Fxed Reserve Use.

[brown_eyes]

There has been some different opinions regarding the use of Fixed Reserve.

1. Can you use the Fixed Reserve?

2. If not under what circumstances can the Fixed Reserve be used?

Thanks


beyes

[Slasher]

In a nutshell (I don't give long-winded answers) -

1. Yes (see next answer).

2. Stuck gear, stuck flaps etc on arrival overhead the destination/alternate,
or any emergency situation that deems its use in order to stay alive in one
piece.

[Wizofoz]

No, you can't use it. If you get down to FR you must shut down the engines and crash where you are........

You can't PLAN to use it, but of course you can if you have no choice- under most sets of legislation it would be classed as an emergency, however.

[beachbunny]

Always plan to be on the ground, with your fixed reserve still intact.

If you are still airborne, and using your fixed reserve, consider yourself entering a "fuel emergency" phase, and react accordingly, depending on the circumstances. eg, on approach somewhere, (if visual) no big deal. :ok:

[Paul O'Rourke]

As defined in the following link to CAAP

fixed fuel reserve means an amount of fuel, expressed as a
period of time holding at 1 500 feet above an aerodrome at
standard atmospheric conditions, that may be used for
unplanned manoeuvring in the vicinity of the aerodrome at
which it is proposed to land, and that would normally be
retained in the aircraft until the final landing. CAAP 234-1 Guidelines for aircraft fuel requirements (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/234_1.pdf)

[Capt Fathom]

Fixed Reserve can be used, but only during the last 30 mins or so, leading up to fuel exhausting!

[PA39]

A CAAP is just that....and advisory publication. It is not a Reg.

[Paul O'Rourke]

PA39 posted:-
A CAAP is just that....and advisory publication. It is not a Reg. So PA39, are you going to provide the difinitive answer or just debunk the CAAP?

Please refer to the blue shaded box to the left of the front page of CAAP 234-1.

This publication is only advisory
but it gives a CASA preferred
method for complying with the
Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs)
1988.
It is not the only method, but
experience has shown that if you
follow this method you will
comply with the Civil Aviation
Regulations.
Always read this advice in
conjunction with the appropriate
regulations.

Also refer to CAR 234 (3)(d)

[FGD135]

So PA39, are you going to provide the difinitive answer or just debunk the CAAP?


Any CAAP is advisory only. You are not required to conform to it. You can legally deviate from any CAAP.

The "definitive" answer to the original question: YES, you can consume fixed reserve fuel.

[mcgrath50]

Most company ops manuals I have seen stick to the CAAP or something very similar. Private Ops I guess you can burn it but buyer beware, if something goes wrong you don't really have a leg to stand on, as the lawyers will reference the CAAP.

[Tankengine]

Once you have used some of your fixed reserve you then fill in an ASIR to explain why you needed to!:E

[FGD135]

Once you have used some of your fixed reserve you then fill in an ASIR to explain why you needed to!

Not necessarily. The requirement to make a report is dependent on whether the fuel state became "dangerously" low or not.


Most company ops manuals I have seen stick to the CAAP or something very similar. Private Ops I guess you can burn it but buyer beware, if something goes wrong you don't really have a leg to stand on, as the lawyers will reference the CAAP.


The lawyers can't get you for burning fixed reserve if you are a private operation. It does not matter what the CAAP says in this case.

For a commercial operation (that references the CAAP in its fuel policy), however, if the lawyers are after you, it won't be because you deviated from the fuel policy, it will be because you ran out of fuel.

In which case, the rule they will get you on is CAR 234, which states "thou shalt not run out of fuel".

[Tankengine]

I am sure your insurance company will agree with you.:rolleyes:

Next time you park your aeroplane with next to no fuel why don't you ring up your local Casa inspector and ask for a ramp check!
:D

[lk978]

30 min of fuel goes pretty quickly when the weather has turned sh1tty

[FGD135]

Next time you park your aeroplane with next to no fuel why don't you ring up your local Casa inspector and ask for a ramp check!

CASA would only be interested if you have broken some law. To have burnt some FR does not necessarily imply you have broken any laws.

If you are a private operation, then the only rule you may have broken is the one relating to submission of a report.

If a commercial operation, then whether you have broken anything depends on what it says in the "fuel policy" section of your operations manual.

[exmexican]

Further to what Capt Fathom wrote, it is my belief that the Fixed Reserve is ALWAYS used in fuel starvation situations. You hardly ever read a fuel starvation IR where it has not been entirely utilised.

[down3gr33ns]

Fixed Reserve is ALWAYS used in fuel starvation situations.

Not necessarily so. In fuel exhaustion, yes, but there are cases where fuel starvation occured with plenty of fuel in the tanks.

[Tankengine]

Read your Ops manuals everybody.:rolleyes:

[Sunfish]

Doesn't the proposed part 91 require an aircraft to land with a Thirty minute reserve intact? Presumably with prosecution occurring if you don't?

This seems to be a form of the old storemans lament - "but if I give you our only spare part to fit, then we won't have a spare!

[Wally Mk2]

'tankeng' exactly, reed yr Ops manual (if you have one) 'Sunny' correct you need to land with the fixed res intact, all other fuel loaded at the planing stage is usable. Obviously the fixed res IS available should it be needed as a last resort but regardless of what the Regs say IF you find yourself dipping into it then declare a fuel emerg get the flying machine on the ground in a safe manor fill out the paperwork & learn from the exercise.
I've always considered the fixed res fuel unavail at the planning stage, it's there as a legal requirement but also as a last resort to help save yr dumb ass!!.:E


Wmk2

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

As long as you can taxi off the runway and park under your own steam then you are probably OK!

That said, I still work on the 45min fixed (which I regard as untouchable) + 15% variable reserves that I learnt way back! Remember when Ops would actually scrutinise your flightplan and have Flightservice call you with questions when they thought things didn't add up?

Dr :8

[Jabawocky]

I know what the rules say, but I hate arriving with anywhere near Forkair minimum fuel, I know I can get every last drop of usable fuel in my a/c however even 1 hour cruise fuel is 40-42 liters and that gets mt attention when I have 5 in one and 45 in the other :uhoh:

Only happened once dodging storms and I was with over an hour reserve!

J:ok:

[Jack Ranga]

Just load 8 hours of fuel :ok: (:E)

[Jabawocky]

If you call it holding fuel, I have 8, plus 45minutes.

Might need a loo break before a fuel break though.. :uhoh:

[Jack Ranga]

Sorry mate, I meant to say: load 10 hours fuel :}

[Dangnammit]

What if it's a 10 hour and 15 minute flight.:eek:

I class reserve as untouchable and is not planned for use. I consider variable as being used inflght.
If you plan to get somewhere with some fixed reserve fuel used and not stopping to refuel, then; 1) get your head read, and; 2) get life insurance and a funeral plan together.

[Jack Ranga]

Lean the mixture a bit :ok:

[aussie027]

As has been covered above,
It cannot be planned to be used under normal circumstances, especially when enroute etc.
Adequate Variable reserves or margin fuel are meant to allow for any forseeable enroute contingencies, stronger than forecast winds, unforecast adverse weather, systems failures, eg depressurizing and forced to fly at much reduced levels etc.

Yes it can be used once you are overhead/ arrive at the present destination airport due to unforseen non normal events, eg, gear failures, blocked/obstructed runway, etc to allow you time to deal with situation if you cannot land immediately as was expected.
If the aircraft landing ahead of you has an accident and blocks the only available runway you may be forced to use that reserve to fly to a nearby airport where you can land or use it to conduct an off field landing.
I was reminded of this scenario yrs ago in the USA when a biz jet had a gear failure, skidded down the runway on its belly and came to rest right in the middle of the intersection of the 2 runways thus closing both of them and the airport.:uhoh:

Despite the long odds it can and does happen, which is why that 30 or 45 mins is kept in the tanks as last chance to help save your ass when the unexpected happens.:ok:

[Derfred]

I generally carry at least 30 minutes additional fuel on top of the 30 minutes fixed fuel reserve for contingencies such as gear/flap problem on approach or go-around for whatever reason.

My boss, on the other hand, thinks unforeseen circumstances such as those are what the fixed fuel reserve is for.

Fortunately for the travelling public, my boss doesn't fly very often. :)

[601]

Where the hell is commonsense in all of this.
It is clear as mud.
The fixed reserve is there to cover unforeseen situations that may require the use of the fixed reserves.

Remember when Ops would actually scrutinise your flightplan and have Flightservice call you with questions when they thought things didn't add up?

I remember having to explain to a Ops man in BN as to why the 1 minute Margin fuel I had on my FP was sufficient. It did not compute that I had 45min Fixed, 15% Variable and 60Min holding. Seeing that I was only going BN-MCY-BN, my reserves were more than my flight fuel.
He signed the FP in due course.

I did remark after he signed the FP that he had no knowledge of what fuel/endurance was actually in the fuel tanks and his signing was just an ACE.

[Squawk7700]

I like the way that this thread was seamlessly resurrected from some 5 years ago!

[Ixixly]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/fatmanstratman/Stuff/ZombieThread.jpg

[Duck Pilot]

https://www.casa.gov.au/regulations-and-policy/standard-page/cd-1508os-fuel-and-oil-quantity-requirements

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Most of you just don't "get it", including CASA.

The history of the concept of "fixed final reserve" is all about the history of aircraft running out, or almost running out of fuel, when gauges and/or howgoesit all indicated sufficient fuel.

Can you use "it" --- and all the legalisms are nonsense, because you do not know, FOR CERTAIN, if you even have it to use ---- regardless of the situation.

If you are in a situation where you will land with less than 30m, indicated or calculated, it is an emergency, you are as dumb as a box of hammers if you think you can do otherwise --- not all that uncommon in the aviation field. This is quite independent of any other non-normal situation that might be attracting your attention.

All measuring systems are subject to error, or more correctly, order of accuracy. Light aircraft fuel contents gauges are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable, flowmeter systems not much better, until you get into heavy iron, and there it is still around +/- 3% order of accuracy.

You always start out NOT knowing EXACTLY how much ENERGY you have, you only ever have an approximation of how much you have consumed, and therefor, you only have an approximation of what you have left, and only an approximation of how fast you are burning said remaining.

The whole idea of FIXED FINAL RESERVE is so that, on the day when all the +/-'s stack up against you, your engines are still running at touchdown.Look up the history of the near misses, the very near misses, and the losses, and ask yourself (sorry Dirty Harry) do I feel lucky today , because you will need luck on your side, not an acceptable way of flight management --- or perhaps, is it not your pax. lucky day.

Forget whether it is "required under CASR XXX but not CASR YYY", it is needed so you engines will ALWAYS have motion lotion at touchdown.

The engineering physics don't vary with the flight category, it all goes 'orribly quiet when you run out.Tootle pip!!

[actus reus]

601/ Leadsled: :ok:

[Lead Balloon]

it all goes 'orribly quiet when you run outFolklore.

When I run a tank dry in my bugsmasher, the engine stays noisy. The prop still runs at whatever RPM it was set before the motion lotion ran out.All measuring systems are subject to error, or more correctly, order of accuracy. Light aircraft fuel contents gauges are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable, flowmeter systems not much better, until you get into heavy iron, and there it is still around +/- 3% order of accuracy.Rubbish.

The digital flowmeter in my bugsmasher is calibrated to +/- 1 litre in 300. Either that, or all the fuel bowser flowmeters at all the aerodromes around Australia are as precisely inaccurate as the one in my bugsmasher.

[Sunfish]

1. Under the new regulations (part 91?), it is an offence to land with less than the fixed fuel reserve on board.

2. Given that deliberate use of fixed reserves is an offence, if you reach the point at which fixed reserves are likely being consumed you must declare an emergency and report yourself to CASA. It is an offence NOT to declare an emergency if you are low on fuel.

2. Thanks to this new regulation CASA now has the power to inspect your aircraft after flight to determine if you have consumed some of your fixed reserve. If you have, you had better have declared an emergency beforehand. This is another reason never to fly in to an aviation event where there is potential to be raped, sorry "ramped".

What this means in practice is that now, in addition to carrying fixed reserve, you now require a "CASA litigation Reserve". This further drives down payload and increases costs.

[AerocatS2A]

What this means in practice is that now, in addition to carrying fixed reserve, you now require a "CASA litigation Reserve". This further drives down payload and increases costs.
What a load of rubbish. If your personal fuel policy prior to the new regulations meant there was a foreseeable chance of landing with less than fixed reserve then you are a fool and deserve any litigation coming your way.

[Sunfish]

Aerocat, you make a fundamental reading error by assuming I am talking about my personal fuel policy (which is full tanks and a massive reserve every time).

However what I am talking about is real world planning, try Four reasonably sized people in a Warrior for a bit more than an hours flight, where there is not a lot of weight left over for reserve fuel. So then there is a taxiing or some other delay, maybe some unforecast headwind and you just might find yourself down to fixed reserves as you come into land. Unless of course you wish to exceed MTOW, which I won't.

Add in an officious CASA prick on arrival, and a not very well calibrated dipstick, inaccurate gauges, an error in the fuel log (club aircraft), fuel theft and a missing bowser receipt, bear in mind that even one litre less than required will see you in trouble and we have a recipe for hours of distress followed by months of anguish if they decide to prosecute…or not.

[AerocatS2A]

Aerocat, you make a fundamental reading error by assuming I am talking about my personal fuel policy (which is full tanks and a massive reserve every time).

Perhaps. I was referring to the general you but I guess I include you seeing as you seem to think it is a problem.

However what I am talking about is real world planning, try Four reasonably sized people in a Warrior for a bit more than an hours flight, where there is not a lot of weight left over for reserve fuel. So then there is a taxiing or some other delay, maybe some unforecast headwind and you just might find yourself down to fixed reserves as you come into land. Unless of course you wish to exceed MTOW, which I won't.

Add in an officious CASA prick on arrival, and a not very well calibrated dipstick, inaccurate gauges, an error in the fuel log (club aircraft), fuel theft and a missing bowser receipt, bear in mind that even one litre less than required will see you in trouble and we have a recipe for hours of distress followed by months of anguish if they decide to prosecute…or not.

What happened to checking fuel en route and perhaps diverting to an en route for a top up after your long taxi and unforecast headwinds became apparent? If you've decided to press on then find yourself with less than fixed reserves then declare a mayday. If you have just on fixed reserves then you've done nothing wrong and should have nothing to fear. For one, fixed reserves are for landing with, not shutting down with.

My point remains that if you (general you) have changed your personal fuel policy because of a fear of litigation then your previous fuel policy sucked.

[Duck Pilot]

CASA would be pretty hard pressed to get any substantial evidence to go for a prosecution if a pilot was short 1 litre (or even 10!) of the minimum fixed reserve. The pilot would have enough other alternative tools in the shed to provide for a reasonable defence if he/she were smart enough, i.e. inaccurate fuel gauges, dipstick calibration not correct, previous fuel uplift/usage not recorded accurately, fuel bowser/truck meter not accurate, aircraft may not have been parked on level ground, temperature variation, etc, etc, etc. However if the pilot ran the tanks dry during taxi post flight that would hold water for a potential prosecution.

If your payload won't allow you to carry enough fuel, simple answer is get a bigger aircraft that will, or split the trips and do two.

My fuel policy is not to run out of fuel, and part of the process I use is to work back from my fixed reserve, not into it.

[LeadSled]

Rubbish. Gee, I hope that manufacturer has patented his super wizz bang accurate system, he will make a fortune selling it to Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier etc. Even the quantity measuring systems that have in-tank densiometers don't make that kind of accuracy.

The digital flowmeter in my bugsmasher is calibrated to +/- 1 litre in 300. Either that, or all the fuel bowser flowmeters at all the aerodromes around Australia are as precisely inaccurate as the one in my bugsmasher.Maybe that is the case, most of the aviation fuel browsers are not even temperature compensated (last time I looked) so you are buying volume, not energy. Not knowing which flowmeters you are using, I have no idea whether they record volume or mass (I keep being reminded that I mustn't say "weight")

I much prefer evidence based decision making, and the accident/incident evidence (both Australian and internationally) speaks for itself, hence the concept of fixed final reserve. You know, as well as I do, where to find said evidence.

As for the joker that thinks it doesn't go quiet, all I can say, from my experience, that there is a marked reduction in noise level when the engine is suddenly sucking a fuel/air ration of 0:1.

Tootle pip!!

[Lead Balloon]

You originally said "it all goes 'orribly quiet when you run out". In fact, it doesn't.

That's why you changed the story to "marked reduction". The only thing "marked" about it is how little the noise level changes.

You originally said that light aircraft fuel measurement systems, including flowmeters, are notoriously inaccurate; even more so than on heavy metal. In fact, good systems on bugsmashers are highly accurate.

That's why you did the usual trick of trying to confuse with irrelevancies. I much prefer evidence based decision making.You should try practising your preference in this case. :ok:

[Squawk7700]

I'm confused at the comments where it says that when the motion lotion runs out, the prop keeps spinning at the same RPM... what the? Are we talking a PT6 or something?

[Eddie Dean]

A piston engine prop without feathering ability stays at the same rpm.
Was an issue in WW11 multi engine aircraft.

[Squawk7700]

Shouldn't be an issue in a single !

[Lead Balloon]

I'm confused at the comments where it says that when the motion lotion runs out, the prop keeps spinning at the same RPM... what the? Are we talking a PT6 or something?We're talking about many thousands of typical piston/propellor combinations fitted to many thousands of typical GA aircraft.

Here's what happens to your RPM when you're cruising along, fat dumb and happy in your e.g. C210 with the RPM set to e.g. 2350 and the fuel runs out: The RPM stays at 2350.

Here's what happens to your RPM when you're cruising along, fat dumb and happy in your e.g. C152 with the RPM at 2200 and the fuel runs out: The RPM does NOT go to zero.

In neither case does it become "'orribly quiet".

I realise that's counter-intuitive and therefore breaches the rules of aviation folklore.

But facts are ... facts.

[Lead Balloon]

For anyone who's interested in facts rather than folklore: Pelican's Perch #7:<br>Run That Fuel Tank Dry! - AVweb Features Article (http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182044-1.html).

[AerocatS2A]

We're talking about many thousands of typical piston/propellor combinations fitted to many thousands of typical GA aircraft.

Here's what happens to your RPM when you're cruising along, fat dumb and happy in your e.g. C210 with the RPM set to e.g. 2350 and the fuel runs out: The RPM stays at 2350.

Here's what happens to your RPM when you're cruising along, fat dumb and happy in your e.g. C152 with the RPM at 2200 and the fuel runs out: The RPM does NOT go to zero.

In neither case does it become "'orribly quiet".

I realise that's counter-intuitive and therefore breaches the rules of aviation folklore.

But facts are ... facts.

Of course it goes quiet. It doesn't go silent, but it certainly gets quiet (I know, I've had it happen). If you want to nitpick that then fine but you're missing the point.

[Squawk7700]

The author of that article needs to realise that not all engines and aircraft perform equally.

Now please, folks. I'm not talking about running a tank dry when it's the only tank in the airplane! Nor when it's the last tank with fuel in it!

For example, in order to stop the prop on my Bonanza (IO-550, three bladed prop), I have to kill the mags, or stop the fuel (mixture or fuel valve), pull the prop control all the way back, extend full flaps, and fly very near the stall for many seconds with the throttle closed (makes the engine have to suck a little harder). Once the prop stops, I can fly at about 95 knots without the prop starting to windmill again.

[Eddie Dean]

Lead balloon, would appear some are being purposely obtuse, as my dear Grandma would say.
Squawk7700 brings in how to stop the prop in a Bonanza to refute our point???

[Lead Balloon]

The author of that article needs to realise that not all engines and aircraft perform equally.I think you'll find that he has quite a good grasp on that, Squawk. You left this off the end of the quote:

Some readers have blasted me on the checklist columns about single-pilot operations, saying "Well, how about the A-26, or the single-pilot Citation?" Folks, there are exceptions to every rule, and if you haven't got the smarts to figure that out, you not only shouldn't be reading this column, you probably shouldn't be flying (or even walking). (bold added)

But hopefully you've at least learnt that the prop on Mr Deakin's Bonanza doesn't stop just cause the motion lotion runs out? Now ask yourself how many thousands of GA aircraft have similar engine/prop combinations.

In what aircraft type/s have you had it "get quiet", Aero? The ones I've done it in don't.

PS: Yes Eddie. I think Squawk's being obtuse.

[AerocatS2A]

For anyone who's interested in facts rather than folklore: Pelican's Perch #7:<br>Run That Fuel Tank Dry! - AVweb Features Article (http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182044-1.html).

There's nothing in that article about how much noise the engine makes when it stops getting fuel. Here's a clue for you, prop rpm isn't the only thing making a noise up the front.

Does this really need explaining?

Every piston engine of flown gets quiet just when I pull the power back idle.

[Eddie Dean]

....... When the power gets pulled back to idle.
is this in the air or on ground.
With headset on and flying, I can't detect any change other than on gauge.
On a direct drive engine there is no change in compression, alternator output or accessory drives. All indications and inherent noise levels stay the same.

But then I may be wrong just like John Deakin.

[AerocatS2A]

Could this be due to noise cancelling headsets? I've never used one in a piston.

I've had three engines stop, two were in Tiger Moths and one was in a Victor Air Tourer. Two of the incidents were at very low speed and resulted in the prop stopping. The other, in a Tiger Moth, was at cruise speed and was caused by the passenger accidentally turning the fuel off. The prop kept turning of course but the change in noise from the engine was significant enough that it immediately caught my attention.

Are those of you saying the noise stays the same suggesting that an engine failure would go unnoticed if you weren't looking at the engine gauges?

Remember we are talking singles here so no second engine to mask the change in noise.

[AerocatS2A]

So, even if the fuel stops, the "suck, squeeze, bang, blow" of the normal internal combustion process continues.

This is wrong, slightly. There is no "bang" if there is no fuel.

[Lead Balloon]

Here's a clue for you, prop rpm isn't the only thing making a noise up the front.No sh*t?

Here's a clue for you. The combustion events are not the only source of noise up the front either.Every piston engine of flown gets quiet just when I pull the power back idle.No it doesn't, unless your definition of "quiet" is from a very strange dictionary. A reduction in noise is not the same as becoming quiet.

When that C210 or Mr Deakin's Bonanza cruising at 2350 RPM runs a tank dry, there are lots of indications that it's happened, notwithstanding that the prop keeps turning at 2350. There will be a change in noise, but it ain't to "orribly quiet", and it will be mostly as a consequence of the prop fining up to maintain 2350 RPM. (The IAS, EGT, CHT and fuel flow indications might be dropping gentle hints too.)This is wrong, slightly. There is no "bang" if there is no fuel.In the context of the sentence that starts with "even if the fuel stops", you know what he meant by "bang": spark. (But I agree with your underlying point: "bang" was a poor choice of word. I anticipate Mr Deakin would agree.)

[AerocatS2A]

I think we all knew what Lead Sled meant by "'orribly quiet". Less noise and an uncomfortable feeling in one's bowel end. To disagree with him because his definition of quiet doesn't match yours is taking the piss.

[Eddie Dean]

You are just being nice, aerscat, Leadsled had to quickly back track when he realised he was wrong.

[Lead Balloon]

When an ATO simulates an engine failure by pulling the throttle on my aircraft, it gets 'orribly noisy. Undercarriage alarms.

When an ATO simulates an engine failure by pulling the mixture on my aircraft, the noise doesn't change that much at all. It's just like when I run a tank dry...

I'm not talking about the difference in noise when idling on the runway compared with full power for take off. I'm not talking about the difference in noise when 60 knots and idle RPM over the threshold on landing, compared with full power at take off.

I'm talking about the sound in the cockpit in the cruise at 160kts TAS and a CSU set to some RPM other than full, at cruise fuel flow, compared with the sound in the cockpit when the fuel runs out.

An astonishing number of pilots think the prop will stop. An astonishing number of pilots think the noise will stop.

Perhaps fewer pilots would be involved in fuel exhaustion and starvation incidents if there was a better (some?) understanding of how the engines and fuel systems on aircraft actually work, and their failure modes.

[Frank Arouet]

When the means of propulsion suddenly become absent, be it by a more air than fuel ratio in a tank, or a lost propeller, the end result is the same. The means of prevention is to mitigate the possibility. Or one should at least consider the possibility of that end result by say a torque wrench or a credit card. Does one really need a regulatory authority to tell us this? Instead of pulling engines at low level in Metros, (for example), CAsA could investigate the practical issues with loose bolts on a wooden prop in an Auster. (While the examiner of airmen is present of course).

[Tankengine]

If you clowns can't figure out when an engine is no longer getting fuel without resorting to looking at the instrument panel then you shouldn't be flying!:ugh:
Some engines will continue to show similar revs, others will stop.:rolleyes:
At least most times I stop the engine I secure it and thermal away!:E

[LeadSled]

Folks,
As is SOP for pprune, this has strayed far from the original topic, with the usual picking of nits, that almost invariably add nothing to the topic.

For my money, I always want to maintain the option of a landing (whether a powered or glide approach) at a place of my choice.

That being the case, the principle of fixed final reserve has everything going for it,especially accident reports and nothing rational against it. For about the last 30 years or so, I haven't needed a book of rules to tell me so, to that extent, the present rule changes will not make the slightest difference to how I handle fuel.

Tootle pip!!

[Lead Balloon]

[T]he principle of fixed final reserve has everything going for it,especially accident reports and nothing rational against it. For about the last 30 years or so, I haven't needed a book of rules to tell me so, to that extent, the present rule changes will not make the slightest difference to how I handle fuel.Hear! Hear! :D

[Eddie Dean]

Indeed leadsled, a rule to live by.
Yet pilots still have to make engine out landings into the ocean at the dark of night. Go figure.

[thorn bird]

"Yet pilots still have to make engine out landings into the ocean at the dark of night"

and a few thousand more pages of strict liability offences will not alter that one iota.

Perhaps adopting the US model of educating and mentoring before the event rather than wielding a big stick after it may produce better results.

But then again what would the Yanks know, only ex Australian military types know anything about aviation.