Dan said:
you are eroding safety margins
In essence, I said this in an earlier posting, I believe this is actually what this discussion boils down to, margins.
Absolute minimums doesn't automatically mean unsafe, all it means is that it starts from the minimum point considered legal.
How you then operate can then make that starting point unsafe down route, but the starting point was not unsafe.
We all like greater margins of safety, as opposed to absolute minimums because that gives us more of a buffer, but that's a luxury and not a legal or safe necessity.
What is a necessity is a high level of training, well written SOPs, adherence to the AFM, consideration to OM-A,B,C & D's, good CRM and good decision making.
Podcast,
What are the minimum regs?
To me they are:
1. The AFM
2. EASA-Ops
If you take the legal minimum fuel (point 2) operate according to all AFM procedures (point 1) and apply good airmanship and common sense then you should be safe.
If you are fully complaint with 1&2, it's only the subjective decision making that can turn that scenario unsafe. (Not including catastrophic failures or emergencies)
As BOAC and others have said earlier you can take as much extra fuel as you like, but if you burn it holding/waiting, you could be in the same situation as another plane who arrives at the same point with minimum fuel but immediately diverts, then what's the difference?
If you choose to operate with minimum fuel, it means as Dan said, you have reduced your margins (thinking time) and I think you really should have a pre-briefed plan for certain eventualities, so should a decision need to be made, time and fuel are not wasted while you decide, you have already decided what you would do and you just execute the plan.