Beech Baron, probably out of fuel...
 

I know fuel is pricey in the UK, but is it really worth the lives of 2 people to save a few pounds? It must sicken all the air accident investigation folks - UK, US, wherever, to be constantly scraping up wreckages and bodies that would have been fine but for a couple of gallons of fuel :ugh:

French accident report here

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.

Looks like the Baron has been recovered - for sale now.

Here is some commentary from around the time.

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!

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.

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.

I had never thought there was another way to do it! This concept of relying (particularly in a rental aircraft) on a series of additions and subtractions on a piece of paper (where the fuel burn might not be as per book, or the uplift might not have been 'full value') seems very subject to error. I definitely want to see a very recent known quantity the sums start from.

Even with the fuel totaliser I feel better when it has been reset to a known quantity.

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 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 !!!!

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.

So the bloke over the lakes followed the first rule of aviation - FLY THE AEROPLANE. By so doing he recovered the situation. Then he could talk to ATC.

And if he had not recovered the situation no one would have known where he had dissapeared to!!!! The bottom of Windermere in this case!!!

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:sad: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.

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.

Out of interest, is there a Fuel System diagram of the Baron available? I've googled to no avail. Does she have just two main wing tanks & no auxiliary or saddle tanks?
TIA

Mike