BBC News report

BBC NEWS | Pilot cleared of crash charges

A brain surgeon who crashed his plane into a house has been cleared of endangering the aircraft and the public. Despite the thoroughly irresponsible comments posted on this forum whilst the trial was still in progress. :rolleyes:

They are all very valid points you raise but are they the root cause why people run out of fuel?

Certainly in this case it seemed to stem from mistakes made in the flight preparation phase.

Surprised nobody has commented yet on the fact that despite the fact that the engine failure happened at 2000ft in the overhead the plane crashed off the airfield.

FD

Whirly,

Excellent question - perhaps for a new thread, so as to separate it clearly from the case discussed (responsibly or otherwise) here?

Whirlybird
Good questions - but I suspect you may be beating the wind in more senses than one trying to discuss the real issues on this thread. Most people seem to be more concerned with how pilots of light aircraft should work around the well-known and potentially dangerous problem rather than looking at how the well-known problem and danger could, and IMHO should, be removed. eg Accurate gauges or, at the very least, low fuel warning lights.

I wonder if those who say it's so important to make a visual check of the tanks have actually paused to consider what looking in the tanks actually tells you about the quantity of fuel on board unless the tanks are full.

You raised another interesting topic earlier in the thread: Which is more productive in terms of flight safety: Carrying out an investigation when the risk of prosecution is hanging over people's heads or an investigation in which all those involved, not just the pilot, can speak freely without being at risk of being prosecuted?
When there's the risk of a prosecution, people watch their own backs and/or say as little as possible. Human nature - but not very useful for learning from mistakes and improving flight safety.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mr Campbell has been acquitted without a stain on his character."
Civil Aviation Authority spokesman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But possibly one or two on his underwear?

Flying 'Dutch' asks: FL can you enlighten us?

I very rarely comment upon cases in which I've been professionally involved, and never without the consent of both my instructing solicitor and the pilot.
In this instance, I didn't ask for permission.

Tudor Owen

I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I must admit to being rather surprised at this outcome - it seems to imply that a pilot is doing nothing illegal when an aeroplane under his command crashes because he failed to perform what most pilots would consider a very basic check as to the suitability of the aeroplane for flight.

I was always under the impression that I was responsible for the aeroplane while captain of it, so can somebody who understands this verdict explain it...? If I did a similar thing, would the result in the same verdict? And if so, if I made a different mistake while flight planning - say, causing me to enter a NOTAMed TRA - is that better or worse than crashing due to lack of fuel?

(edited slightly for language)

Pilot in Dock for Running out of Fuel..
 

Bless all of those who excuse such shockingly bad airmanship! Let's imagine for a moment that the defendant's fuel calcs were accurate and he started his approach into Shoreham with three and a half gallons per side.... then the airport/runway is closed for whatever reason. Er..how far is he going to divert to... on his six minutes (at best) fuel? By the way... this was NOT fuel starvation it was fuel exhaustion. (Starvation = fuel in tank(s) but not reaching cylinders. Let's face it, the Seneca is a fairly simple but sporty performer.... and six minutes contingency fuel at the end of a c250 mile flight is irresponsible and reflects poor airmanship. (Mind you.... he'll remember that deafening silence and dead-stick landing much longer than anything the beak says!) bm

Do we not.........

1. Dip tanks where appropriate?

2. Add a nominal 10% just in case?

3. Carry sufficent fuel for a diversion?

Just my two bobs worth

Jacque

Its like the old days on here, you know when they used to burn whitches at the stake. The CAA in all their wisdom obviously thought there was a good enough reason to not prosecute so thats good enough for me.

I suggest some of the perfect pilots out there take a hard look at their own airmanship, I have seen many cowboys in the UK. [At least in the states they don't try and pretend they're perfect......:D]

EA

I think it's disgusting. The bloke was obviously frugal with his fuel and deliberately crashed into that house to avoid the landing fees. I bet he was sweating when it appeared that he might actually be able to make the runway, it took some skill to fake the panic he reported on loosing power to one engine.

C'mon guys, this fella obviously didn't depart with the intent of running out of fuel, so how did it happen?

I ask again, but more specifically now, how can an avaiation business be run on the principal of what *should* be left in the tanks after 2 weeks and 14 flights? I'm sure this guy didn't have enough hours to foster his own bad habits, he was taught this (as were the 14 captains before him.)

For the sake of hearing it again - this fella did not intend to crash his plane and further more, he believed that he had taken all precautions to avoid such an outcome.and how many more lost aircraft and damaged roofs (or worse) will it take to get answers to these questions?

Hmmm...

"Sorry officer - the reason I crashed my car into this house on this wet rainy night is due soley to the fact that I measured the tread on my tyres with the wrong guage. I thought I had one inch of tread, when in fact I had one millimetre..... I drive this old car with spats on the wheels, so it's really difficult to see if there's any tread or not. The guy I just bought it from told me the tyres were nearly new...."

So....'kin fill it up with your required fuel or until it's full - whichever comes first.

I don't subscribe to this 'we all make mistakes philosophy' when it comes to fuel. If you do make this mistake then you pay the consequences (if you survive).

This guys walks with 'no stain on his character' (CAA quote), no licence endorsement.... sheesh.

The one redeeming factor in this case is that this is one pilot who is unlikely to make the same mistake again. Of course he didn't mean to run out of fuel, but he didn't do enough to ensure a safe flight.

A PPL is a privilege to fly over anyone's house, park, kids, school, whatever. Once you prove you can't do that properly, action needs to be taken. What's happened to this guy ?

"Mr Campbell has been acquitted without a stain on his character."
Civil Aviation Authority spokesman.

"But possibly one or two on his underwear?"

One thing for sure, he will have a hard job renting another aeroplane for a while, stain or no stain.

BJ

"There but for the grace of..........."

P.S. Will he get the nickname....

"Fulltanks Campbell" ?

Begs the question was this case won on the basis of justice and truth, or whether one legal team were better at their job than the other?

EA - the CAA did prosecute - but they lost.

Once ran out of fuel (fuel starvation) just as I lifted of this mown grass strip. Put it down again safely. Never used the Flymo again

Maybe the chaps at the CAA suddenly found out how far down the NHS waiting lists they were going to be for the next 10 years before the chap retires.

:=

MJ

The link to the AAIB report is http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_502314.hcsp

It would be of interest to hear a verbatim report of the court decision and the reasoning behind it.

Are they available on line?

FD

Excellent news for the gentleman concerned, the cause of flight safety is never served by prosecuting those who make errors of judgement however gross.Pilots rarely set out to endanger themselves or their aircraft intentionally.This pilot has already learnt his lesson painfully from the incident.I do do hope the CAA have picked up the costs of this misguided case.Shame on all of you all to happy to cast blame ,you will of course never have ever made an error of judgement??.Flight safety through knowledge and training must be the goal.

The BBC report says
That means the judge stopped the case.
There must have been a good reason. Something must have happened nobody's managed to find out yet.
The bush telegraph obviously doesn't work very well on this forum.

The Seneca was hired from Sky Leisure at Shoreham.
Surely someone out of all the PPLs on this forum can find out.

Anyone fly at Shoreham?