Fuel cross-checking
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel cross-checking
A couple of years back CAO 20.2 (para 6.2) gave details about cross-checking fuel measurements in aircraft >5700kg. The 3% rule comes to mind. I've gone looking for it and notice para 6.2 no longer exists. Does anyone know whether this requirement, or something similar, still exists? I haven't been able to find any details.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was surprised to see that this requirement had been removed too. I once pulled up a Captain who had thought that the requirement to check fuel within 4% was merely a company advisory (and was not happy to be told it was a regulatory requirement). He later took satisfaction when I could no longer provide a current CAO reference.
Thought I was going mental for a while!
Thought I was going mental for a while!
This requirement was removed some years ago from the CAO's.All fuel requirements are now RECOMMENDATIONS to abdicate CASA from the responsibility and thus free them from possible litigation.Even the CAR's only state that PIC's must carry SUFFICIENT fuel.You have to go to the company's operations manual to find out the REQUIRED minimum fuel to be carried.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have no idea.....but its one very plausable reason.....so how about you disprove the theory.
Science = testing hypothesis
What do you think justapples?
Science = testing hypothesis
What do you think justapples?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also have a hypothesis Jaba, I reckon apples here is an ex CASA/DCA man. As a dear family member calls it- Department of Constant Aggravation.
I am sure he is quite knowledgeable about the how's and why's of CASA/DCA, has a lot of internal insight into the organisation and most likely is able to shed much light as to why it's such a screwed up, overfed pig of an organisation that has managed to do very little for a huge amount of money for many many years. Even might be able to explain why the regulations and regulatory enforcement is nothing more than an egoistical grab at power by some exceedingly self serving individuals with serious chips on their shoulder.
3000 bureaucrats and counting, did you see the latest newsletter from McCormick?
They need more incompetents. I reckon the new CASA drug and booze squad will comprise of ex airport security check-in staff, the ones that... yep, those ones.
At least in the past they used ex coppers, even though they were the useless ones that couldn't make it in the force.
OK, my hypothesis over.
sc
I am sure he is quite knowledgeable about the how's and why's of CASA/DCA, has a lot of internal insight into the organisation and most likely is able to shed much light as to why it's such a screwed up, overfed pig of an organisation that has managed to do very little for a huge amount of money for many many years. Even might be able to explain why the regulations and regulatory enforcement is nothing more than an egoistical grab at power by some exceedingly self serving individuals with serious chips on their shoulder.
3000 bureaucrats and counting, did you see the latest newsletter from McCormick?
The increase in funding for CASA announced in this month’s Federal Budget is obviously very welcome news. CASA will be able to create a range of new positions as a result of the extra financial resources. Some of the new positions will be created in the division within CASA that develops new standards and regulations. This will allow us to complete existing regulatory projects in a timely fashion and to do more in areas such as the development of guidance material on standards and regulations. The funding will also allow CASA to expand its surveillance activities, which is a crucial component of safety oversight. In addition, we will invest further resources in staff education and training to ensure CASA has the best possible technically skilled and trained workforce.
At least in the past they used ex coppers, even though they were the useless ones that couldn't make it in the force.
OK, my hypothesis over.
sc
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting... I haven't looked since the Skippers fuel incident/crashburndie at Jundee... but that report is well worth the read RE: dodgy fuel guages and not doing the cross check. Mind you, I could be wrong and someone with more experience may help... but if say on today's flight a capacitor(s) were to pack and up and go U/S and the guages were now over/under reading, and if I DIDN'T do the 3% check (as per my company's FCOM), would the error now go undetected?? I'm thinking yes...?
BR
BR
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was always a bitch, 20 years ago, to do a crosscheck of the fuel in a tank of an ATR in Fiji when a gauge was u/s. There were two magnetic level indicators mounted in each wing through the lower skin, and tables allowed the readings to be converted into units of fuel mass with corrections made for aircraft attitude (not being on a perfectly level surface - to small limits), and fuel density. The actual magnetic indicator markings were in cms. of fuel in the tank.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spicy response, Apples.
I guess I must be right then.
Anyway, if you thought I was having a go at you you were wrong. If you DO have some way to improve the regulator's (mis)management of the affairs of this industry, please do so. Before it disappears.
sc
---thread drift over, my apologies---
I guess I must be right then.
Anyway, if you thought I was having a go at you you were wrong. If you DO have some way to improve the regulator's (mis)management of the affairs of this industry, please do so. Before it disappears.
sc
---thread drift over, my apologies---
