2013 crash in Britain: victims of "cheapitis"

Living in million dollar house and was too cheap to spend an additional 50cents a gallon?
 
Don't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail, it's just another "cheap shot" tabloid over here in the UK.

This accident has been the subject of many discussions by UK pilots, sadly the guy got it wrong with fuel management and failed to allow for the extra burn due to the the headwinds on the way back from Paris.

Maybe if the one engine had quit a few minutes sooner while he had more altitude there may have been a better outcome, but at a height of only 50ft and crossing the runway threshold all his recovery options added up to zero !
 
Xscaliber said:
Don't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail, it's just another "cheap shot" tabloid over here in the UK.
Click to expand...

He had enough fuel in the tip tanks, but never switched to them and starved an engine on short final.

FTA: "There was enough fuel in the two spare tanks to cover the extra flying time – but Mr Vickers didn’t deploy them."

Accident Report: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Cessna 310Q G-BXUY 11-14.pdf

The Daily Fail™ insults the deceased by calling him cheap when it was likely caused by poor pre-planning and too much reliance on his iPad (or whatever tablet he had) to take care of the math.

He added enough fuel for what he had expected to be enough, and filled the tip tanks as well. Dumb**** move for spreading fuel too thin], and two lives were lost because of it.
 
50' over the threshold in a twin and the engine fails? Pull everything back and land. It might be rough but it's going to work.
 
flyingron said:
50' over the threshold in a twin and the engine fails? Pull everything back and land. It might be rough but it's going to work.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm no expert on twins w/ engine failure but how does a single engine out on approach equal nose dive into the grass?
 
It sounds as if he was dragging it in... mentally already landed.
 
Xscaliber said:
Don't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail, it's just another "cheap shot" tabloid over here in the UK.

!
Click to expand...

Gotta love the part where they state he used a dipstick instead of relying on fuel gauges due to frugality. :rolleyes: I guess this sells tabloids.....

"He was known for using a dipstick to test the fuel levels rather than relying on the fuel gauges, according to an Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) report."

Maybe GUMP would have saved him? Gas on fullest tank (that would have been his reserve):dunno:
 
flyingron said:
50' over the threshold in a twin and the engine fails? Pull everything back and land. It might be rough but it's going to work.
Click to expand...

It's all about reaction time. Even though he was pushing the fuel situation he probably was not expecting one of the engines to quit. In his situation even a few seconds reaction time delay could have been fatal. It's all very well to practice these scenarios where you are expecting something and have mentally prepared yourself for the course of action but the reality when something happens unexpectedly can be quite different. It is easy to point fingers and say "I'd have done better" but how do you really know?
 
I'm an SE guy only - how 'bad' is an engine failure (in a twin) on short final? You are triggered for a go-around, and slow. Is there a mental checklist in a twin that says "over the fence, land if engine fails"? Or are speeds on final supposed to be > Vmc until on the ground?
 
I was taught blue line + 10 until landing assured. That's way higher than Vmc.
 
Ya I'm at idle at 50' in the Baron, take both engines, I don't need em at that point. :D

Dumb pilot tricks.
 
Matthew said:
I'm an SE guy only - how 'bad' is an engine failure (in a twin) on short final? You are triggered for a go-around, and slow. Is there a mental checklist in a twin that says "over the fence, land if engine fails"? Or are speeds on final supposed to be > Vmc until on the ground?
Click to expand...

On final a single engine loss would be close to a non event.
 
Even dragging it in at most fields plowing through the approach lights or whatever is short of the runway is better than losing control.
 
Trying to clarify my earlier questions: As an SE guy, I try to keep primed for a go-around, while dragging it in, getting slow, whatever. If something hiccups, I'm ready to add power. But is that a habit that needs to be re-trained for ME or is that just something that I'm thinking too much about and isn't really an issue?

From the fight data, and witnesses, it almost sound like he was slow, was low, an engine coughed and his instinct was to go-around.
 
Matthew said:
From the fight data, and witnesses, it almost sound like he was slow, was low, an engine coughed and his instinct was to go-around.
Click to expand...

What other posters are highlighting is that even if that was the scenario, there was nothing onerous about accomplishing a single-engine go-around in said scenario. If you pooch if from that condition, being lightweight as he was, just shows a lack of flying proficiency. And that leads to the usual negation of the second engine in piston twins being a safety enhancer, etc etc. cue eternal single v twin discussion.

As to the money aspect, sure ,it's pretty embarrassing to mort yourself because you had the means to afford the 12 pound delta and choose not to over a principle. I understand rich people get richer by being extremely selective in the manner they go about their spending, but to die for it is the ultimate Life FAIL irony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top