Sasless;
Just to get the facts right ref NPAS here.
The Scottish aircraft is operated by Bond for the Scottish Police, NPAS is not involved in this incident apart from the cover they provided afterwards.
To your questions -
Using your figure of 90 Kgs "Minimum Landing Allowance"....is it safe to say had that mandate to Land upon reaching the MLA Fuel level been complied with, we would not be having this discussion extant?
As can be read on the latest bulletin, that of course you've read as a footnote to page 2, the operators 'Final Reserve Fuel', "
being the minimum amount of fuel with which pilots should plan to land with" was 85kg.
Yes it is safe to say that if that was complied with, we would not be having this discussion. (assuming of course all indications were correct)
How far into the Supply Tanks would that be?
Landing with 90 kgs would leave both supply tanks full at 47 & 43 kg's respectively. Landing with 85kgs would mean using 5 kgs of the supply tanks fuel.
Did the aircraft over fly or fly by locations a safe landing could have been made, and should have been made respective to the MLA Fuel Requirement?
You can look at google maps as well as the rest of us!
Does NPAS take disciplinary action when Pilots land with less than MLA Fuel?
Better question is does NPAS take Disciplinary Action (even unofficial action) if a Pilot makes a precautionary landing due to lack of fuel?
I'm not part of that food chain, however I like to think that we are in a culture that would rather a pilot landed in a field on minimums, than to press on. (especially with the larger areas of cover now required)
Personally I would give the pilot a pat on the back, a well done and a 'now lets have a look at this', than pursue any disciplinary action.
Every day is a learning day!