New Fuel Rules! Land in a "field" what a joke!
“However, if a safe landing location is not an option and you are landing with less than your fixed fuel reserve, then you must declare Mayday Fuel.”
If the above quote from the CASA website from post#1 is taken literally, as long as you have a safe landing location even with than less fixed reserve fuel, you are not required to declare Mayday Fuel.
As to to the possibility of having to land in a paddock, running low on fuel has always been given as one possible reason for a precautionary landing off airport, so no change really.
If the above quote from the CASA website from post#1 is taken literally, as long as you have a safe landing location even with than less fixed reserve fuel, you are not required to declare Mayday Fuel.
As to to the possibility of having to land in a paddock, running low on fuel has always been given as one possible reason for a precautionary landing off airport, so no change really.
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
Surely we all flew on a company minimum fixed reserve at flight school. My company used 45 minutes. We prepared a nav log beforehand as normal in CPL cross country training. A-B-C-A in a tomahawk (he says crossing himself)
the nav log showed that that you did due diligence to the requirements using forecast *sic winds and 95knots cruise. The strips at B and C were remote at times and had no avgas. We planned an overhead join and touch and go at them then onward. Weather and notams and a weight and balance showing that A-B-C-A fuel plus 45 minutes and you and instructor into the underwhelming tomahawk meant that you were 45pounds overweight. Oh well change your weights to standard weight and you were good to go.
4 hours later calling up for joining instructions back into A and the tower says there are 6 in the pattern..hold south of the local town and call back in 5 minutes (of course it’s a fine Sunday afternoon and all the recreational pilots are out flying)
so boom..you’re landing with 40 minutes of fuel..naughty naughty..?
no ...your instructor says ‘there you go..that’s why we take 45 minutes extra fuel’
the nav log showed that that you did due diligence to the requirements using forecast *sic winds and 95knots cruise. The strips at B and C were remote at times and had no avgas. We planned an overhead join and touch and go at them then onward. Weather and notams and a weight and balance showing that A-B-C-A fuel plus 45 minutes and you and instructor into the underwhelming tomahawk meant that you were 45pounds overweight. Oh well change your weights to standard weight and you were good to go.
4 hours later calling up for joining instructions back into A and the tower says there are 6 in the pattern..hold south of the local town and call back in 5 minutes (of course it’s a fine Sunday afternoon and all the recreational pilots are out flying)
so boom..you’re landing with 40 minutes of fuel..naughty naughty..?
no ...your instructor says ‘there you go..that’s why we take 45 minutes extra fuel’
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall from decades ago that the 30 minutes fixed reserve for a 737 was 1200 kgs. That was calculated for a final approach from the Outer Marker, a go around, a circuit to get back to the OM, land, full reverse and run out of fuel on the runway.
One point that doesn’t seem to crack much of a mention here is what happens in-flight to update the fuel plan enroute.
Yes, the first critical step is to work out as accurate a plan on the ground as you can, but then you’ve got to do what you can to ensure it’s working (or not, and make decisions accordingly).
A couple of pinpoints per leg and a watch gives you a ground speed and a fuel flow (depending on the limitations of your your fuel indicating system, but better than blind trust), while any GPS can tell you the time to the next point but not to destination, if there’s a significant track change.
How many of us do these simple but critical calculations in whatever we fly?
If you’re diligent with your fuel management and still get short of fuel due to factors beyond your control, then you’re still way ahead of Joe Bloggs who jumps in and launches in blissful ignorance.
If you’ve done everything right and for some reason are into your fixed reserve, then declare a mayday, get priority and assistance and be bloody happy about it.
If you didn’t plan or check, well have a look in the hall of mirrors.
Yes, the first critical step is to work out as accurate a plan on the ground as you can, but then you’ve got to do what you can to ensure it’s working (or not, and make decisions accordingly).
A couple of pinpoints per leg and a watch gives you a ground speed and a fuel flow (depending on the limitations of your your fuel indicating system, but better than blind trust), while any GPS can tell you the time to the next point but not to destination, if there’s a significant track change.
How many of us do these simple but critical calculations in whatever we fly?
If you’re diligent with your fuel management and still get short of fuel due to factors beyond your control, then you’re still way ahead of Joe Bloggs who jumps in and launches in blissful ignorance.
If you’ve done everything right and for some reason are into your fixed reserve, then declare a mayday, get priority and assistance and be bloody happy about it.
If you didn’t plan or check, well have a look in the hall of mirrors.
Last edited by Arm out the window; 8th Jun 2018 at 21:56.
LS
If it is true that “fixed final reserve may ... not actually be in the tanks” and “you have absolutely no idea of endurance remaining” as a consequence of cumulative errors, despite calculated fuel remaining on landing being 30 minutes, shouldn’t the rule require the declaration of a MAYDAY when calculated FFR on landing falls below 60 minutes? If your actual FOB “might be nothing” at a calculated FOB of 30 minutes, doesn’t the supposed “grave and imminent danger” start 30 minutes earlier?
If it is true that “fixed final reserve may ... not actually be in the tanks” and “you have absolutely no idea of endurance remaining” as a consequence of cumulative errors, despite calculated fuel remaining on landing being 30 minutes, shouldn’t the rule require the declaration of a MAYDAY when calculated FFR on landing falls below 60 minutes? If your actual FOB “might be nothing” at a calculated FOB of 30 minutes, doesn’t the supposed “grave and imminent danger” start 30 minutes earlier?
What concerns me is that this eminently sensible idea in principle will be used as a tool by CASA to continue the embuggerance of GA. For example, a simple check of a weeks fuel dockets, given you know the capacity of the aircraft, and you can pinpoint any large uplifts that might mean transgression of the reserve rule. Similarly FOI's now have an excuse to check your fuel state on arrival.
Furthermore, I fail to see how declaring a fuel emergency on track to Binjimup or some station somewhere is going to get you anything but a "show cause" letter from CASA.
Furthermore, I fail to see how declaring a fuel emergency on track to Binjimup or some station somewhere is going to get you anything but a "show cause" letter from CASA.
Yes, fairly pointless declaring a mayday unless you’re in CTA.
However, people just shouldn’t be landing with less than fixed reserve without a bloody good excuse, so if they get caught out by anyone (CASA, their CP or just someone who knows right from wrong) then they should be explaining themselves, don’t you think?
However, people just shouldn’t be landing with less than fixed reserve without a bloody good excuse, so if they get caught out by anyone (CASA, their CP or just someone who knows right from wrong) then they should be explaining themselves, don’t you think?
LS
If it is true that “fixed final reserve may ... not actually be in the tanks” and “you have absolutely no idea of endurance remaining” as a consequence of cumulative errors, despite calculated fuel remaining on landing being 30 minutes, shouldn’t the rule require the declaration of a MAYDAY when calculated FFR on landing falls below 60 minutes? If your actual FOB “might be nothing” at a calculated FOB of 30 minutes, doesn’t the supposed “grave and imminent danger” start 30 minutes earlier?
If it is true that “fixed final reserve may ... not actually be in the tanks” and “you have absolutely no idea of endurance remaining” as a consequence of cumulative errors, despite calculated fuel remaining on landing being 30 minutes, shouldn’t the rule require the declaration of a MAYDAY when calculated FFR on landing falls below 60 minutes? If your actual FOB “might be nothing” at a calculated FOB of 30 minutes, doesn’t the supposed “grave and imminent danger” start 30 minutes earlier?
The name of the game is to ensure you don’t run out of fuel. By always landing with at least 30 mins indicated or calculated, your chances of running out of fuel should be sufficiently low.
Of course they should “explain themselves”, AOTW.
I planned to land with 45 minutes of fixed reserve, realised I was going have only 30 due to higher than forecast winds, and decided to continue and land with only 30. What’s the safety issue?
I planned to land with 45 minutes fixed reserve, and I have no idea why I only have 30 minutes remaining. That’s a safety issue.
I planned to land with 60 minutes fixed reserve, all of my on ground and in flight calculations confirmed that I was going to land with 60 minutes of fixed reserve, but I ran out of fuel. That’s a safety issue.
So much depends on aircraft-specific knowledge. I’m looking forward to the day that an FOI watches me pump 153 litres into a tank marked “140 Litres Useable”. I’ll explain that I used all the useable unuseable fuel in that tank, to ensure that I had more than enough useable FFR in the other tank in addition to the 11 litres of useable unuseable fuel in that tank.
I planned to land with 45 minutes of fixed reserve, realised I was going have only 30 due to higher than forecast winds, and decided to continue and land with only 30. What’s the safety issue?
I planned to land with 45 minutes fixed reserve, and I have no idea why I only have 30 minutes remaining. That’s a safety issue.
I planned to land with 60 minutes fixed reserve, all of my on ground and in flight calculations confirmed that I was going to land with 60 minutes of fixed reserve, but I ran out of fuel. That’s a safety issue.
So much depends on aircraft-specific knowledge. I’m looking forward to the day that an FOI watches me pump 153 litres into a tank marked “140 Litres Useable”. I’ll explain that I used all the useable unuseable fuel in that tank, to ensure that I had more than enough useable FFR in the other tank in addition to the 11 litres of useable unuseable fuel in that tank.
The guys in that RJ football charter that ran out of fuel probably planned to have 30 and then stuff happened and they ended up with none. Could that have been because they’d got into a habit of treating the fixed reserve as a suggestion that could be burnt if it was inconvenient to refuel somewhere.
Personally I think your example is a safety issue, not because you would be likely to run out of fuel, but because you have a disregard for the rules if following them causes inconvenience.
What rule do I break if I plan to land with 45 minutes FFR then make an in-flight decision to instead land with 30? What rule? I think you’ll find the answer is: No rule.
What is the safety issue if I decide to land with 30 minutes reserve, and I in fact land with 30 minutes reserve? The safety issue.
What if I decided from the start to land with 30 minutes reserve rather than 45, and in fact land with 30? If that’s not a safety issue, why does it become a safety issue if I instead planned to land with 45 minutes reserve then make an in-flight decision to land with 30 as a consequence of higher winds than forcecast, and in fact land with 30?
What is reserve fuel for?
What is the safety issue if I decide to land with 30 minutes reserve, and I in fact land with 30 minutes reserve? The safety issue.
What if I decided from the start to land with 30 minutes reserve rather than 45, and in fact land with 30? If that’s not a safety issue, why does it become a safety issue if I instead planned to land with 45 minutes reserve then make an in-flight decision to land with 30 as a consequence of higher winds than forcecast, and in fact land with 30?
What is reserve fuel for?
AOTW;
Of course they should be explaining themselves. However CASA will prosecute and these are offenses of strict liability.
To put it another way, you don't explain anything to CASA, it will simply be used as evidence against you.
people just shouldn’t be landing with less than fixed reserve without a bloody good excuse, so if they get caught out by anyone (CASA, their CP or just someone who knows right from wrong) then they should be explaining themselves, don’t you think?
To put it another way, you don't explain anything to CASA, it will simply be used as evidence against you.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LS what are you actually commenting on? You are either planning for 30 minutes or you are not. If it is such a small amount of fuel and indeterminate then I would be adding an additional amount for the possible discrepancy. On the one hand you are saying it is difficult to know how much fuel 30 minutes then straight away you are saying thats why there is a FFR. Are your meds up to date?
Only somebody as thick as you and your cohort would not understand!!
I am not "saying" anything, I am (once again) stating a simple fact of the real world.
The origin of the ICAO requirement is well known by those who want to know, and has been well covered in previous threads on the subject.
Tootle pip!!
