Leadie, isn't there a lot of theory behind safety in general?
Probably. And there's probably a lot of theory behind safety regulations.
Whether the theory implemented through regulations has any practical effect is a separate question.
Have you conducted and published a research report on fuel related accidents?
Alas, no. Most of my free time is taken up with flying.
And not starving or exhausting my engine of fuel. An outcome that I have achieved for the last 30 years despite blissful disregard for what the various rules on the matter may say.
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.
You appear to be suggesting that the only people qualified to comment on the efficacy of fuel related rules are people who have "conducted and published a research report". If you are making that suggestion, you have a childish naïveté that is endearing, but naive nonetheless.
You should also mark the significance of the "research reports" on "fuel related accidents" that have been "conducted and published". The submission by "no one" refers to some of those and points out that a rule about reserves is irrelevant to a frequent cause of "fuel related accidents". You do understand the distinction between fuel "exhaustion" and fuel "starvation", and that a rule about fuel reserves relates to only one of those, don't you?
All I know is that this new rule doesn't scare me like it does many others.
The content of the new rule shouldn't scare anyone, because it is unenforceable (and isn't a rule yet). The thing that should cause concern is that what is being proposed is, despite all the promises to the contrary, completely inconsistent with all the representations made about the regulatory 'reform' program. That should scare people, not because of any safety issue - there is no safety issue to which the proposed new rule is a solution - but rather because it indicates that the expensive bugger's muddle continues to muddle on.
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?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
How can it be "safe" to allow people to be flying around,
as we speak, free of any obligation to declare a mayday if they become aware the FOB at planned destination will be less than 45 minutes? My God: Who'll save the children?
How can this disaster waiting to happen be allowed to continue before the life-saving new rule is made?
Here's a thought: Why don't we impose the death penalty for breach of every rule? That way we'd be guaranteed safety.