UTR, the rule does not explicitly state that just because some FR is used, for whatever reason, then you are a criminal. The rule states that the strict liability offence is not following the rules (3b). So it reasons, to my brain, that if you comply with what is written (divert or declare mayday fuel), then you have not committed the offence because you have complied with what they have told you.
Once again this situation highlights how poorly the rules are written. People (you or me, I'm not saying I'm right and I'm not saying your right- we have our own interpretations and beliefs and thus far, pprune has not convinced me I'm wrong on this yet) obviously do not get a clear cut understanding on first read.
Leadie, isn't there a lot of theory behind safety in general?
Have you conducted and published a research report on fuel related accidents? If not then you, like me, aren't exactly a leading figure when it comes to this topic. I've read a lot into this sort of topic, but maybe not to the extent that you purport to have.
All I know is that this new rule doesn't scare me like it does many others. Can either of you answer me this- why is it a strict liability offence to take off now with not enough fuel, but there is a problem all of a sudden now with the new rule when en-route you realise you are in the same situation (not enough juice), and you do nothing about it?
There have been some examples posted about motor gliders and ex military aero flights where apparently you can't exactly carry 45 mins let alone the reserve too. This is an area that I do not know about never having operated those types so that's why I have not commented in relation to that, but I will now. Maybe those operators should be pushing their case.