Part 91 - Fuel Reserve.
I like the sound of that statement, but where is your reference from or is this just your personal opinion?
Calculating a landing with 29 minutes of reserve instead of 30 does not, objectively, constitute an emergency. Not on any planet that uses the usual definition of “objective”. The definition of the circumstances that justified a “MAYDAY” call never covered this crap.
I can understand the objective importance, from a safety perspective, of letting ATS know that an aircraft is likely to land with less than the minimum reserves calculated as being required for a flight, as soon as that likelihood becomes apparent. But making it a situation in which a “MAYDAY” is MANDATED, in circumstances in which the ATSB and CASA will descend to conduct an “investigation” of the “systemic” issues on a “just culture” basis so as to shaft the pilot? You can stick that up your a*se.
Why would anyone be surprised at the unwillingness of pilots to let ATS know that there may be a problem?
The problem is not so much the rules (assuming anyone has a clue what they mean). The problem is the contemporary consequences of breaching them.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If an objective standard is applied it will clearly depend on all of the circumstances pertaining at the time.
I have one very antiquated rotating gauge in my top tank and none at all for the belly. No fuel flow meter, either.
So I rely totally on a planned rate of consumption and my watch. I start to feel uncomfortable when I have less than one hour left and the degree of discomfort is proportional to the type of terrain I'm overflying at the time.
I understand that some of you have much more sophisticated means of ascertaining your fuel status 😉
Kaz
I have one very antiquated rotating gauge in my top tank and none at all for the belly. No fuel flow meter, either.
So I rely totally on a planned rate of consumption and my watch. I start to feel uncomfortable when I have less than one hour left and the degree of discomfort is proportional to the type of terrain I'm overflying at the time.
I understand that some of you have much more sophisticated means of ascertaining your fuel status 😉
Kaz
It seems that the "final reserve" fuel carried in an aircraft under the new part 91 Manual of standards is never to be used. If you are ever caught with less that the specified reserve in your tanks then you are a criminal. Moreover, you are required to self incriminate.
Thsi requirement also automatically allows your arriving fuel state to be inspected as part of a ramp check.
Thsi requirement also automatically allows your arriving fuel state to be inspected as part of a ramp check.
Item (4) can be difficult for ATC to understand as EK found out declaring mayday fuel into YVR, ATC said you have YYJ (Victoria) just abeam you which is closer, you sure you want to continue to YVR ? Been a lot of crew applying this incorrectly in the past year in Taiwan and India to get ATC priority. They have been declaring minimum or mayday fuel when they have go below minimum diversion fuel. That is not the case.
Minimum fuel and mayday fuel levels are low, and it is very possible to land below fixed reserve even if you had planned to protect it. For example if you have a very close in alternate like AVV for MEL. You would not be committed to MEL as AVV is so close in, however a diversion to AVV would cost a lot the same amount of fuel as an IFR circuit and approach back into MEL.
Bit like coming into SYD, declaring minimum fuel in the hold at BOREE, Mayday fuel after BELKO and told XRH to your right is closer, state your intentions. My intentions, standby evaluate the information for a minute or two. SYD is now closer.
There no particular requirement to have fixed reserve upon shutdown, there are times I have had to wait for hours to get a gate/stand during poor Wx.
For anyone interested in further detail on the ICAO basis for this feel free to read the “Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual”. http://www.ifalpa.org/store/doc9976.pdf
30 minutes at what fuel burn rate? Cruise? Econ cruise? Holding pattern speed? Climb?
Many (if not most) competition aerobatic flights take-off with less than 30 min fuel. I suspect many skydiving flights would not have much more.
This is a stupid regulation made by ignorant or unthinking people. It shows disrespect for a pilots judgement. It’s back to the pre-deregulation days of the eighties in one easy step.
Many (if not most) competition aerobatic flights take-off with less than 30 min fuel. I suspect many skydiving flights would not have much more.
This is a stupid regulation made by ignorant or unthinking people. It shows disrespect for a pilots judgement. It’s back to the pre-deregulation days of the eighties in one easy step.
Last edited by Old Akro; 1st Apr 2018 at 06:06.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BACK TO THE PAST
Apologies for a slight thread drift and an admission that I've little to do with the CASA Part 91 as we have adopted the NZ rules here in paradise.
Way back when (note the aircraft type for a temporal reference) I was a newly minted controller I had an F4 call me at Amberley, "Amberley ground, Buckshot 28 taxi one for Willy, minimum fuel."
Bit of discussion in the tower with SATCO present and eventually I was tasked with providing a brief on the issue at the following day's mass morning brief -as we did in those days.
The pilot made the correct call, given the forecasts, a couple of NOTAMs and fuel carriage.
MJG
sitting in my weekend office in the dining shelter of The George Hotel Betio in downtown Tarawa
P. S. Grew up in aviation from 1968 with the Australian legislation and had a year "regulating" the AIP but having worked with them now for a couple of years and recently had need to compare some parts with the CASA views and attitude - NZ gets my vote.
Way back when (note the aircraft type for a temporal reference) I was a newly minted controller I had an F4 call me at Amberley, "Amberley ground, Buckshot 28 taxi one for Willy, minimum fuel."
Bit of discussion in the tower with SATCO present and eventually I was tasked with providing a brief on the issue at the following day's mass morning brief -as we did in those days.
The pilot made the correct call, given the forecasts, a couple of NOTAMs and fuel carriage.
MJG
sitting in my weekend office in the dining shelter of The George Hotel Betio in downtown Tarawa
P. S. Grew up in aviation from 1968 with the Australian legislation and had a year "regulating" the AIP but having worked with them now for a couple of years and recently had need to compare some parts with the CASA views and attitude - NZ gets my vote.
MG: It seems the call of “minimum fuel” was made because that was the fuel with which, all relevant factors considered, the aircraft was calculated to land at YWLM. That fact did not mean the aircraft was threatened with grave and imminent danger, requiring immediate assistance. It was a fact that should have been taken into account by ATC in clearing the aircraft throughout the flight, so as to reduce the chances of the flight becoming an emergency. Or maybe the pilot was a dangerous criminal and you should have refused to issue the clearance, without the declaration of an emergency. I imagine that Phantom knucks were shy and retiring types and would have accepted refusal with good grace ....
topdrop: I realise that many people crave the certainty of hard-and-fast rules for every situation. My objection is to turning, into an ‘emergency’, every situation in which fuel state is calculated to result in fuel available on landing being less than an arbitrary number. It is an arbitrary number because, on the objective facts, some of these situations won’t be real emergencies. Whether it’s a real emergency depends on the circumstances pertaining at the time (to borrow kaz’s phrase from a post above with which I agree).
Jenna: One of the points I am trying to make is that the effect of the proposed rule is to make it a criminal offence to, among other things, FAIL to declare a MAYDAY as soon as your calculations indicate e.g a 1 minute shortfall. Doesn’t matter whether it’s a clear day with little-to-no traffic at your destination.
This rule isn’t going to stop aircraft suffering fuel exhaustion. The pilots who make mistakes that result in fuel exhaustion are generally not the pilots who make accurate on-ground and enroute estimates of the fuel that will remain on landing. Otherwise, they’d probably not fly to exhaustion...
And the rule won’t stop fuel starvation.
Most ‘good idea’ rules result in unintended consequences. Will there be commercial pressures for flights into busy airports to be conducted with fuel that can reasonably be calculated as resulting in a 1 minute shortfall/margin in minimum reserves, resulting in an an obliged declaration of an “emergency” and some priority?
Most counter-intuitive rules are the product of some bureaucratic nonsense. Is the problem that if a pilot tells ATC/S that, on current calculations, the aircraft will land with only 29 minutes of reserves, ATC/S shrugs and carries on as usual, but if the pilot declares a MAYDAY in exactly the same circumstances ATC/S does stuff?
By the way, it should go without saying, but I’ll say it: We’re all trying to achieve the same end - safe aviation
topdrop: I realise that many people crave the certainty of hard-and-fast rules for every situation. My objection is to turning, into an ‘emergency’, every situation in which fuel state is calculated to result in fuel available on landing being less than an arbitrary number. It is an arbitrary number because, on the objective facts, some of these situations won’t be real emergencies. Whether it’s a real emergency depends on the circumstances pertaining at the time (to borrow kaz’s phrase from a post above with which I agree).
Jenna: One of the points I am trying to make is that the effect of the proposed rule is to make it a criminal offence to, among other things, FAIL to declare a MAYDAY as soon as your calculations indicate e.g a 1 minute shortfall. Doesn’t matter whether it’s a clear day with little-to-no traffic at your destination.
This rule isn’t going to stop aircraft suffering fuel exhaustion. The pilots who make mistakes that result in fuel exhaustion are generally not the pilots who make accurate on-ground and enroute estimates of the fuel that will remain on landing. Otherwise, they’d probably not fly to exhaustion...
And the rule won’t stop fuel starvation.
Most ‘good idea’ rules result in unintended consequences. Will there be commercial pressures for flights into busy airports to be conducted with fuel that can reasonably be calculated as resulting in a 1 minute shortfall/margin in minimum reserves, resulting in an an obliged declaration of an “emergency” and some priority?
Most counter-intuitive rules are the product of some bureaucratic nonsense. Is the problem that if a pilot tells ATC/S that, on current calculations, the aircraft will land with only 29 minutes of reserves, ATC/S shrugs and carries on as usual, but if the pilot declares a MAYDAY in exactly the same circumstances ATC/S does stuff?
By the way, it should go without saying, but I’ll say it: We’re all trying to achieve the same end - safe aviation
Originally Posted by Old Akro
30 minutes at what fuel burn rate? Cruise? Econ cruise? Holding pattern speed? Climb?
Originally Posted by Led Balon
It was a fact that should have been taken into account by ATC in clearing the aircraft throughout the flight, so as to reduce the chances of the flight becoming an emergency.
So why do you think the Phantom knuck included “minimum fuel” in his call to Ground prior to departure? There’s usually a reason for the inclusion of information in calls to ATC. I can’t think of too many mandatory calls that include irrelevant trivia.
Hopefully MG will tell us why the conclusion of his homework was that the information was correctly included in the call, and what was done about that information. I’d anticipate that the Phantom knuck would have been a little perturbed if everyone in the ATC system merely shrugged and thought: “I wish him luck”.
Hopefully MG will tell us why the conclusion of his homework was that the information was correctly included in the call, and what was done about that information. I’d anticipate that the Phantom knuck would have been a little perturbed if everyone in the ATC system merely shrugged and thought: “I wish him luck”.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A commercial flight flying from A to B and a military operation to do military training (with an installed Martin Baker let down option ) are completely different. As is an aerobatic aircraft doing a display overhead the airfield. Best we compare apples with apples.
If you don’t want a hard line drawn at 30 minutes, what number do you want??? If the rest of the world seems happy with 30, why are you so different??? What makes Australia so unique that we can’t comply with ICAO??
Yes the rules are written quite abruptly, if that’s the problem then complain about that and not the actual outcome of the law. Strict liability offences can still be defended, weather is an obvious one, higher levels not available due traffic will probably get you off too. Failure to plan properly will most likely not cut it....
If you can’t demonstrate to yourself or an inspector your ability to successfully complete a flight plan and allowing for a fixed reserve of 30 minutes ... best you don’t go flying that day!
If you don’t want a hard line drawn at 30 minutes, what number do you want??? If the rest of the world seems happy with 30, why are you so different??? What makes Australia so unique that we can’t comply with ICAO??
Yes the rules are written quite abruptly, if that’s the problem then complain about that and not the actual outcome of the law. Strict liability offences can still be defended, weather is an obvious one, higher levels not available due traffic will probably get you off too. Failure to plan properly will most likely not cut it....
If you can’t demonstrate to yourself or an inspector your ability to successfully complete a flight plan and allowing for a fixed reserve of 30 minutes ... best you don’t go flying that day!
If the rest of the world seems happy with 30, why are you so different??? What makes Australia so unique that we can’t comply with ICAO??
Your other points - well said.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the rules are written quite abruptly, if that’s the problem then complain about that and not the actual outcome of the law. Strict liability offences can still be defended, weather is an obvious one, higher levels not available due traffic will probably get you off too. Failure to plan properly will most likely not cut it....!
Honest mistakes are commonly made, but Courts seldom find them to have been reasonable. Necessity is generally about a threat to life or urgent safety considerations.
Both hard to make out but the cost of defending against a Regulator with deep pockets can break most of us.
The NZ Reg is an easy read by comparison to this essay.
Kaz
Thread Starter
Capn Bloggs. I am perfectly happy with 30 minutes. What I am NOT HAPPY with are the self incrimination and draconian punishments if you use any of it.
Furthermore, the logic of the proposed regulation and the MOS is block headed and an invitation to crime. If the government wishes to require a thirty minute fuel supply be kept on board an aircraft and criminalizes its use, then mount a 30 minute tank on the aircraft and put a seal on it. Don't call it a reserve. because a reserve is fuel available to be used at the will of the pilot without penalty.
Furthermore, the logic of the proposed regulation and the MOS is block headed and an invitation to crime. If the government wishes to require a thirty minute fuel supply be kept on board an aircraft and criminalizes its use, then mount a 30 minute tank on the aircraft and put a seal on it. Don't call it a reserve. because a reserve is fuel available to be used at the will of the pilot without penalty.
Last edited by Sunfish; 2nd Apr 2018 at 01:42.
I’ll try again: It’s not about the number. It’s about the number always being an emergency and mandatory MAYDAY.
Rules that make true that which is untrue leave a mess of unintended consequences in their wake.
Riddle me this: What’s the impediment to ATC taking action when a pilot reports “I’ve calculated that we’ll land with less than minimum reserves”?
Rules that make true that which is untrue leave a mess of unintended consequences in their wake.
Riddle me this: What’s the impediment to ATC taking action when a pilot reports “I’ve calculated that we’ll land with less than minimum reserves”?
If you declare and land with less, I believe that's ok. I don't see where in the proposed rules that doing such is strict liability. It's not doing it that ends up strict liability.
In short;
91.320 (1)d says there are procedures to be followed in the MOS when specified amounts are reached.
91.320 (2) says you that if you don't meet a requirement of section (1) then you contravene the regs.
Therefore, if you don't follow the procedure you contravene the regs. Conversely if you follow the procedure you do not contravene the regs.
Any legal wizards out there???
What's with this 'self incrimination'
Doesnt the LAW as opposed RULES say that ...one is innocent until proven guilty and you need not say, do or write antyhing that may incriminate yourself.
What's with this 'self incrimination'
Doesnt the LAW as opposed RULES say that ...one is innocent until proven guilty and you need not say, do or write antyhing that may incriminate yourself.
Folks,
If you look back through the archives, we have gone through all this before.
In particular, in one post, long ago, I gave a brief history of all the close go fuel exhaustion cases, and several "wents", to airline aircraft, that resulted in the ICAO standard of 30 minutes fixed final reserve.
Briefly, it is to ensure, based on all the "order of accuracy" issues, that "on the day", you have at least some fuel remaining at touchdown, so that any or all engines are "Turning and(or) burning".
This 30 minutes is NOT flight or holding fuel.
As usual, CASA have made a complete pigs ear out of a regulatory issue that should largely be handled as an educational matter, before the event, not a strict liability criminal matter, after the event.
Tootle pip!!
If you look back through the archives, we have gone through all this before.
In particular, in one post, long ago, I gave a brief history of all the close go fuel exhaustion cases, and several "wents", to airline aircraft, that resulted in the ICAO standard of 30 minutes fixed final reserve.
Briefly, it is to ensure, based on all the "order of accuracy" issues, that "on the day", you have at least some fuel remaining at touchdown, so that any or all engines are "Turning and(or) burning".
This 30 minutes is NOT flight or holding fuel.
As usual, CASA have made a complete pigs ear out of a regulatory issue that should largely be handled as an educational matter, before the event, not a strict liability criminal matter, after the event.
Tootle pip!!