I'm an unabashed fuel maximist, to the extend that even in Australia where an alternate is not mandated, if I'm operating to a single runway airport, and I can carry alternate fuel, I will do so.
I've been told it's not necessary, just use fixed and variable reserve to get to another field, and if I land with less than required reserves, it doesn't matter as I had the legal required amount on departure.
I've been told if some one does a wheels up, land over the top, or before the wreck, and stop. Or land on a taxiway.
I reject these
options believing I could never explain such a decision/s to a board of enquiry, when it all goes wrong. I subscribe to the belief that the tanks, usually in the wings are called fuel tanks for a good reason.
A wise colleague put it best, when he once said that if one always travels with minimum fuel, one is statistically much more likely to come to some sort of grief. Whereas if one has "plan-b" fuel whenever possible, the statistical chance of things going pear-shaped the same day as one cannot carry said "plan-b" fuel is significantly reduced.
At the end of the day, the pax don't want to end up at some diversion port because the PIC was aiming for a fuel saving bonus, and didn't cary any plan-b.
