CASA Fuel and Oil requirements
Thread Starter
CASA Fuel and Oil requirements
I may have missed it in the noise on this forum but I am surprised that there has been no discussion of CASA's proposed new rules for fuel requirements on this site. See link below for details.
https://www.casa.gov.au/regulations-...y-requirements
2 things stand out for me. One is that you need to have 45 minutes of fixed reserve. If you touch that you will commit a 50 penalty unit offence.
The second one is that the CAAP talks of "aerodromes" for both the destination and alternate.. I am not exactly sure of this but is an ALA an aerodrome? Under CASR 139 it only talks about registered and certified aerodromes. The definition of an ALA from the part 139 MOS is:
ALA
Aircraft landing area, being an area for the landing, movement and take-off of aircraft that is not a certified or registered aerodrome.
IF an ALA is not an aerodrome then the way that this new CAAP is written you couldn't use an ALA as an alternate. I wonder if this is a mistake, my misunderstanding or deliberate CASA meddling?
https://www.casa.gov.au/regulations-...y-requirements
2 things stand out for me. One is that you need to have 45 minutes of fixed reserve. If you touch that you will commit a 50 penalty unit offence.
The second one is that the CAAP talks of "aerodromes" for both the destination and alternate.. I am not exactly sure of this but is an ALA an aerodrome? Under CASR 139 it only talks about registered and certified aerodromes. The definition of an ALA from the part 139 MOS is:
ALA
Aircraft landing area, being an area for the landing, movement and take-off of aircraft that is not a certified or registered aerodrome.
IF an ALA is not an aerodrome then the way that this new CAAP is written you couldn't use an ALA as an alternate. I wonder if this is a mistake, my misunderstanding or deliberate CASA meddling?
Limited Category operators are already making their feelings known about the ridiculous fuel reserve proposal. You can write (postage free) to
Reply Paid 2005
Standards Documentation Coordinator
CASA's Standards Development and Quality Assurance Branch
Canberra, ACT 2601
It has significant implications for Yak 52 and jet operators and warbirds transiting to air shows. To my knowledge, no Limited Category aircraft in Australia has ever had an issue with insufficient fuel reserves.
It's just one battle after another with these idiots.
Reply Paid 2005
Standards Documentation Coordinator
CASA's Standards Development and Quality Assurance Branch
Canberra, ACT 2601
It has significant implications for Yak 52 and jet operators and warbirds transiting to air shows. To my knowledge, no Limited Category aircraft in Australia has ever had an issue with insufficient fuel reserves.
It's just one battle after another with these idiots.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everything is old is new again or is it back to the future. When the 45 minute reserve was compulsory prior to the mid 1980s (?) it didn't stop fuel exhaustion then.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Seriously, why are we spending all this money on regulation reform when CASA changes it back again as soon as no-one is looking?
This is basically identical to how it was when I learned to fly in the seventies. In the eighties, pilots were credited with having some brains and it was relaxed to the current situation.
For most GA pilots, who cares? The prudent pilot still works to 45 minutes. In fact, I use 45 min plus 15% for my PRIVATE flying. But for some areas of aviation this is not sensible and probably reduces safety.
Aerobatic flights that are typically about 15 minutes and directly above an airfield is one. Carrying an additional 45 minutes for a 15 minute flight is just plain dumb and blind bureaucracy and the additional fuel mass under a 8-10g load is significant.
I can imagine parachute dropping might be another where the additional weight of fuel might be a performance issues. I'm sure there are many more.
I see that the preamble says that this is due to recent fuel related accidents. When were fuel related accidents ever not a major cause of accidents (if not THE major cause)? If CASA was competent, it would show an analysis of fuel related accidents before and after the previous rule change. The supporting documentation for this proposed rule change does not contain any objective reasons why there is a need for the rule change.
The other justification is alignment with ICAO. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing this and I don't believe it. I have pilot licences in 3 other countries and no one else seems to be slavishly aligning with ICAO like CASA does. I'm suspicious its just a motherhood reason to avoid scrutiny of the changes they want to make for CASA's own benefit.
Interestingly, the area with the greatest change seems to be operation to remote Islands. I wonder if the real motivation is butt covering after Norfolk Island that they are trying to hide with an overall re-write.
Seriously, why are we spending all this money on regulation reform when CASA changes it back again as soon as no-one is looking?
This is basically identical to how it was when I learned to fly in the seventies. In the eighties, pilots were credited with having some brains and it was relaxed to the current situation.
For most GA pilots, who cares? The prudent pilot still works to 45 minutes. In fact, I use 45 min plus 15% for my PRIVATE flying. But for some areas of aviation this is not sensible and probably reduces safety.
Aerobatic flights that are typically about 15 minutes and directly above an airfield is one. Carrying an additional 45 minutes for a 15 minute flight is just plain dumb and blind bureaucracy and the additional fuel mass under a 8-10g load is significant.
I can imagine parachute dropping might be another where the additional weight of fuel might be a performance issues. I'm sure there are many more.
I see that the preamble says that this is due to recent fuel related accidents. When were fuel related accidents ever not a major cause of accidents (if not THE major cause)? If CASA was competent, it would show an analysis of fuel related accidents before and after the previous rule change. The supporting documentation for this proposed rule change does not contain any objective reasons why there is a need for the rule change.
The other justification is alignment with ICAO. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing this and I don't believe it. I have pilot licences in 3 other countries and no one else seems to be slavishly aligning with ICAO like CASA does. I'm suspicious its just a motherhood reason to avoid scrutiny of the changes they want to make for CASA's own benefit.
Interestingly, the area with the greatest change seems to be operation to remote Islands. I wonder if the real motivation is butt covering after Norfolk Island that they are trying to hide with an overall re-write.
This is basically identical to how it was when I learned to fly in the seventies.
Aerobatic flights that are typically about 15 minutes and directly above an airfield is one. Carrying an additional 45 minutes for a 15 minute flight is just plain dumb and blind bureaucracy and the additional fuel mass under a 8-10g load is significant.
I am surprised that there has been no discussion of CASA's proposed new rules for fuel requirements on this site.
Some people understand the concept of not running out of fuel, and have sufficient knowledge and expertise to mitigate the risks of doing so. Some people don't.
Neither group cares much about the latest regulatory non-solution to the underlying problem.
The really important aspect of the current proposal is that the substantive fuel carriage requirements are moved to an instrument made (and changeable) by CASA. There is no fuel carriage standard or outcome specified in the law. This is, of course, directly contrary to all the promises and representations made about the regulatory 'reform' program. But nobody should be surprised about that.
This structure will allow CASA to more quickly implement the next non-solution to the next manifestation of the underlying problem. Again, nobody should be surprised about that.
IF an ALA is not an aerodrome then the way that this new CAAP is written you couldn't use an ALA as an alternate. I wonder if this is a mistake, my misunderstanding or deliberate CASA meddling?
Thread Starter
Haven't read it in detail but if your destination requires an alternate, wouldn't you be some sort of IFR operation? Given ALAs are generally just cleared bits of land to plonk on to, how could you use one as an alternate? No Forecast? No Notam Service?
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'
and
en-route alternate means an alternate aerodrome at which an aircraft would be able to land in the event that a diversion becomes necessary while en-route.
This means that if you are flying along VFR or IFR and say due to head winds are going to eat into your 45 minutes fixed reserve even if only by a liter you must divert to an alternate aerodrome.
When you live....
So if I'm flying say Apollo Bay to King Island - where does CASA expect me to land? Probably a poor example for a few reasons but you get my point - what if there is no enroute alternate?
Carry extra fuel.
It is a bit of a worry that you guys appear to consider it's OK to use your Fixed Reserve just because the wind's a bit stronger than what you'd planned-for...
It is a bit of a worry that you guys appear to consider it's OK to use your Fixed Reserve just because the wind's a bit stronger than what you'd planned-for...
When you live....
Bloggs - as Akro says, I also carry a variable reserve for a PVT flight - point being, there will always be a scenario where there is a need to use the fixed reserve - planned or not. If your argument is that you should be able to plan to never use the fixed reserve then why not make it 1 minute or 5 minutes? What's the point of having a 45 minute reserve?
You do understand that if you declare a PAN PAN for encroaching on your final reserve (or whatever CASA arbitrarily decides you require on board) then you're committing an offense? And this doesn't concern you?
For a remote area operation, there is also a risk to safety in diverting to an alternate and potentially needing to stay overnight in extreme conditions waiting for the required fuel or help to turn up.
You do understand that if you declare a PAN PAN for encroaching on your final reserve (or whatever CASA arbitrarily decides you require on board) then you're committing an offense? And this doesn't concern you?
For a remote area operation, there is also a risk to safety in diverting to an alternate and potentially needing to stay overnight in extreme conditions waiting for the required fuel or help to turn up.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this only applies "...if as result of an inflight fuel calculation IAW with section xxx you determine less than 45 minutes"
Simple just do a basic calculation if you think you are going to nudge into it. Learn and move on.
Simple just do a basic calculation if you think you are going to nudge into it. Learn and move on.
You do understand that if you declare a PAN PAN for encroaching on your final reserve (or whatever CASA arbitrarily decides you require on board) then you're committing an offense? And this doesn't concern you?
For a remote area operation, there is also a risk to safety in diverting to an alternate and potentially needing to stay overnight in extreme conditions waiting for the required fuel or help to turn up.
If you don't like the rules, email Glenn!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Everything old is new again"
Yup, even the shiny new part 61 licence, remarkably like my old licence from 1979, only difference the old licence fitted in your shirt pocket, the new one you need a valise to fit it in, guess the next one will require a wheelbarrow, after that a minivan.
With regards to fuel remaining, I wouldn't worry too much, after the Pel Air disaster.
(sorry incident)
A whole bunch of CAsA experts calculated entirely different fuel burns for the event, all of them were wrong according to the real experts from the industry.
Let the Numpies think or accuse what they like..."prove it"
if you run out completely, well you deserve all you get.
Oh and Bloggsie, you can stand up in court all you like, you've still committed a strict liability offence, for which there is no defence.
Yup, even the shiny new part 61 licence, remarkably like my old licence from 1979, only difference the old licence fitted in your shirt pocket, the new one you need a valise to fit it in, guess the next one will require a wheelbarrow, after that a minivan.
With regards to fuel remaining, I wouldn't worry too much, after the Pel Air disaster.
(sorry incident)
A whole bunch of CAsA experts calculated entirely different fuel burns for the event, all of them were wrong according to the real experts from the industry.
Let the Numpies think or accuse what they like..."prove it"
if you run out completely, well you deserve all you get.
Oh and Bloggsie, you can stand up in court all you like, you've still committed a strict liability offence, for which there is no defence.
So, it begs the question....'Wot's the 45 mins for, IF you can't use it 'in extenuating' circumstances..??
Is it just to keep the sludge slushing around OK?
(There's NO sludge in MY tank)
Going to get a 'coffee'....be back in a while... take ya time.....
Cheers
Is it just to keep the sludge slushing around OK?
(There's NO sludge in MY tank)
Going to get a 'coffee'....be back in a while... take ya time.....
Cheers
Nothings changed in the 30 years I've been flying, it's always been 45 fixed reserve for piston, I was also taught to add 15% veriable if I could carry it.
Having said this, I can understand why some warbirds may be having grief with this.
Maybe point A to point A operations, ie air displays and circuit trainers could warrent a lesser amount, no less than 30 minutes IMHO.
Having said this, I can understand why some warbirds may be having grief with this.
Maybe point A to point A operations, ie air displays and circuit trainers could warrent a lesser amount, no less than 30 minutes IMHO.
The rule is basically saying that you should check your fuel state en-route (I'm guessing a fair percentage of those that have run out probably didn't check very well en-route). If this check tells you that you'll be landing having eaten into your fixed reserve, then you should be diverting to a place where you can still land with the reserve intact.
This rule doesn't say outright that just because you have touched your fixed reserve it is an offence. The offence is to not divert to a place where you can land with the reserve intact but rather continuing and knowingly burning into the reserve.
In the Apollo Bay to King Island example yep that's a bit more of a tough one. Probably should have done a calculation prior to the PNR I suppose.
I'm with Bloggs on this. If I end up eating my fixed reserve because of something a bit more drastically unplanned (headwinds greater than expected would be a piss poor excuse) then I'll happily say g'day to the magistrate. For example you arrive over an aerodrome with legal fuel but your mate ahead of you bellies in and blocks the only runway. No fuel to go elsewhere so the locals grab the Troopie and drag the plane off the strip for you to land. What is the safer option, eat some reserve or divert somewhere and run out on the way?
Oh and why haven't we been getting stuck into these rules yet? Probably still too busy dealing with the part 61 debacle, upcoming fatigue rules and the myriad of other changes all being dumped on us at once.
This rule doesn't say outright that just because you have touched your fixed reserve it is an offence. The offence is to not divert to a place where you can land with the reserve intact but rather continuing and knowingly burning into the reserve.
In the Apollo Bay to King Island example yep that's a bit more of a tough one. Probably should have done a calculation prior to the PNR I suppose.
I'm with Bloggs on this. If I end up eating my fixed reserve because of something a bit more drastically unplanned (headwinds greater than expected would be a piss poor excuse) then I'll happily say g'day to the magistrate. For example you arrive over an aerodrome with legal fuel but your mate ahead of you bellies in and blocks the only runway. No fuel to go elsewhere so the locals grab the Troopie and drag the plane off the strip for you to land. What is the safer option, eat some reserve or divert somewhere and run out on the way?
Oh and why haven't we been getting stuck into these rules yet? Probably still too busy dealing with the part 61 debacle, upcoming fatigue rules and the myriad of other changes all being dumped on us at once.
Emergency fuel 60 gallons... 1 circuit=20 gallons! 
Furphies on Area Freqs on charts, Unicoms on the "My Way Highway" at Ballina and other red herrings being chucked up on a regular basis... 
Oh and why haven't we been getting stuck into these rules yet? Probably still too busy dealing with the
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL @ Alidad. 
IIRC, The vampires internal only fuel endurance is 45 minutes. ??????
Another scenario.. The aeroplane i'm flying, the book says burns 36 litres per hour for the perfect engine/perfect lean.. Planned flight leaves me with 50 mins FOB.
Don't get it leaned right................. oops 50 penalty units.
IIRC the old rules stated Fixed Reserve that You could not PLAN to use
Said nothing about a penalty for using it if you had to.
IIRC, The vampires internal only fuel endurance is 45 minutes. ??????
Another scenario.. The aeroplane i'm flying, the book says burns 36 litres per hour for the perfect engine/perfect lean.. Planned flight leaves me with 50 mins FOB.
Don't get it leaned right................. oops 50 penalty units.
IIRC the old rules stated Fixed Reserve that You could not PLAN to use
Said nothing about a penalty for using it if you had to.