Pilot in the Dock for running out of fuel
 

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...sh_bbc_203.jpg


Any Comments?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...es/3199429.stm

Well, that's a report of the prosecution case, it looks like the other side of the story hasn't been put yet. So we'll have to wait and see.

Miscalculating fuel load isn't that difficult to do; it has happened to airliners. That's one reason we have things like FREDA checks; you spot the fuel is less than it should be and you land, there's a runway every few minutes from Sheffield to Shoreham, hardly a problem, he must have flown over dozens.

But if it's true that he didn't load enough fuel and he failed to notice this on each and every one of his FREDA checks, which he should have done once every ten minutes whilst burning 23 gallons then yes, "negligent" would on the face of it sound like a reasonable description.

But does a Seneca have reliable fuel gauges? Most of the aircraft I've flown don't.

"Unforgiveable" mistake? So now we're supposed to be perfect are we, and never make any mistakes. Stupid? Yes. Careless? Yes. But unforegiveable and should be prosecuted? Not IMHO. Can anyone here say they've never made a mistake? Luckily most don't have such disastrous consequences.

Whirley - spot on, IMHO. Every aircraft I've flown has fuel guages that are not to be relied upon, except as very gross indicators, which is no use at all when things are tight.

I use the 'time since last refill' method, which is OK if you're flying a type that always starts each flight with full tanks and you know the consumption, or if you have RELIABLE fuel uplift/usage data prior to your flight availabale before take off - by no means always the case. And if you're doing some aeros en route, you'd better factor in the resultant extra fuel consumption.

If airliner captains, with all the support systems they have, can and have done it, It seems harsh to haul up a PPL into court for a silly, avoidable, unprofessional, but hardly unforgivable mistake.

I am thinking of a flight not too long ago. Fuel endurance had been calculated and deemed well safe, but fuel guages worryingly low as I flew very gently towards final destination, rehersing what I might say to the CAA should I decide to put it in a field rather than risk engine failure throgh zero fuel.

I landed at destination and filled up. Fuel remaining in the tanks was more than the guages were indicating - it was pretty much in line with my calcs.

It's not an exact science, especially if you fly an aeroplane with limited fuel capacity and an ability to aerobat!

There but for the grace.....etc...

SSD

The CAA have a very dim view on accidents due to fuel starvation, as they see it as entirely avoidable and will virtually always prosecute no doubt partially as it is usually not particularly difficult to prove the case.

Once this case has come to an end it may be useful to discuss fuel calcs on here but think that it would be unhelpful at the moment to go into detail.

FD

...nor is calculating fuel load correctly...

I am not supposed to have an opinion but I expect I will be forgiven for having this one.

I am expected to be wiser now that I am older. It actually makes no difference in this particular situation.

All fuel calculations are avoidable. Mistakes do happen but this one is NOT a mistake, it is a fundamental error in piloting skills.

My opinion.

PPP

Should we not hold back until we have seen what the defence is?

FD

Apparently he had chartered the aircraft, so could not possibly know the fuel gage accuracies unless it was a regular charter.

I think the prosecution should fail if it relies on negligence, this was an error, if he can prove he actually went through the process of a fuel calculation.

However, it means he was calculating to land with 3 1/2 gallons per side, which hardly seems to be prudent.

The only sure calculation I have found is to fill to the brim, or to the step marker, and this may not be possible if weight and balance or field performance limit fuel load.

I disagree with FlyinDutch, peoples' ideas of fuel management would be a useful pprune subject.

BS,

I think we actually agree.

However since this case is still in court it seemed prudent not to add comments which could influence people involved in the current case.

FD

The prosecution is the result of CAA policy which is to always take action in the event of fuel shortages.

I'm not sure why the emphasis on fuel shortage - I would have thought they were much worst things a pilot could do that would warrant prosecution.

I'm pretty lucky flying the same aircraft, which has a surfeit of fuel capacity AND payload, something you certainly could not accuse a Seneca of having.

You might say that planning to arive at a destination with minimum fuel is a not unreasonable strategy - especially in an aircraft where payload and fuel have to be traded. Messing up the conversion is not smart but again not hard to do.

But the real essence of this case is that it is easy to 'prove' and so the cost recovery agency can be seen to be doing something to enforce flight safety, that has little risk of going wrong - certainly compared with a large number of their other prosecutions which have failed in a spectacular way........

And the lesson is? Don't run out of fuel, if you do, you will be prosecuted.

Pilot On Trial
 

Let me start by stating for the record that I am a very low time, recently qualified PPL holder and PPRuNe user. I do however notice a trend for knocking the NIMBY's and Joe Public in general (I quite often agree with the sentiments expressed), where GA matters are under discussion. We have all seen how a pilot making a forced landing when in fact the pilot probably landed well away from housing. However, in this case the guy actually landed on a house! Now whilst I hope he has a solid defence and is able to get back in the air, would it not be better (if he is guilty), to throw the book at him and show the public that the rules and regulations we abide by are there to protect them from bad piloting as much as to keep us safe.

If the GA community are seen to be behind this prosecution it shows a positive approach and hopefully takes some of the media hypebole away before we all get accused of being potential Kamikaze pilots!

As previously expressed; the trial is not over, he is innocent until proven guilty.

I'm off to check my fuel gauge now!

MF,

Very valid point.

And as an aside, abundant amount of time in the air or on this board does not equate to a better or more valid opinion.

Some would argue the reverse is true!

So feel free to give yours!

FD

Ran out of fuel myself once some time ago due to a duff fuel gauge. Luckily I was able to pull over onto the hard shoulder though. Apart from the inconvenience and expense of getting back on the road no harm done.

However, am I the only paranoid pilot out there who ritually checks fuel visually etc etc ? (Knowing full well the draconian response of the CAA if I am lucky enough to survive the error - 3000 Quid is oft reported !)

I am reminded of the Fireman's statement after a light aircraft ran out of fuel and landed in a residential area (of Los Angeles ?), "Lucky there was no fuel on board or the situation could have been much worse !" :rolleyes:

I wonder if you guys who think this was just a "mistake" would be so forgiving if it was your house he crashed on.

Fuel is an integral part of a powered flying machine. Most aircraft will fly with quite large portions of the airframe missing (ie parts of wings, fin or tailplane), but no one in there right mind would take off in one in that state. So why accept a shortage of fuel?

As for the argument of inaccurate fuel gauges:

If weight and balance or performance is not critical, fill it up. If it is, drain the tanks and fill it accutately (time consuming, but there is never a time constraint in GA, not where risking your life is concerned).

A flight from Sheffield to Shoreham would need at least 25USG in still air in a Seneca.

As BS intimated, if you start off with 30 IMPG there would only be enough fuel for another 24 mins on board.

Just curious to see what the defence's arguments are.

FD

Trial by Pprune
 

Mistakes DO happen, and its fine in hindsight saying what you would and wouldn't do, but its too late. Maybe it was negligent, but no doubt it was not done on purpose and had the pilot in question realised the problem I'm sure he wouldn't have taken off.....Just like NASA or whoever it was who mixed up metric and imperial measurements when they sent a probe to Mars. There is a bit of a difference between fps and m/s, and it caused the probe to burn up......

I was going to write my "fuel story" here, but decided against it for fear of incriminating myself :D.....The moral is DONT TRUST THE GUAGES!!! and be extra cautious when calculating endurance in an aircraft you don't know !

Cheers
EA:D

fuel guages
 

only trust the damn things if they say the tank's empty!

Fuel starvation apart, there is one thing I can't get my mind round on this subject.

I'm not entirely sure at what altitude/height this Seneca was at when the tanks ran dry but surely there must have been somewhere better to aim for than a house?

A wide road? A park? A beach? Even the sea??

Just can't understand, although I fully appreciate that none of us were there so any explanations can only come from the poor chap who actually had to deal with the problem.

And if I WAS qualified to say whether he was negligent.........I would wait until the facts are revealed before giving my opinion.

In these litigious times, I wonder, hypothetically, if one relied on say a Seneca fuel gauge, which was inaccurate, whether there is the possibility of a case against either the a/c manufacturer for fitting inaccurate dials, or the dial maker for making inaccurate dials, or for the a/c owner for allowing inaccurate dials to be fitted. Just a thought, especially in this high-tech age when fuel can be measured to the nanodrop

A couple of thoughts:-

- From the statement about fuel, this chap believed that he was arriving with at-most 6 gallons of fuel at Shoreham. Is that enough for a go-around, diversion to Goodwood, and a brief hold in a Seneca. Sounds very tight to me.

- Fuel gauges are not required by law to be accurate except in one case - they must accurately read empty when the tank is, well, empty (as N14HK says). So the chap should have arrived knowing that his tanks were empty. In those circumstance why was he flying a powered approach (by definition, he wouldn't have hit the house otherwise) instead of a high glide approach where an engine stoppage should end on the runway.

- So far as I know he didn't declare a fuel emergency, which would have been an obvious course of action.


I don't like CAA prosecuting people in most cases, it rarely helps anybody - but in this case I think that they have a better case than usual, albeit that I don't think that the fuel-calc is the main offence.

G

Chances of successful action on the basis of the accuracy of the fuel gauges is zero.

'Everyone knows' that aircraft fuel gauges are hopelessly inaccurate. They have done for 40 years. Given that public and general knowledge, how on earth are you going to persuade a court of law that you, in trusting such a device and ignoring the POH and various other cross checks, were not negligent?

Now if the aircraft had a fuel system that was advertised or promoted on the basis of absolute accuracy you might have a case - but you would have to prove that is was n't accurate - which given that it would be certified to allow it to be fitted to the aircraft is going to be a pretty uphill battle. Much more likely you didn't do something i.e. lean, monitor, put enough in, whatever, it would again come back to you proving you were not negligent.

Which in part leads back to why the CAA are generally on a 'good wicket' when they prosecute in these cases.

I wonder who is defending?

Anyone we know?

I hope the defence mention [at least for the hell of it] an incident a few years back when a CAA staff pilot ran out of fuel in the Netherlands. He took early retirement soon afterwards

Lordy there are some strange justifications on this thread. I won't mention the original subject because as mentioned it's sub-judice. However, miscalculating fuel, then crashing into someone's house is always gross negligence. It's no more an 'honest mistake' than driving your car while 3 sheets to the wind. This sort of stupidity kills people every year and (if true) the bloke's lucky he's not facing a manslaughter charge. The apparent desire amongst some ppruners to always take the pilots side is not, in this case, helpful to GA.

PS Whirlybird you're an instructor - is this what you teach your students?

Those who say that the CAA always prosecute in cases of fuel starvation are a little out of date. Earlier this year I attended a CAA safety evening at Fairoaks in which we were given a talk by the CAA's current head of enforcement. He mentioned that his predecessor had a particular penchant for prosecuting fuel starvation cases, but made it clear that he personally did not agree with that emphasis. If you run out of fuel and do a successful forced landing with no damage and no injuries, it's unlikely that you'll be prosecuted by the current administration. They're more interested in pursuing illegal public transport nowadays, which is fair enough IMHO.

Also, let's not be too harsh on the pilot for arriving with a small amount of fuel on board. I seem to remember from the original AAIB report on this incident that the aircraft operators put some degree of pressure on pilots not to return the aircraft with too much fuel on board, so that the aircraft could if necessary take a full passenger load on its next flight. That doesn't excuse the error completely of course, but it is perhaps a mitigating factor.

For the sake of accuracy, Genghis, there is no such thing in the UK as a fuel emergency. It's either a Mayday or Pan if you want help from ATC.

Granted, but if I declare a Mayday because I'm low on fuel, it may reasonably be regarded as a "fuel emergency" even if that's not the approved terminology. You do not I believe declare a mayday, you declare an emergency using the word "mayday".



Incidentally reading the report, there are a few things that don't seem to quite make sense and give me a little more sympathy for the pilot.

(1) He reported one gauge reading ¼ and the other reading ½ - even for a light aircraft fuel gauge that is a bit more than mild inaccuracy - that is unserviceable.

(2) What I'd heard on the rumour mill was clearly incorrect, the report does show that he reported an emergency - albeit an engine one, but subsequent pilot and ATC actions would be similar in each case and if he was indicating ¼ tank+ and the engine was faltering, entirely understandable.

(3) The pilot, who didn't have all that many hours and very few on type, had been taught to use a rule-of-thumb in his fuel planning that assumed LOWER fuel burn than was given in the POH for available cruise speeds. Whatever instructor taught that might usefully, it could be argued, be shot. Slowly.

(4) Aparently the operator didn't provide a fuel dipstick, which I'd have thought was standard for a low wing light aircraft in this class.

Ultimately however, the chap wasn't familiar with the POH data on cruise and fuel consumption - or at-least hadn't used it in his flight planning. Any pilot failing to use data available to them in that way deserves criticism - but reading the report in full, it doesn't read like a prosecution case to me.

It strikes me that the pilots biggest failing however, as reported in the AAIB report was failing to stay within glide range of the runway when he'd had what appeared initially to be an engine fault whilst joining overhead.

G

So then, just out of interest, how many pilots have never, ever, had a buttock-clenching low fuel moment? Probably fewer than have chipped in to this thread so far.

That doesn’t necessarily excuse it, but without knowing the full facts of the case, I’d be a bit reluctant to cast the first stone.

as a regular flyer of PA34 aircraft , i cannot understand why the pilot concerned , once he calculated his fuel requirements, did not put in an extra , say , 1 hour's worth of fuel- neither weight nor runway length seem to have been a problem and although the operator preferred to have the aircraft returned with less than full tanks i should imagine that to return the aircraft with, say, 2 hours fuel remaining would have been acceptable to the operator.

The aircraft doesnt look in all that bad condition considering it just was "partially demolishing" a house.

_

Just reading the AAIB report and he seems to have been thorough with a lot of things and done all he could in the time (apart from the major error of the mis-calculation). He must have had a very high work load, as with any emergency i suppose.

But i think its worth reading to a lot of people commenting on his 'negligence' as it may be.


It could have been the unusable fuel but maybe not...

The pilot and fireman would have had a better view toward this i'd presume and are in a more qualified position to judge.

I havent read it all yet because my breaks about to finish at work but its interesting.


Spike

Genghis said:-

Dipsticks are only useful if the base of the tank is flat, so 1inch on the dipstick = X gallons, 2 inch = 2X gallons etc etc.

If the wing has dihedral and if the aircraft sits nose-high on the ground, then all the fuel will drain into the lowest corner, as is the case in my aircraft.

If the gauges in my aircraft read 1/4 full, we know that the tanks are actually 1/2 full (by checking the amount of fuel needed to fill them), but the sloping floor of the tank is bone dry. and a dipstick will not be the slightest bit damp.

In this case, it is very difficult to design an accurate fuel sender based on a float mechanism, as if the sender is near the lower end of the tank, the float will register full even when the tank is half full, but if the sender unit is at the top of the tank, the float will drop to the bottom of its travel when the tank is half empty.

Possibly the best method would be to isolate the tank from the airframe on rubber mounts and calculate the weight of fuel by the deflection of the mounts. Until you start to move, when vibration will cause the mounts to move and affect the reading of the gauges.

I beg to differ.

You drain the tank, then fill it a fixed amount at the time - each time you dip it and mark the known fuel level on the diptsick. You get a non-linear scale, but so long as you do it at enough intervals there's no problem at-all, there's no rule that any gauge needs to be linear.

Same applies to sight-tube gauges on tanks such as the PA18.


The same can be applied to any kind of electronic gauge, the Bulldog for example always is calibrated on the aircraft - that's why the twin-tank gauges on that type never have parallel scales.

It's a slightly tedious job, but only needs doing once and is equally valid for float gauges, sight tubes and dipsticks. (Except that the first two you might want on some types, especially taildraggers to do twice - one in the ground attitude and once in the flight attitude, and show two scales).

The problem gauges, which aren't used much on smaller aeroplanes, are capacitance based gauges, because they tend to read differently with different brands of fuel, as fuel make-up is changed with time of year, and with water content in the fuel, which can be storage and conditions dependent. But, even these should read correctly when the tank is empty.

G

Futher errors like this which endanger lives could be resolved if we used simple universal measuring rules - I dont see why new aircraft coming off the production line keep working in individual US Gallons or liters etc. This should have been figured out ages ago

Thanks for posting the AAIB report.

Interesting reading.

Do we know whether the charge is related to the fuel starvation?

FD

Genghis

On this occasion, you are mistaken. The Seneca, along with many other light twins such as the Baron have filler caps towards the tips of the wings, and wedge-shaped tanks that rapidly drain to the point where there is no fuel visible under the filler point.

After 1 hour's flight, a Baron is "empty" if you go by a visual inspection through the filler.

This makes dipping the tanks completely without value.

Charlie.

Same goes for PA32s and the TB range.

FD

There are small tank gauges for the PA32 (Dunno about the PA34) which are not dissimilar to the ones found on Chippies which tell you how much fuel there is in the inboard part of the wingtank. OK give an indication.

Not having flown the type, I shall stand corrected.

Seems a bloody awful piece of design however.

G

The last posts about filler cap positions and dipsticks on low stable wings is absolutely right. The same goes for my Cessna 303. At airfields with low security, there have been fuel theft issues through the drains, and even my Shadin FF totalisers will not help in that case.

I was told that there was a mod for Beech turboprops that allowed sight guages in the underside of the wings where you could visually check fuel at different points of the wing.

Does anyone know if this is possible for piston engine A/C ?

Always wondered, would the presence of auxilary fuel tanks be any help in such a situation. A small additional tank containing perhaps 15 minutes fuel could be kept for use in a fuel shortage. The emergency fuel could be released into the main tank(s) if required and the pilot would then have a short amount of time to put it on the ground safely.

I seem to remember reading of a car (or possibly motorcycle) that had this facility a few years ago. Since lack of fuel in an aircraft is much more critical than it is on the road, I'm sure this is a possibility. Anyone know if this has ever been done?

Down sides: More complexity - an extra tank to check and fill before flight - more fuel lines etc. Also people (idiots) might start including the emergency fuel in calculations if the numbers were really tight.
Up side: Used with comon sense, makes it virtually impossible to "crash into a house" due lack of fuel I'd say.

Tell me to shut up if this is a stupid idea. Was just a thought.