Just realised that "fixed reserve" is defined as fuel required at holding speed at 1500ft AGL of the aerodrome. So that for me for 45 minutes it would be about Ten litres. It is not 45 minutes of cruise fuel.
Either CASA has got it wrong or I misunderstand
Yep you misunderstand. Old CAAP definition was still at holding rate, but they said "Not above FL200" instead.
since there is no way in hell I would ever plan to land with less than. That volume anyway.
Exactly. Do you now feel a little less worked up about this rule now? Would you, regardless of the new rule, when part way through your flight upon realising you aren't going to make your destination without eating into your FR, divert somewhere if you have the ability to? If not why not; would you declare an emergency; how will atc know you are fuel critical and if they vector you around you could run out?
As another example, does anyone think it prudent of a pilot to take off, knowingly, without the right amount of fuel to get to the destination? If you deem that to be reckless/stupid of that pilot, why would it not be reckless/stupid if the situation was pushed forward in time and they are part way through their journey, realise they don't have the right amount of fuel, and decide to continue rather than divert?
The only real difference between the current CAR234 and the proposed reg being discussed is that they have included the en-route aspect. Under CAR234 if you depart without enough fuel, it is still a strict liability offence. Nobody is whinging about that at the moment so really, why would/should you get a "free ride" because you are now en-route?
I think too many people are getting caught up on only the "you used some FR and that is a criminal offence" aspect rather than thinking what the rule in discussion is actually talking about- it has a precondition to it.
Now, when I get round to tackling the new fuel regs properly, if I see an outright rule that says "if you use any fixed reserve, no matter the reason even if it's totally out of your control, it's a strict liability offence" then you'll see me get angry about that, I promise.