New Fuel Rules! Land in a "field" what a joke!
If I have the choice of an unscheduled landing with 30 minutes reserves at West BurrumButtock (where there is no fuel) or continuing ahead to land with 20 minutes reserves at BurrumButtock (where there is fuel).....well then I know what my decision is going to be..
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 49
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you’ve miscalculated your fuel requirements (perhaps been surprised by unforecast winds) and you’re headed to an uncontrolled field outside controlled airspace (CTAF I think y’all call it there) who do you call to declare your emergency? Center? If HF equipped..the CTAF frequency? Will that tick the box..even if you’re the only one flying..then go ahead and land. Or do you have to work harder to ensure you’ve fully incriminated yourself?
My prediction as to the rate of fuel exhaustion and inadvertent fuel starvation incidents in Australia after the new rules are made, compared with before: No statistically significant change.
The problem isn’t a lack of rules. The problem is the general malaise in education and aircraft-specific systems knowledge.
The people who run out of fuel usually don’t plan or decide to. It’s usually a surprise. Someone for whom fuel exhaustion or starvation is a surprise isn’t usually going to know when they had 30 minutes or 45 minutes useable remaining on board or how to use it.
In contrast, the people who know, to the litre, how much useable is left on board in fact, and know how to use it, and land with 10 minutes out of their planned fixed reserve consumed, are not creating any objective risk (the usual skygods’ opinions notwithstanding).
That’s why, as a rare remaining example of that endangered species known as an “outcomes-based rule” in Australian aviation, the rule is effectively: “Though shalt have enough fuel”. Making ever-more prescriptive rules, including mandating MAYDAYS, won’t fix the lack of competence in knowing how to “have enough fuel” and when to broadcast the mandatory MAYDAY.
The problem isn’t a lack of rules. The problem is the general malaise in education and aircraft-specific systems knowledge.
The people who run out of fuel usually don’t plan or decide to. It’s usually a surprise. Someone for whom fuel exhaustion or starvation is a surprise isn’t usually going to know when they had 30 minutes or 45 minutes useable remaining on board or how to use it.
In contrast, the people who know, to the litre, how much useable is left on board in fact, and know how to use it, and land with 10 minutes out of their planned fixed reserve consumed, are not creating any objective risk (the usual skygods’ opinions notwithstanding).
That’s why, as a rare remaining example of that endangered species known as an “outcomes-based rule” in Australian aviation, the rule is effectively: “Though shalt have enough fuel”. Making ever-more prescriptive rules, including mandating MAYDAYS, won’t fix the lack of competence in knowing how to “have enough fuel” and when to broadcast the mandatory MAYDAY.
But this isn't Australia making up a rule to prevent fuel exhaustion . This is Australia aligning itself more with ICAO by implementing an ICAO recommended procedure of how to handle a Minimum Fuel situation . As stated before this was adopted by most of the world around three years ago. This is not going to help a GA driver going into a remote airfield .Nor is it intended too .Only fuel planning/management will do that . This is to ensure consistency for carriers flying into Australia, and Australian carriers flying overseas . Then a low fuel situation will be handled consistently (balloons bro exempted of course) throughout the world . Outside of controlled airfields it ain't much good is it. But more aligned procedures are a good thing.
At least we agree on the above (save for the continuing insult to my brother’s integrity and competence).
The point that some of us are trying to make is that rules (appropriately) adapted to address low fuel risks for transport category aircraft flying in and out of big people’s airports don’t work for non-transport category aircraft flying around in a third world aviation nation like Australia.
Australia already notifies thousands of pages of differences from ICAO (while maintaining the Orwellian fiction that Australia is near the top of the list of complying states - that’s how busted governments have become). A distinction between transport category operations and other operations in the domestic fuel rules won’t result in aluminium confetti.
The point that some of us are trying to make is that rules (appropriately) adapted to address low fuel risks for transport category aircraft flying in and out of big people’s airports don’t work for non-transport category aircraft flying around in a third world aviation nation like Australia.
Australia already notifies thousands of pages of differences from ICAO (while maintaining the Orwellian fiction that Australia is near the top of the list of complying states - that’s how busted governments have become). A distinction between transport category operations and other operations in the domestic fuel rules won’t result in aluminium confetti.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 58
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But this isn't Australia making up a rule to prevent fuel exhaustion . This is Australia aligning itself more with ICAO by implementing an ICAO recommended procedure of how to handle a Minimum Fuel situation . As stated before this was adopted by most of the world around three years ago. This is not going to help a GA driver going into a remote airfield .Nor is it intended too .Only fuel planning/management will do that . This is to ensure consistency for carriers flying into Australia, and Australian carriers flying overseas . Then a low fuel situation will be handled consistently (balloons bro exempted of course) throughout the world . Outside of controlled airfields it ain't much good is it. But more aligned procedures are a good thing.
For commercial, fee paying flights, sure but for certain private flights not so much, but it now gives CASA another weapon to financially cripple some poor private pilot if they take a disliking to them, and do not say this doesn't happen. It would not be hard to make the rule for commercial flights or for private flights greater than 50nm.
Dexta
P.S. looks like LB beat me too it.
Last edited by Dexta; 22nd Jun 2018 at 00:09. Reason: Posted after LB's post
