Originally Posted by
andrewr
That'a an interesting interpretation. Can you cite a reference? You are saying that when they say 30 minutes, they don't actually mean being sure you have enough fuel for 30 minutes?
.
Andrewr,
Join the ranks of those who do not understand the engineering/physics of "order of accuracy".
The whole reason for the ICAO "current" (ie: for about the last 30+ years, Australia is slow to catch up) fuel "rules" was a number of near misses and several losses of aircraft due to being out of motion lotion, on the day all the +/- figures were minus.
Look up some of the previous threads on the subject, it has been treated in great detail.
It is not "my interpretation" at all, it is the whole point of having a FFR --- so that you have at least enough fuel remaining, at touchdown, that any or all engines will be running.
Boeing have put it a little more graphically, they have published "minimum fuel for approach", defines (as I recall) as:
"That amount of fuel,
indicated of calculated,
below which Boeing will not guarantee the continued flight of the aircraft". Approach being: defined as 1500 on final in the landing configuration. Again, from memory, for a B747 Classic, it is 12,000lbs.
Qantas has been running this type of fuel policy, with 30m FFR, since, from memory, some time in the 1980s. Again, in "recent" years, FAR 25 certification requirements are that below a certain figure, the fuel contents system is software biased so the that indicated fuel remaining is at least that much, it might be quite a lot more, depending on the +/- on the day. Again from memory, for the B747-400, it is 25,000kg
The ONLY thing "new" about the "new" CASA rules is the mandatory mayday, we should have a more sensible and less newsworthy way of handling a minimum fuel situation.
This kerfuffle is another example of Australia as the Great Aviation Galapagos..
Tootle pip!!