I agree, but it gets hotly debated 
" Even if just sharing it with a few others, there isn’t always an agreement on the maintenance policies."
That is a gross understatement. Change to “is hardly ever”.
Certainly he would have made it to the runway (with nearly empty tanks) had he not made the fuel calc error, but the real issue was that 14 preceeding flights (IIRC) were done without the fuel level ever reaching the visual inspection level – due to pressure to always be able to carry whichever customer(s) turned up to fly it the following day.
I knew that school; I did the first 20hrs of my PPL there
Talking this more generally, on the topic, it is more difficult to exercise as much responsibility as one might like, if one is renting the plane. Even if just sharing it with a few others, there isn’t always an agreement on the maintenance policies.
Peter wrote:
The classic case is G-OMAR (google for the AAIB report) where some other “classic” factors came into play e.g. pressure from instructors to not put in too much fuel. This is where the school/club environment doesn’t always serve people well.
The main reason for this accident was the pilot’s total confusion about his fuel calculations and failure to make a correct fuel plan. Sure, if he had simply filled the tanks to the brim the flight would have been fine but he would still have been confused. And sometimes you really can’t fill the tanks full for w&b reasons.
I did sit and wonder just how often, other than the habitual aeroplanes falling out the sky with no fuel, that this actually happens.
People rarely actually run out but often get closer than you think. The classic case is G-OMAR (google for the AAIB report) where some other “classic” factors came into play e.g. pressure from instructors to not put in too much fuel. This is where the school/club environment doesn’t always serve people well.
MedEwok wrote:
I would hazard a guess that people short on money and time – the average run of the mill PPL like myself – are probably much less at risk of crashing simply due to limited exposure to the “risk of flying”
I think you’re wrong. Safety in aviation is very much a matter of currency and the less you fly, the less currency you have. The usual mitigation strategy which you cite, i.e. flying shorter and easier sorties does, IMHO, actually increase risk in the long term, as you are less and less exposed to situations that require decision making. If all you do is to fly 10 hours a year on gin-clear days with no wind then I would suggest your risk is actually going up and not down.
MedEwok wrote:
You’re probably right about people being short on money but not time being at a higher risk…
i have always flown my aeroplane, W&B permitting with full fuel tanks. I never saw the point leaving large empty capacity in the tanks. Therefore I always knew my range. I still sit and watch folks stick 15 litres a side in. I sat a few weeks ago and watched an idiot run out of fuel as he came onto the parking apron. He was 50 mtrs from his parking space. He had to be pushed onto the space. I actually refused to believe it until someone put a fuel tester to the vents and nothing came out. This was not reported to anyone. I did sit and wonder just how often, other than the habitual aeroplanes falling out the sky with no fuel, that this actually happens.
Within UK GA there is a large community – loudly evident on social media at every opportunity – which has made avoidance of landing fees over £5/£10 into an art form
This does seem to feature in decisionmaking, leading to the Strasser Scheme which while being a good initiative (Charles Strasser is a great bloke) is hard to understand as being described as a “potentially lifesaving measure” since the landing fees being saved are in most cases less than the cost of getting back home from the airport. And the really pricey airports (e.g. Gatwick EGKK) never signed up to it.
However, France has a “similar but much more generous scheme” so perhaps this really is a big factor in decisionmaking.
I think an interesting thing that hasn’t been mentioned here is money
I would hazard a guess that people short on money and time – the average run of the mill PPL like myself – are probably much less at risk of crashing simply due to limited exposure to the “risk of flying” and due to risk compensation, i.e. flying rather shorter and less complicated trips.
You’re probably right about people being short on money but not time being at a higher risk…
I think an interesting thing that hasn’t been mentioned here is money. How often do people take shortcuts to avoid paying the approach fee? Go into a smaller airport without instruments because the landing fee is cheaper? Go over the mountains because it’s direct so costs less? Don’t update the GPS monthly because it’s expensive? Indeed, don’t train for an IR at all because of the cost?
Now my view is that this applies to almost zero people who post here, but I bet it does to a lot of those who become statistics.
