http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1029/483318-plane-crash-birr/

 

Very sad to read this,are other flying clubs cutting back?

 

I skimmed through that report and if I understood correctly they somehow decided to fly with just about 1 gallon of usable fuel!

 

Very sad indeed.

 

Our club policy is to not refuel after your flight. This is the way we try to avoid having to drain tanks or cancel a flight because an aircraft would be overweight,

 

I would check and then fuel up my plane to the amount required for my flight plus an hour's reserve. I can't imagine going up without checking the fuel quantity with a visual check using a dipstick before every flight.

 

What do you mean when you ask about clubs "cutting back"?

Sorry, "cutting back" means being more economical, this side of the pond. 

 

It is still the pilot-in-command's responsibility to ensure that the aircraft has sufficient fuel ion-board before take-off, not the flying club's.

 

When I was taught to fly in a Cessna 150 that one of the pre-flight checks.

We use the phrase the same way, but I'm not sure if you meant that club pilots are cutting back on costs or common sense!

 

Club or otherwise, I would check the fuel levels and sumps even if the fuel truck just drove away from the airplane after "topping off" the tanks. It barely takes one minute to check the fuel.

 

I was surprised to see the club policy/procedure included in the findings. I've considered it a courtesy not to refuel unless instructed to do so by the next pilot.

 

The report is very informative and I like the way it is presented. I think I'll spend some time browsing through aaiu.ie for a while.

Running out of fuel didn't kill them, according to the report they stalled.

I have to agree with you zoran. Looking at all those beautiful fields to land in every direction shown in the picture on  page 14, it does seem like they could have walked away with an undamaged aircraft.

The report states that the probable cause is:

1 Stall and associated loss of control following power loss due to fuel starvation

 

.

I have to agree with you zoran. Looking at all those beautiful fields to land in every direction shown in the picture on  page 14, it does seem like they could have walked away with an undamaged aircraft.

+1

What a waste of two lives...

 

A

I'm not sure what angle that photo was taken in relation to the original flight path. I think the report stated that they made about a 180 degree turn before crashing. Maybe they didn't have the same open area in front of them with the engine quit?

 

In any case, it sounds like they were nose high when they started a pretty substantial turn (~60 degrees). Based on the info in the report, low speed, high angle turns can cause a rapid loss of altitude.

 

I guess no one will ever really know why they chose to maneuver the way they did. It's too bad.

 

Pilot error in the air is one thing, but the error that lead to this is almost unbelievable. Of all the things to check before taking off, I feel like fuel is pretty high up on the list. I would be even more paranoid about it since one of the witnesses, another student I believe, stated that the fuel gauges were unreliable. I don't know. Maybe my thoughts are just skewed. It's easy to look back at something and say "How could you?!".

I couldn't imagine hoping in a 150/172 and not checking the wing tanks with a dipstick, or at least my eyes, before doing it.

 

RIP to the two pilots here. I really wish aviation was more forgiving for oversights like this.

The 60 deg bank was most likely after the stall in which case the a/c was entering a spin. You don't take "any" a/c up without checking the fuel. And, did they ever practise engine failure after take-off?