|
Oh dear, when logical debate fails a fool will resort to insults, quite an insight to your character
Originally Posted by Thomas coupling
(Post 9980644)
Skydiver:
What is it you don't understand. Think what you just said: . IT WASN'T the root cause of the "crash". It definitely was the root cause of the landing but not the "crash". An aircraft which has no fuel on board isn't guaranteed to crash - FFS???? Stick to skydiving or microlites.............. |
Thomas Coupling:
You didn't actually quote me exactly, the root cause of the event was fuel mismanagement, strange why you edited what I said to suit your argument, again an insight to a very flawed character. PS I don't Skydive any more and have never flown microlights, nice of you to look down on other aviators.
Originally Posted by Skydiver666
(Post 9979947)
Tom, incorrect the crash was actually a symptom of mishandling fuel and not carrying out emergency landing procedures.
The root cause was zero fuel in the supply tanks. Very simple facts. |
Fatal Accident Inquiry date
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...-west-45146795 |
From Glasgow Sheriff Court website
The Inquiry, Gary Arthur & Others, will take place at Hampden Park, Glasgow on 8 April 2019, under the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Act 2016. |
Skydiver666, I've just seen your comments above. 100kg of fuel in the wrong tanks?? It wasn't in the wrong tanks, it was actually NOT THERE. Although it was indicated as being there.
|
It wasn't in the wrong tanks, it was actually NOT THERE. Although it was indicated as being there. From the accident report: There was no evidence to indicate that the fuel contents display system was operating incorrectly. There was no usable fuel in the supply tank cells when the engines flamed out. There was 76 kg (73 kg usable) of fuel in the main tank when the engines flamed out. |
No Dave, I’m talking about his comments on the Barton incident |
Anyway, I’m sure we are all glad that the families can finally get some closure, it’s been a long wait. |
No Dave, I’m talking about his comments on the Barton incident |
the root cause of the event was fuel mismanagement DV |
Wrong, the root cause was a badly designed fuel management system, which permitted the supply tanks to run dry with fuel in the main tank |
Errrm....he did have access to it. |
Originally Posted by Sloppy Link
(Post 10301911)
Errrm....he did have access to it. SND |
If the Fuel Pumps had been turned "ON" and left in the "ON" position....perhaps there would have been no crash.
In the BO=105 and BK-117....which have the same kind of fuel system....that is how we did it and never had a problem. The Supply Tanks hold a very small amount of fuel and if you turn the pumps off.....you have to either land or turn the pumps back on in a most timely fashion. In earlier posts....a Pump Switch dance was described by Pilots currently flying the 135.....and it did make me wonder why that would be considering the down side to forgetting to turn them back on at some point. |
This complicated fuel system requires pilot intervention to work properly and is a result of the CAT A requirements intended to improve flight safety. Something is wrong with the system IMHO...
|
I feel the most important lesson this accident offers, is the difference between capacitance contents indicating systems and thermistor style backstop warnings. I believe it is a matter of public record that the CAD recorded many RED Fuel warnings that were cancelled by the crew. TKI training and a complete understanding of the fuel system is necessary to invest in carrying out the demands of the Emergency Procedures Checklists when these warnings appear.
|
Originally Posted by chopjock
(Post 10302149)
This complicated fuel system requires pilot intervention to work properly and is a result of the CAT A requirements intended to improve flight safety. Something is wrong with the system IMHO...
SND |
SND I agree with you completely. Its a simple system and paradoxically that have may been part of the problem.
|
I don‘t want really to blame the pilot. Operational pressures will sure have their influence and I myself landed more than once with the stopwatch running and the according warnings on the panel .... But I try hard to avoid to repeat the situation, which is sometimes hard, cause it seems the holes line up when fuel starts to go low... Thats when ground forces don‘t respond to calls, you get clumsy groundforces, which mix up right/left and so on, while you sit there in a hover with view on the bad boy or the grandma, tangeled in a bush... Still, I always have a big picture, fuel at take off and endurance at full power and I m prepared to do an outside landing / refueling, before an engine quits on fuelstarvation. Decision making is what pilots get paid for and inquisitions for playing the game save - spoils the safety record at the end :-( |
Flying Bull.
Your'e going to have to dig deep, very deep, not to blame the pilot on this one. ALL evidence allegedly points to pilot error on more than one count (fuel management / double engine failure handling). As mentioned (for the Nth time) the fuel system couldn't be simpler. From memory, there was a tendency for some pilots to switch the boosters off to prevent the captions from illuminating after a while sitting nose up. Departing the hover removed this issue but you had to remember to switch the boosters on again during cruise! As for you landing on with captions, stopwatch running and a 'plan' to land with engine(s) out - that scares me and I can only hope you weren't somebody I mixed with in the profession wehn I flew Airbus 135's. There is NO excuse to keep the cab operational when you enter low fuel territory. It's bye bye ground forces and hello base - ALWAYS. You have 2 or 3 innocent crewmembers on board who rely on you NOT to put them in danger. I will therefore assume I have misread your post. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:30. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.