CASA Fuel and Oil requirements
Crikey I think some people are getting a little precious about 1-2litres! If you cannot adjust your flight to fix that then you probably need some additional edumacation. Maybe an APS course on running lean of peak 
Think about it for a second. What do you think is a common reason for running out of fuel? Would maybe not monitoring it well enough en-route be a fairly strong contender?
This rule is meant to make you monitor your fuel state better and tell you to divert to a closer place if you are knowingly going to eat into your reserves on arrival at the destination given your current rate of usage and eta.
If you don't monitor your fuel and you get lower than minimums, or run out, especially for no good reason, well I think you are an idiot and probably deserve penalty units!
Don't stuff around with fuel. Always have some for mum and the kids. CASA shouldn't worry you then!
P.S I agree that this regulation is a knee-jerk reaction to Norfolk.
You can try and make the world idiot-proof, but a better idiot always shows up at some point.
Think about it for a second. What do you think is a common reason for running out of fuel? Would maybe not monitoring it well enough en-route be a fairly strong contender?
This rule is meant to make you monitor your fuel state better and tell you to divert to a closer place if you are knowingly going to eat into your reserves on arrival at the destination given your current rate of usage and eta.
If you don't monitor your fuel and you get lower than minimums, or run out, especially for no good reason, well I think you are an idiot and probably deserve penalty units!
Don't stuff around with fuel. Always have some for mum and the kids. CASA shouldn't worry you then!
P.S I agree that this regulation is a knee-jerk reaction to Norfolk.
You can try and make the world idiot-proof, but a better idiot always shows up at some point.
Jaba,
That would be an entirely logical and coherent reason, so that cannot be the reason.
Having more than a few hours on kero burners, I can demonstrate how to vary endurance remaining greatly, at low level.
In practical terms, a hamfisted pilot can make a nonsense of the fuel remaining, almost whatever "the rool", but I seriously object to <45 minutes in tanks being a strict liability criminal offense, I will go along with <30 minutes as the figure, but NOT as a strict liability criminal offense.
ANY alleged offense in this area should, at most, be a civil offense, if the circumstances are serious negligence under ALL the circumstances, that should be the charge, but CASA doesn't like that, because it is too hard to prove to a criminal standard of proof.
Tootle pip!!
That would be an entirely logical and coherent reason, so that cannot be the reason.
Having more than a few hours on kero burners, I can demonstrate how to vary endurance remaining greatly, at low level.
In practical terms, a hamfisted pilot can make a nonsense of the fuel remaining, almost whatever "the rool", but I seriously object to <45 minutes in tanks being a strict liability criminal offense, I will go along with <30 minutes as the figure, but NOT as a strict liability criminal offense.
ANY alleged offense in this area should, at most, be a civil offense, if the circumstances are serious negligence under ALL the circumstances, that should be the charge, but CASA doesn't like that, because it is too hard to prove to a criminal standard of proof.
Tootle pip!!
Crikey I think some people are getting a little precious about 1-2litres!
So, rather than bitching and moaning here, Leadie, has anyone actually engaged the regulator on this matter? They are, afterall, draft regulations open for response from industry.
Or are people saying "woe me" and just lovingly bashing casa like every other time a rule changes without trying to do something about it?
Don't get involved, don't have your say, and you WILL have these rules forced upon you, become criminals (allegedly), and then apparently oh-so-importantly be stopped from going to Yankee-land.
Or are people saying "woe me" and just lovingly bashing casa like every other time a rule changes without trying to do something about it?
Don't get involved, don't have your say, and you WILL have these rules forced upon you, become criminals (allegedly), and then apparently oh-so-importantly be stopped from going to Yankee-land.
Gosh, I hadn't realised that there was anyone left who took the "consultation" process seriously.
I've long since stopped caring about these sham consultation processes and the symbolic rules produced by them. I merely try to expose the arrant nonsense of it all, just for personal amusement.
I've long since stopped caring about these sham consultation processes and the symbolic rules produced by them. I merely try to expose the arrant nonsense of it all, just for personal amusement.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if you do nothing (i.e. "I've long since stopped caring") then you should not care about the resultant regulations and you merely become a bitter voice in the wilderness.
A little while ago, I was employed to help an OZ operator (good guy) with a rather fancy equipment upgrade (somewhat unique, I will say).
At the end of the discussions, I politely pointed out that he would need a DER to sign it all off and though I could give him chapter and verse about the requirements and what would happen with the test programme, as I am not a DER I could not sign it off.
Well, I got a very detailed 'blast' about 'CASA, those Bast...s etc'; lots of side bar information that I found very interesting but irrelevant until the whole 'steam' had been let out.
I then, still politely, pointed out that the Type Certificate Holder called the shots on this and that, in fact, the TC was held by the country of manufacture and that that particular country happen to be the USA. i.e. the FAA.
To which he replied: 'Really? I have been told that it is CASA that is giving us bull...t'.
Vague mention of AMROBA and others. In the end, all was good and he 'got it'.
Well, this may not be a big deal to Part 23 aircraft and their operators but I post it here (as sufficient time has elapsed to not embarrass anyone including me!) merely to point out that when you want to 'winge'; get your facts right.
If you want to 'winge' but do not want to actually accept reality, or you decide as you are entitled to do, give up replying to consultation requests, give up on anything positive, then maybe you should just 'give up' completely and find something else in another field to fill in your obviously excess free time.
A little while ago, I was employed to help an OZ operator (good guy) with a rather fancy equipment upgrade (somewhat unique, I will say).
At the end of the discussions, I politely pointed out that he would need a DER to sign it all off and though I could give him chapter and verse about the requirements and what would happen with the test programme, as I am not a DER I could not sign it off.
Well, I got a very detailed 'blast' about 'CASA, those Bast...s etc'; lots of side bar information that I found very interesting but irrelevant until the whole 'steam' had been let out.
I then, still politely, pointed out that the Type Certificate Holder called the shots on this and that, in fact, the TC was held by the country of manufacture and that that particular country happen to be the USA. i.e. the FAA.
To which he replied: 'Really? I have been told that it is CASA that is giving us bull...t'.
Vague mention of AMROBA and others. In the end, all was good and he 'got it'.
Well, this may not be a big deal to Part 23 aircraft and their operators but I post it here (as sufficient time has elapsed to not embarrass anyone including me!) merely to point out that when you want to 'winge'; get your facts right.
If you want to 'winge' but do not want to actually accept reality, or you decide as you are entitled to do, give up replying to consultation requests, give up on anything positive, then maybe you should just 'give up' completely and find something else in another field to fill in your obviously excess free time.
So, rather than bitching and moaning here, Leadie, -------
What, pray tell, makes you think that "bitching and moaning" here is all that I have done??
What have you done about it, anything useful?? Or maybe you support the whole nonsense.
The completely negative response of CASA to most consultation input, I would have thought was well enough known by now, the Forsyth report spells it out very well.
The "45 minutes" fixed final reserve has just been plucked out of the air. So much for the consultation so far, this is not the first round of consultation on this subject.
Tootle pip!!
Leadie, sorry I should have phrased better, the bitching and moaning comment wasn't meant to be directed at you, which is how it looks. The question was posed to you and should have read something along the lines of "so instead of all the bitching and moaning that goes on here, Leadie...."
What have I done about the fuel rules? Nothing yet. I'm still finding holes in other rules and hounding CASA about them. For example previously the ICUS and co-pilot logging of hours in single pilot aircraft. Both of those made it difficult for me to operate, but eventually clarification was forthcoming.
Currently I'm involved in fatigue, simulator/synthetic trainer and Airwork rules. I have not gotten far into the fuel rules yet.
I'm not supporting the nonsense. Fact is it's going to be lumped on us poor sods at the end of the day- better to try get a piece in early and try and make them less ****e for when they do come into force. Remember the part 61 shamozzle? Not enough of us, me included, whinged prior to that. Only once it was realised that it was getting dumped on industry no matter what did anyone really start delving into it.
I guess my point is people should probably put their bitching and moaning to better use rather than here where nothing gets done about it.
Yep unlikely that much will get done at CASA either, but if enough people respond then maybe something gets done.
I suppose I'm less jaded than you. I still have care factor, fire in the belly and don't feel like giving up just yet. Don't care if you think I'm a fool for doing so, at the end of the day even if defeated I can sit back and know I tried rather than rolling over and accepting it without question.
What have I done about the fuel rules? Nothing yet. I'm still finding holes in other rules and hounding CASA about them. For example previously the ICUS and co-pilot logging of hours in single pilot aircraft. Both of those made it difficult for me to operate, but eventually clarification was forthcoming.
Currently I'm involved in fatigue, simulator/synthetic trainer and Airwork rules. I have not gotten far into the fuel rules yet.
I'm not supporting the nonsense. Fact is it's going to be lumped on us poor sods at the end of the day- better to try get a piece in early and try and make them less ****e for when they do come into force. Remember the part 61 shamozzle? Not enough of us, me included, whinged prior to that. Only once it was realised that it was getting dumped on industry no matter what did anyone really start delving into it.
I guess my point is people should probably put their bitching and moaning to better use rather than here where nothing gets done about it.
Yep unlikely that much will get done at CASA either, but if enough people respond then maybe something gets done.
I suppose I'm less jaded than you. I still have care factor, fire in the belly and don't feel like giving up just yet. Don't care if you think I'm a fool for doing so, at the end of the day even if defeated I can sit back and know I tried rather than rolling over and accepting it without question.
So you have to land with 45 mins fuel at the holding flow, but they can't prove how much you used taxiing in, can they? SO unless you have sweet FA in the tanks, "Must've used it on that long taxi in Mr FOI"...
Well, if you do nothing (i.e. "I've long since stopped caring") then you should not care about the resultant regulations and you merely become a bitter voice in the wilderness.
In the specific case of the new grand plan for fuel requirements, they are practically unenforceable. It's hilarious.
Me bitter? Nah. Just pointing out the ongoing absurdities, inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the expensive bugger's muddle that is the regulatory 'reform' program.
I also know that it's a complete waste of time and energy making a submission pointing out that the proposal is completely contrary to every grand statement about what the regulatory 'reform' program would achieve. CASA already knows that its empty rhetoric is just that.
And well done you on helping the Oz good guy.
But your story is irrelevant to rules made by CASA.
Thread Starter
I put in a response to CASA. It wasn't as good as I would have liked as I didn't have much time. I like to put the response together and think about it for a few days before submission but I only found out about this rule change in the last few days and so only had a few hours to formulate a response.
The text is posted below for your dissection.
Dear Glen,
I write to you to express concerns about the proposed change to the CASA’s Fuel quantity requirements(CD 1508OS). The proposed rule as currently written violates the principles of a just culture, contains errors, impacts other rules and regulations in unintended ways and will have doubtful safety benefit. The rule changes should either be abandoned or implemented with significant revisions.
The proposed rules have the effect of making it a 50 penalty unit ($9000) offence to not have the fixed reserve intact when landing at the arrival aerodrome. They also make it a 50 penalty unit offence not declare an emergency when the predicted fuel available at landing will be less than the fixed reserve. The current rules require that you not plan to use the fixed reserve but if required due to circumstances it is available for use. They also only involve the commission of an offence if the action is unsafe. The proposed penalties are out of proportion with the seriousness of the offence and the rules are arbitrary. Further the requirement that a pilot declare a mayday is self-incriminatory and so it is likely that any CASA enforcement action against a pilot who did declare a mayday would fail.
The new rules are not consistent with the ICAO provisions. Clause 2.2.3.6 of Annex 6 of the ICAO provisions required 30 minutes fuel for a VFR flight by day as compared to the 45 minutes required by the new rules. Table 1 in the new rules should be amended to reflect the ICAO rule.
The rules, as written, reference “aerodromes”. It appears that CASR Part 139, CAR 92(1) and CAAP 92-1 make the distinction between aerodromes and “Aircraft landing Areas”. This creates some perverse situations in the proposed rules. For instance rule 6(2) in the new instrument would require an aircraft with low to overfly a suitable ALA to land at an “aerodrome” otherwise a pilot would commit an offence. While it is likely that this is not CASA’s intention it shows sloppy legislative drafting and poor forethought of how the new rules would work in conjunction with the full set of regulations.
The proposed rules have consequences for a significant number of other airspace users. For instance, CAO 95.4 doesn’t exempt a motor glider form CAR 234. The current regulations only require that a flight be operated safely and it therefore doesn’t prohibit a motor glider operating with not fuel at all. This may occur for instance when the glider is launched by a conventional tow to altitude and then soars on thermals in the same manner as a glider without a motor with the motor stowed. The new rules would make this an offence. Many gliders, especially those with sustainer engines would not would be realistically be able to carry the reserves as proposed by the new rule and yet are able to operate safely. This is only one example of many of the broad consequences of the rules as proposed for powered hangliders, powered parachutes, ultralights and others.
The proposed rules are solely focused on prevention of fuel exhaustion and do not address starvation. The ATSB statistics(ATSB – AR-2015-082) from the years 2005 to 2014 show that “Fuel related incidents” are responsible for approximately 2.6% of all General Aviation accidents and serious incidents(table 32). The data doesn’t distinguish between starvation and exhaustion events, nor the cases where the existing rules were not complied with. The ATSB publication, Starved and exhausted: Fuel management aviation accidents(AR-2011-112) indicates that the vast majority (by a 3 to 1 ratio) of fuel miss management accidents are related to starvation, not exhaustion. In the period of that publications statistics (2001 to 2010) there were no fatalities or serious injuries due to exhaustion but 10 fatalities and 18 serious injuries due to starvation.
The proposed changes will not reduce the level of starvation incidents or cases of non-compliance. A more detailed analysis of the data would enable an estimation of the effectiveness of the proposed new rules in addressing safety issues. Without such an analysis the safety justification of the proposed rule cannot be substantiated and therefore the safety benefit of the new rules is dubious. CASA should publish the safety case justifying the rule change before implementation.
For the above reasons, the rules as currently written, should not be implemented without significant further refinement. Given the likely limited safety benefit that these new rules would bring, it would be difficult justify allocating CASA’s limited resources to this task while so many other areas are pending.
The text is posted below for your dissection.
Dear Glen,
I write to you to express concerns about the proposed change to the CASA’s Fuel quantity requirements(CD 1508OS). The proposed rule as currently written violates the principles of a just culture, contains errors, impacts other rules and regulations in unintended ways and will have doubtful safety benefit. The rule changes should either be abandoned or implemented with significant revisions.
The proposed rules have the effect of making it a 50 penalty unit ($9000) offence to not have the fixed reserve intact when landing at the arrival aerodrome. They also make it a 50 penalty unit offence not declare an emergency when the predicted fuel available at landing will be less than the fixed reserve. The current rules require that you not plan to use the fixed reserve but if required due to circumstances it is available for use. They also only involve the commission of an offence if the action is unsafe. The proposed penalties are out of proportion with the seriousness of the offence and the rules are arbitrary. Further the requirement that a pilot declare a mayday is self-incriminatory and so it is likely that any CASA enforcement action against a pilot who did declare a mayday would fail.
The new rules are not consistent with the ICAO provisions. Clause 2.2.3.6 of Annex 6 of the ICAO provisions required 30 minutes fuel for a VFR flight by day as compared to the 45 minutes required by the new rules. Table 1 in the new rules should be amended to reflect the ICAO rule.
The rules, as written, reference “aerodromes”. It appears that CASR Part 139, CAR 92(1) and CAAP 92-1 make the distinction between aerodromes and “Aircraft landing Areas”. This creates some perverse situations in the proposed rules. For instance rule 6(2) in the new instrument would require an aircraft with low to overfly a suitable ALA to land at an “aerodrome” otherwise a pilot would commit an offence. While it is likely that this is not CASA’s intention it shows sloppy legislative drafting and poor forethought of how the new rules would work in conjunction with the full set of regulations.
The proposed rules have consequences for a significant number of other airspace users. For instance, CAO 95.4 doesn’t exempt a motor glider form CAR 234. The current regulations only require that a flight be operated safely and it therefore doesn’t prohibit a motor glider operating with not fuel at all. This may occur for instance when the glider is launched by a conventional tow to altitude and then soars on thermals in the same manner as a glider without a motor with the motor stowed. The new rules would make this an offence. Many gliders, especially those with sustainer engines would not would be realistically be able to carry the reserves as proposed by the new rule and yet are able to operate safely. This is only one example of many of the broad consequences of the rules as proposed for powered hangliders, powered parachutes, ultralights and others.
The proposed rules are solely focused on prevention of fuel exhaustion and do not address starvation. The ATSB statistics(ATSB – AR-2015-082) from the years 2005 to 2014 show that “Fuel related incidents” are responsible for approximately 2.6% of all General Aviation accidents and serious incidents(table 32). The data doesn’t distinguish between starvation and exhaustion events, nor the cases where the existing rules were not complied with. The ATSB publication, Starved and exhausted: Fuel management aviation accidents(AR-2011-112) indicates that the vast majority (by a 3 to 1 ratio) of fuel miss management accidents are related to starvation, not exhaustion. In the period of that publications statistics (2001 to 2010) there were no fatalities or serious injuries due to exhaustion but 10 fatalities and 18 serious injuries due to starvation.
The proposed changes will not reduce the level of starvation incidents or cases of non-compliance. A more detailed analysis of the data would enable an estimation of the effectiveness of the proposed new rules in addressing safety issues. Without such an analysis the safety justification of the proposed rule cannot be substantiated and therefore the safety benefit of the new rules is dubious. CASA should publish the safety case justifying the rule change before implementation.
For the above reasons, the rules as currently written, should not be implemented without significant further refinement. Given the likely limited safety benefit that these new rules would bring, it would be difficult justify allocating CASA’s limited resources to this task while so many other areas are pending.
So you have to land with 45 mins fuel at the holding flow, but they can't prove how much you used taxiing in, can they? SO unless you have sweet FA in the tanks, "Must've used it on that long taxi in Mr FOI"...
Funny you should mention that scenario, because CASA already has, and it cost one operator a lot of money (around AUD$100,000, which is cheep for a full dress AAT) to go to the AAT to prove that the fixed final reserve, as already required by his FCOM, had been depleted during a long hold for a parking bay.
If it had not been a tower airport, the evidence presented to the AAT, that the long taxi time was real, would not have been available.
I personally have had it happen, outside Australia, but the rational and non-aggressive local NAA inspector accepted the "ON" and "IN" times off the ACARS as the taxi time, the CASA FOI would not accept similar figures --- the Captain's signed records of the flight times.
Tootle pip!!
Just realised that "fixed reserve" is defined as fuel required at holding speed at 1500ft AGL of the aerodrome. So that for me for 45 minutes it would be about Ten litres. It is not 45 minutes of cruise fuel.
Either CASA has got it wrong or I misunderstand since there is no way in hell I would ever plan to land with less than. That volume anyway.
Either CASA has got it wrong or I misunderstand since there is no way in hell I would ever plan to land with less than. That volume anyway.
Does anyone have a reference to that court case?
I always thought fixed reserve was only required at the end of the landing roll. Beyond that it is irrelevent. 1 hour taxi-in during thunderstoem activity would not be unusual.
I always thought fixed reserve was only required at the end of the landing roll. Beyond that it is irrelevent. 1 hour taxi-in during thunderstoem activity would not be unusual.
Just realised that "fixed reserve" is defined as fuel required at holding speed at 1500ft AGL of the aerodrome. So that for me for 45 minutes it would be about Ten litres. It is not 45 minutes of cruise fuel.
Either CASA has got it wrong or I misunderstand
Either CASA has got it wrong or I misunderstand
since there is no way in hell I would ever plan to land with less than. That volume anyway.
As another example, does anyone think it prudent of a pilot to take off, knowingly, without the right amount of fuel to get to the destination? If you deem that to be reckless/stupid of that pilot, why would it not be reckless/stupid if the situation was pushed forward in time and they are part way through their journey, realise they don't have the right amount of fuel, and decide to continue rather than divert?
The only real difference between the current CAR234 and the proposed reg being discussed is that they have included the en-route aspect. Under CAR234 if you depart without enough fuel, it is still a strict liability offence. Nobody is whinging about that at the moment so really, why would/should you get a "free ride" because you are now en-route?
I think too many people are getting caught up on only the "you used some FR and that is a criminal offence" aspect rather than thinking what the rule in discussion is actually talking about- it has a precondition to it.
Now, when I get round to tackling the new fuel regs properly, if I see an outright rule that says "if you use any fixed reserve, no matter the reason even if it's totally out of your control, it's a strict liability offence" then you'll see me get angry about that, I promise.
Gosh Car Ramrod, you sure are focussed on theoretical safety issues. You should apply for a job in the regulator.
It depends.
Well, it may be just as safe, or safer, to continue to the original destination and land with only .... deep breaths now, because this could be confronting ... only 40 minutes of reserve. (My profound apologies to readers with delicate constitutions.)
Definitely not. The circumstances do not satisfy the definition of "emergency".
I'm not "fuel critical" and ATC always know I could run out. That's the consequence of being in the air in a powered aircraft with finite fuel capacity. If being under 45 minutes' FR is a "fuel critical" "emergency", how could it possibly be acceptable to allow people to fly around, today, and land with less than that? Surely some kind of AD or grounding action is required?
Car and actus: you'd do yourselves a favour if you researched the cause of accidents that result from no motion lotion getting to the thrust generator. Knowing the cause helps to design systems to reduce the risk of it happening.
Would you, regardless of the new rule, when part way through your flight upon realising you aren't going to make your destination without eating into your FR, divert somewhere if you have the ability to?
If not why not
[W]ould you declare an emergency[?]
[H]ow will atc know you are fuel critical and if they vector you around you could run out?
Car and actus: you'd do yourselves a favour if you researched the cause of accidents that result from no motion lotion getting to the thrust generator. Knowing the cause helps to design systems to reduce the risk of it happening.
When you live....
Ramrod
So whilst you've been critisicing those who have read the rules, you've missed the following:
From the proposed CAR:
and
So - from the proposed Instrument:
and
Time to fire up!
Now, when I get round to tackling the new fuel regs properly, if I see an outright rule that says "if you use any fixed reserve, no matter the reason even if it's totally out of your control, it's a strict liability offence" then you'll see me get angry about that, I promise.
From the proposed CAR:
234 Fuel requirements
(1) For paragraph 98(5A)(a) of the Act, CASA may issue a legislative instrument prescribing requirements relating to fuel for aircraft.
(1) For paragraph 98(5A)(a) of the Act, CASA may issue a legislative instrument prescribing requirements relating to fuel for aircraft.
(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight commits an offence of strict liability if:
(a) the pilot is subject to a requirement under the instrument made for the purposes of subregulation (1) in relation to the flight; and
(b) the pilot does not comply with the requirement in relation to the flight.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(a) the pilot is subject to a requirement under the instrument made for the purposes of subregulation (1) in relation to the flight; and
(b) the pilot does not comply with the requirement in relation to the flight.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) If, as a result of an in-flight fuel quantity check in accordance with subsection 5 (2), the usable fuel expected to be remaining on arrival at the destination aerodrome is less than the fixed fuel reserve (where no alternate aerodrome is required), then the pilot in command must take appropriate action and proceed to an en-route alternate so as to perform a safe landing with not less than the fixed fuel reserve remaining.
(4) The pilot in command must declare a situation of emergency fuel when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the fixed fuel reserve for the flight.
Note The pilot in command must declare an emergency fuel state by broadcasting MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY FUEL. The emergency fuel declaration is a distress message indicating the pilot in command has assessed the aircraft is threatened with grave and imminent danger and requires immediate assistance.
Note The pilot in command must declare an emergency fuel state by broadcasting MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY FUEL. The emergency fuel declaration is a distress message indicating the pilot in command has assessed the aircraft is threatened with grave and imminent danger and requires immediate assistance.
UTR, the rule does not explicitly state that just because some FR is used, for whatever reason, then you are a criminal. The rule states that the strict liability offence is not following the rules (3b). So it reasons, to my brain, that if you comply with what is written (divert or declare mayday fuel), then you have not committed the offence because you have complied with what they have told you.
Once again this situation highlights how poorly the rules are written. People (you or me, I'm not saying I'm right and I'm not saying your right- we have our own interpretations and beliefs and thus far, pprune has not convinced me I'm wrong on this yet) obviously do not get a clear cut understanding on first read.
Leadie, isn't there a lot of theory behind safety in general?
Have you conducted and published a research report on fuel related accidents? 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.
All I know is that this new rule doesn't scare me like it does many others. 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?
There have been some examples posted about motor gliders and ex military aero flights where apparently you can't exactly carry 45 mins let alone the reserve too. This is an area that I do not know about never having operated those types so that's why I have not commented in relation to that, but I will now. Maybe those operators should be pushing their case.
Once again this situation highlights how poorly the rules are written. People (you or me, I'm not saying I'm right and I'm not saying your right- we have our own interpretations and beliefs and thus far, pprune has not convinced me I'm wrong on this yet) obviously do not get a clear cut understanding on first read.
Leadie, isn't there a lot of theory behind safety in general?
Have you conducted and published a research report on fuel related accidents? 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.
All I know is that this new rule doesn't scare me like it does many others. 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?
There have been some examples posted about motor gliders and ex military aero flights where apparently you can't exactly carry 45 mins let alone the reserve too. This is an area that I do not know about never having operated those types so that's why I have not commented in relation to that, but I will now. Maybe those operators should be pushing their case.
Leadie, isn't there a lot of theory behind safety in general?
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?
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 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.
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?
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.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 17th Mar 2016 at 04:59.