fuel in (ever been to university, shared a house with some others, and found the larder always empty
?)
- a lot of groups operate questionable-incentive policies for duty drawback reclaim, allowing e.g. the one member going abroad to pocket the whole drawback, so you get e.g. a lot of trips from Lydd to LTQ usually by one member who is then being subsidised by the others; if you "play this right" you can wangle it (with a big enough tank) so the duty drawback alone funds a trip to LTQ from anywhere from Bournemouth to Lydd (I had an instructor-renter do that; instructors know all the tricks)
- cost sharing schemes where the passenger doesn't want to pay for more fuel than necessary
- a lack of understanding of just how small the cruise speed hit is between full and half full. Aircraft performance is poorly understood on the GA scene, especially to this level of detail. The effect on IAS/TAS according to weight is not documented in most GA flight manuals.
etc...
But unless I am missing something, this ditching was caused by a misunderstanding of the finances, because they could have departed from the UK, with a full tank, flown direct anywhere in France, and reclaimed the whole tank as duty drawback - of the order of £100. That beats the cost of a landing + refuel in the CI anytime.
- cannot carry more than e.g. 2 people
- the owner requires the plane to be returned nearly empty (esp. true for AOC/charter schools which may get a "heavy load" turning up the next day)
- there is friction within the group so nobody wants to put too much fuel in (ever been to university, shared a house with some others, and found the larder always empty
?)- a lot of groups operate questionable-incentive policies for duty drawback reclaim, allowing e.g. the one member going abroad to pocket the whole drawback, so you get e.g. a lot of trips from Lydd to LTQ usually by one member who is then being subsidised by the others; if you "play this right" you can wangle it (with a big enough tank) so the duty drawback alone funds a trip to LTQ from anywhere from Bournemouth to Lydd
(I had an instructor-renter do that; instructors know all the tricks)- cost sharing schemes where the passenger doesn't want to pay for more fuel than necessary
- a lack of understanding of just how small the cruise speed hit is between full and half full. Aircraft performance is poorly understood on the GA scene, especially to this level of detail. The effect on IAS/TAS according to weight is not documented in most GA flight manuals.
etc...
But unless I am missing something, this ditching was caused by a misunderstanding of the finances, because they could have departed from the UK, with a full tank, flown direct anywhere in France, and reclaimed the whole tank as duty drawback - of the order of £100. That beats the cost of a landing + refuel in the CI anytime.
Last edited by IO540; 19th November 2010 at 10:27.
