Minimum fuel - FAA vs. EASA

[Marius_S]

Was reading a discussion on another forum regarding the minimum fuel on landing, and the difference between FAA and EASA regulations. I have both a FAA and an EASA license, and I was quite sure I knew the regulations, but I might have been wrong.
In Europe, my understanding is that the minimum fuel needed upon landing would be alternate fuel (if an alternate was required), plus 30 minutes of additional fuel. If landing at an alternate airport with anything less then 30 minutes, you need to come up with some good answers to the relevant people...

I did believe the same would be true for in the US as well (except it would 45 minutes instead of 30 minutes). But, someone stated that you are allowed to go below those 45 minutes without declaring any fuel emergencies. So, I had to do some searching online, and found that regulation states the following (I checked for both part 91 and part 121 which are quite similar when it comes to required fuel for IFR flights:
You need fuel for the planned route of flight plus alternate if required and then an additional 45 minutes of fuel. But it doesn't say that you need to be landing with 45 minutes remaining.
After some more searching, I did find this document from the FAA: https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2008/info08004.pdf

It states, among other things, the following:
"The act of using a portion of the reserve fuel assigned to a flight is not, in its self a cause to declare a minimum fuel state with the controlling agency. Regulations require reserve fuel to enable aircraft to maneuver, due to unforeseen circumstances. Many aircraft safely arrive at their destination having used a portion of the fuel designated as reserve. There is no regulatory definition as to when, specifically, a pilot must declare “minimum fuel” or a fuel emergency. Air carriers typically develop such guidance for their pilots and include it in their General Operations Manuals"

So, is it correct that you are allowed to use part of those 45 minutes of reserve fuel?

[flyburg]

There is a difference in the dispatch fase and flight execution! EASA, During the dispatch fase you need taxi out, trip, cont, alt and final reserve, if dispatching without alt(allowed under certain conditions) the final is 45 otherwise 30 minutes.

During flight execution( from start pushback or moving under own power) the only regulation is to land(anywhere) wiith 30 minutes remaining!! If anticipating to land with less than 30 minutes than an mayday call is required.

Again, under EASA, there is no requirement to land at destination with alt fuel plus final reserve! I believe tha FAA rules are the same.

at some point you are going to commit to a specific aerodrome, be it the destination or alternate. It is up to the commander to decide which is the safest course of action. What is safer? Coming into your destination with alt fuel and final and then having to make a GA because of, say for example, traffic still on the runway, then committing to your destination and using your alt fuel and being able to make a few approaches using that fuel, or diverting to your alternate and then having to land immediately before using your final!

Remember also that as captain you may always deviate(not applicable in this particular case) from the rules in an emergency or to avoid an emergency( in the interest of safety)!

[safelife]

It's like 30 min reserves plus 15 min contingency so to say...

[MarkerInbound]

The simple answer is yes. The VFR fuel reg 91.151 even says no one "may begin a flight" without 30 minutes day/45 minutes night extra fuel. The airline rules 121.639 - 121.646 all say no one may dispatch/release an airplane or takeoff without the required fuel. Under the FAA system when it says no one may dispatch (or release depending on what rules you operate under) it means the company will not allow the flight to begin. 61.167, the general IFR fuel rule is a bit nebulous when it says "operate." Operate is defined in FAR 1 as "use, cause to use or authorize..." There are some FAA legal interpretations which say running out of fuel is "careless and reckless." I don't know if "Well dah" translates into norsk. I believe I also saw the thread the OP referenced which said the crew could be in trouble if the plane landed without incident with less than the required fuel reserves. That would not be the case in the FAA system. If a crew declared min fuel there might be some follow up to find out how the crew got in that situation but unless there were some serious preflight errors it would not rise to an enforcement action.

[Tinstaafl]

The short answer is that EASA has rules that requires aircraft to both depart with specified minimum fuel amount, and to land with a specified minimum fuel amount. FAA only requires aircraft to *depart* with a specified minimum fuel amount. There is no rule that specifies a landing amount. As mentioned above, running out of fuel prior to landing can still be prosecuted under the 'careless & reckless' rule - but that won't apply if you land with any amount of fuel on board.