Minimum Fuel

[CaptainEmad]

60.4.2 The pilot-in-command shall request delay information from ATC when unanticipated circumstances may result in landing at the destination aerodrome with less than the fixed fuel reserve plus any fuel required to proceed to an alternate aerodrome or the fuel required to operate to an isolated aerodrome.
Note: There is no specific phraseology in this case as each situation may be different.

Does anyone else find this ambiguous?

60.5.1 The pilot-in-command shall advise ATC of a minimum fuel state by declaring MINIMUM FUEL when, having committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than planned fixed fuel reserve.

i.e. So pretty much every time you arrive at your destination without alternate fuel you have to declare it?

[Wizofoz]

Does anyone else find this ambiguous?

Not especially, no. Before putting youself in a position where you don't have fuel to an alternate, you should find out how much delay ATC is anticipating.

i.e. So pretty much very time you arrive at your destination without alternate fuel you have to declare it?

No, and your underlining shows why- Basically, if the current clearance has you landing ABOVE fixed reserve, there MAY be some changes to the current clearance that you can accept.

If the current clearance has you landing AT fixed reserve (plus whatever you feel comfortable with) then ANY change will see you under fixed reserve- in other words you have the MINIMUM fuel to meet the current clearance, and no more- it's a heads up to ATC to not mess with your clearance any more unless they want an emergency on their hands.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

plus any fuel required to proceed to an alternate aerodrome

"Required" being the oparative word. If it's not required-it's not required.

:ok:

[BleedingAir]

The first paragraph basically says if there's a reasonable chance you will hit minimum fuel with a change of clearance or delay, you should ask whether that delay is likely or not, or what the likely delay is.

The second paragraph says if you ARE on minimum fuel (your current ETA on the cleared route/approach has you landing with nothing more than intact fixed reserve, plus alternate fuel if it's required), you shall advise ATC by use of the phrase MINIMUM FUEL.

[FGD135]

Are those paragraphs a NZ thing?

I ask because the 60.4.2 refers to a "fixed fuel reserve". No such thing is mandated in Australia.

[Oktas8]

CAAP 234 defines a fixed fuel reserve, as a means of complying with regs 220 & 234.

The whole thing seems relatively sensible to me (indicating that I haven't understood the problem perhaps... :ok:) If you're going to land with just on minimum fixed reserve, having used up all your legally mandated variable reserve, declare Minimum Fuel - but it's not an emergency. If you're going to land with less than minimum fixed reserve, it's an emergency.

Either way, you'll be met at the gate by a gentleman with an interest in magnasticks.

[glekichi]

Either way, you'll be met at the gate by a gentleman with an interest in magnasticks.

:}

Not necessarily the case, however. I made the call (or its equivalent) once, back well before it was clarified in the AIP.

Result: No more being buggered around.

Landed with co. fixed reserve + a few mins. No magnastick man, no grief from anyone. In fact, a pat on the back from the boss who had also been in the area and had heard it going on. That's kind of the point. Avoid the paper work!

I dont know who would have waited until a PAN situation existed before piping up prior to the AIP change.... but obviously someone did and they found it necessary to make a change :confused:

[FGD135]

CAAP 234 defines a fixed fuel reserve ...

Oktas8, CAAP publications are advisory only. There is no legal requirement to observe them.

Why does that paragraph refer to a "fixed fuel reserve" when no such thing exists in Australia? Are those paragraphs applicable to NZ rules?

[BleedingAir]

No, it's not really an issue if it occurs. I've declared "minimum fuel" at least twice, when I had calculated I was going to land with fixed reserve alone, and it looked like there was any chance of vectors, change of runway etc. I wouldn't use it all the time (just as I wouldn't plan to land right on fixed all the time), but it certainly doesn't imply wrongdoing or illegality.

[BleedingAir]

Re: definition of fixed reserve, in every company I've worked for, this is clearly defined in the company operations manual fuel policy. There should be no guesswork as to what constitutes fixed reserve, and whether it changes during abnormal operations (engine-out, depressurised etc.).

I would imagine in every fuel plan calculated for a private flight, one would define a fixed reserve - whether this was directly from the CAAP recommendations or not.

[Oktas8]

Oktas8, CAAP publications are advisory only. There is no legal requirement to observe them.

Hmm. Forgive the bluntness, but I think you are like a logger familiar with trees but not with the map of the forest. I think you've misunderstood, and here's why. (Yes, NZ does use a similar concept, as does the USA. But this one is from CASA.)

The regulations are vague and make sweeping statements, such as "sufficient fuel". So how can anyone be prosecuted, ask the lawyers? Easy, say CASA. In a separate document, more easily amended than the regs, the vague-ness is nailed down so that pilots can't wriggle through the gap. This is the CAAP, which defines what "sufficient fuel" actually means in this context. And they use the term "fixed reserve", just like everyone else in the world.

The CAAP is not legally binding. But it tells us what CASA thinks we should be doing. If you choose to use a different system that involves no fixed reserve, you may find yourself being prosecuted... A word to the wise then.

[Mish A]

My understanding about CAAPS is that they are advisory only. BUT if something goes wrong while outside the CAAPS advice and somebody is hurt or proprty is damaged be prepared to call upon your court recognised "expert witness." This witness will be more qualified than the CASA authors of the CAAP AND is happy to argue why the approach you took outside of the CAAPS is or was the better option. Tough call.

[FGD135]

The CAAP is not legally binding. But it tells us what CASA thinks we should be doing. If you choose to use a different system that involves no fixed reserve, you may find yourself being prosecuted... A word to the wise then.

Ok, so the ADVISORY publication is not actually ADVISORY then. Fail to observe it you and may find yourself in court.

Wrong. You have fallen into the trap that so many fall into.

[Oktas8]

Fair enough FGD, I'm really not trying to pick a fight here.

So, if you don't recognise any legal requirement for this "fixed reserve" concept, how much fuel do you carry above A-B, and what's your justification for doing so? (I mean, when are you at "minimum fuel" for the purpose of this thread.)

Cheers, O8

[FGD135]

So, if you don't recognise any legal requirement for this "fixed reserve" concept, how much fuel do you carry above A-B, and what's your justification for doing so?

Exactly my question. Where the operation of the aircraft is in accordance with an operations manual, that document may mandate a particular quantity of "fixed reserve", but not every operation is done according to an ops. manual.

And, not every ops. manual may mandate a "fixed reserve".

As for the legalities, there is a CAR which states "thou shalt not run out of fuel".

If you do run out of fuel, the prosecution will use that law to bust you. They don't need the CAAPs to bust you.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Please do not take a legalistic attitude to "fixed final reserve", maintaining the fixed final reserve is intended to make certain the engines are still running at touchdown

The concept is now incorporated in the relevant ICAO Annex, and is contained (in a most inelegant fashion) in AU proposed Parts 121 and 135.

In short, the total fuel you have aboard, as indicated or calculated, is subject to variable errors, so you never know exactly how much you have remaining.

The concept of a "fixed final reserve" came about as a result of a number of fuel exhaustion accidents to HCRPT aircraft, and some scary incidents, with engine flaming out on final, aircraft having to be towed from the runway etc. Including a Concord at EGLL.

The intent of the fixed final reserve is that you must have at least this amount , indicated or calculated, at touchdown, so that, on the day all the plus and minus are minus, you still have some fuel, at least, in the tanks on touchdown.

Many moons ago, A Qantas B707-338C landed at Rangoon, on diversion from Bangkok, apparently with "normal" reserves. Prior to refueling, it proved to have only about 200lbs remaining ---- none of the main tanks dripped before refueling. There were quite a few B747 involved in similar incidents, including one Air New Zealand aircraft. At least two, a B707 and a DC 8, ran out in the air.

Most major airline have adopted a "fixed final reserve" in their fuel policies, or an equivalent "minimum fuel for approach" long since, usually more than 20 years ago.

There have been far too many GA fuel exhaustion accidents in Australia, one is too many.

The 30 mins. fixed final reserves is not fuel available for holding. This is not the place to play bush lawyers.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Many GA Operations Manuals, accepted by CASA, have very deficient fuel policies, this appears to be a major factor in the Norfolk ditching.

[FGD135]

The 30 mins. fixed final reserves is not fuel available for holding.

Leady,

Where in the regs does it say we have to have 30 mins "fixed final reserves"?

[LeadSled]

FGD 135,
As far as I know, it is not explicitly in the current regulations in Australia, but major Australian carriers adopted it many years ago, in their manuals, therefor it is enforceable. I haven't has a look at the fuel policy CAAP for a while, but of course, that is only advisory.

It is a little more than just good advice to not run out of fuel in the air.

It is in the draft CASRs 121 and 135.

This concept should NOT be about debating legal points, or whether you say something about a fuel advisory, or a Pan or a Mayday ----

------ it is all about not running out of fuel in the air.

Tootle pip!!