Wikiposts
Search
The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

fixed reserve

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 4th Aug 2006, 12:17
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: over there
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question fixed reserve

Wondering if anybody has an idea what fuel rate the fixed reserve is based on? Is it based on cruise rate? Or is it a holding rate at 1500' above the runway? Or a holding rate at some higher altitude?

A reference to the answer would be appreciated.

Mango
Mango is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2006, 12:59
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good Question

I bet this gets plenty of answers, how many are correct is another matter.

I believe it to be, not 100% sure but it should be your cruise rate, after all, unexpected head winds against your cruise speed and fuel burn is not the same as holding above a fogged in field, and if fog is expected you should have other plans.

If you eat into reserves holding, you will have more than an hour anyway.

For me and my PVT OPS, I work on 1 hr cruise rate.

Cheers
J
J430 is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2006, 13:17
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FFR is based on holding at 1500'
woftam is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2006, 13:38
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mango
What fuel rate the fixed reserve is based on? Is it based on cruise rate? A reference to the answer would be appreciated.Mango
Don't much matter what the book says - you'd be pretty stupid to base it on anything other than cruise rate!

Ref: The Rat
Ratshit is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2006, 14:02
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
15-20 years ago, the rules regarding fuel carriage were changed. Prior to the change, the requirements (e.g 45 minutes FR, 15% VR) were spelt out in AIP. Now, there is just one rule:

Thou shalt not run out of fuel - Reg 234, CAR 1988

What had been required fuel carriage prior to the rule change became recommended from then on. This was effected by transferring the various paragraphs out of the AIP and into an advisory document (CAAP 234-1).

So what does the CAAP document say about fixed reserve? In the definitions section, for "fixed fuel reserve", it says:

fixed fuel reserve means an amount of fuel, expressed as a period of time holding at 1 500 feet above an aerodrome at standard atmospheric conditions, that may be used for unplanned manoeuvring in the vicinity of the aerodrome at which it is proposed to land and that would normally be retained in the aircraft until the final landing.
Following the rule change, commercial operators were required to spell out their fuel carriage requirements in their operations manual. This allowed the operators to devise fuel requirements that were appropriate for their operation. So, the definition of "fixed reserve", and whether it is even required, is up to the holder of the AOC (in the case of a commercial operator).

Of course, private operators are also free to devise their own requirements - the CAAP document only makes recommendations.

You can download the CAAP document from here:

http://www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/ops/234_1.pdf
APMR is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2006, 21:42
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere on the Australian Coast
Posts: 1,096
Received 183 Likes on 39 Posts
Rat, the holding fuel flow rate at 1500' may often be higher than the cruise fuel flow rate.
DirectAnywhere is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2006, 23:25
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DirectAnywhere
Rat, the holding fuel flow rate at 1500' may often be higher than the cruise fuel flow rate.
Damn, you are right - I forgot about those hair-dryer powered things. Otto and I have been pals for too long.

How about: "You'd be stupid not to use an appropriate rate for the aircraft type you are operating".

R
Ratshit is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2006, 23:27
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Hornets Nest, NSW
Posts: 832
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rat****
Don't much matter what the book says - you'd be pretty stupid to base it on anything other than cruise rate!

Ref: The Rat
So I guess 90% of the operators around the country are stupid right?

Tip: Engage brain before mouth.

OpsNormal is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2006, 01:02
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: En Zud
Age: 52
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If in doubt, check the ops manual. I have seen them differ on this one.
GW_04 is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2006, 04:12
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 54
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by DirectAnywhere
Rat, the holding fuel flow rate at 1500' may often be higher than the cruise fuel flow rate.
Can you please elaborate on this? Are you saying that your fuel flow rate at max endurance IAS, 1500' is greater than at max range IAS? Is this a density altitude effect? i.e. you're assuming cruising at FL300+? Can you explain why this is? This seems to imply that if you throttle back, you go faster, which I'm sure is not actually the case.

For what types would this be the case?

A
Andy_RR is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2006, 04:44
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: over there
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
APMR

Thanks for that, I think you have hit it on the head. I suppose, at the end of the day, company SOPs govern what the fixed reserve will be.

Mango
Mango is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2006, 11:24
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere on the Australian Coast
Posts: 1,096
Received 183 Likes on 39 Posts
G'day Andy.

Sorry but I guess it depends how you read what I wrote. My fault - goes to show how hard it is to imply subtle nuance on the web. I'm talking about cruise flow flow rate at high altitude as compared with holding fuel flow rate at 1500'. Most jet aircraft (well, mine doesn't so I'm assuming the rest are the same) don't have cruise data for 1500' but comparing cruise data at max endurance cruise ie. holding fuel flows at say FL300+ as compared with holding fuel flows at 1500', the lower fuel flow will be achieved at the higher altitude.

Can't remember the aerodynamics and BGT to explain it but primarily jet engines are more efficient the higher you go.

Hope this helps clarify things.

Cheers.
DirectAnywhere is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2006, 11:53
  #13 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Jet engines are more efficient up high because the air is less dense...for given N1 the EEC looks at how much air is going in the front and mixes it with the right amount of fuel.

Up high less air goes in the front so less fuel required for the same fuel/air ratio.

Less thrust produced but less required due air less dense so aeroplane has a higher EAS or Mach number.

Or something like that....been a VERY long time since I sat BGT
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2006, 12:39
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: victoria
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I heard someone say once that the fixed reserve is 45 minutes of an average fuel flow figure. Eg. get the climb fuel flow using pressure altitude and temp. which will be higher than your cruise, get the cruise fuel flow figure and then the descent figure, average the three to get an average fuel flow and take 45 mins at that rate. In general the climb and descent usually cancel each other out and the cruise rate is generally sufficient. In the bug smasher I am flying we use a block figure of 50lph which works and we take a fixed reserve of say 37-38. Depending on altitude and temp the figures when done properly can come out normally around 45 so that would change it by not much, and the 50 has a good buffer on that for unexpectancies like low altitude holding. But thats the way that I believe is the proper way. I dont know anyone that makes this fine adjustment every time they go flying, 50 seems quite reasonable to me. Someone correct me if what I overheard is a load of sh**. Cheers JB
jetbrett is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2006, 17:36
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chimbu

FYI the holding fuel flow for a Trent 700 or 800 is in fact lowest at alt's between FL150-FL200.
The Messiah is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2006, 12:42
  #16 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,194
Received 106 Likes on 69 Posts
.. and some of the older jet engines will give you more fuel flow sitting at the holding point with idle throttles ... than cruising at 330 or thereabouts .. low level is not nice for these sorts of machines ...
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2006, 14:56
  #17 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Messiah i wasn't trying for a type specific treatise on alt/FF....just a very basic broad brush on FF in jets across the spectrum of altitudes between circuit height and coffin corner

RELAX

jt, sounds a bit like the Speys in the Fokker....on takeoff and innitial climb your FF suggested tanks dry about half way to desto...ahh crackle power
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2006, 18:03
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Was only saying it out of interest hence FYI. Maybe YOU need to relax.
The Messiah is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.