New Fuel Rules! Land in a "field" what a joke!
How many years have you been flying, AerocatS2A?
What is the average duration of your flights?
Your judgment strikes me as that of someone who doesn’t do much flying in the kinds of circumstances that I fly. Your judgment of me strikes me as that of someone who has a narrow range of experience.
What is the average duration of your flights?
Your judgment strikes me as that of someone who doesn’t do much flying in the kinds of circumstances that I fly. Your judgment of me strikes me as that of someone who has a narrow range of experience.
Go ahead then, tell me how you spend most of your time flying single piston engined machines filled with ferry tanks and hand pumps across the Pacific.
P.S. 3m, but only with an updraft
mattyj, agreed on the Pan call. I think the key point really is that you tell someone something so you don't get vectored around the place until you run out of fuel.
Well, one thing I can assure you of is that it is the policy listed in the approved ops manual of most airlines that landing with less than FR is a mandatory "mayday".
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Hole in road
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And on a lighter note a lovely story I heard a few years ago.
An older very high hour bush pilot cut his fuel a bit fine in his little Cessna one day heading to a private country strip out in the wheat belt, the little Cessna coughed sputted and stopped and moments later rumbled to a stop in a wheat paddock.
The old fella wasn't much keen on walking the last few km back to the strip and as many a country person would know there is usually a bit left in the tank it just needs some encouragement, so he rocked the plane while sitting in it and noted the gauges gave a slight hint of movement. Movement means there's hope and he figured if he kept rocking it a bit he might get enough to where it will count. Turns out he was on the money as when he turned the key it fired up, so without wasting a moment he fire walled it and got airborne, it was good while it lasted but just didn't last long and stopped again before he got to 100'.
It did however get him into the next paddock and some 800m closer to where he was going. Not yet ready to admit defeat he repeated the rocking trick and again got airborne but again only to about 100' before it coughed and stopped, still he was now another 800 odd metres closer to the strip. After 3 goes and 3 paddocks he made it to the strip.
You're never beaten till you give up.
An older very high hour bush pilot cut his fuel a bit fine in his little Cessna one day heading to a private country strip out in the wheat belt, the little Cessna coughed sputted and stopped and moments later rumbled to a stop in a wheat paddock.
The old fella wasn't much keen on walking the last few km back to the strip and as many a country person would know there is usually a bit left in the tank it just needs some encouragement, so he rocked the plane while sitting in it and noted the gauges gave a slight hint of movement. Movement means there's hope and he figured if he kept rocking it a bit he might get enough to where it will count. Turns out he was on the money as when he turned the key it fired up, so without wasting a moment he fire walled it and got airborne, it was good while it lasted but just didn't last long and stopped again before he got to 100'.
It did however get him into the next paddock and some 800m closer to where he was going. Not yet ready to admit defeat he repeated the rocking trick and again got airborne but again only to about 100' before it coughed and stopped, still he was now another 800 odd metres closer to the strip. After 3 goes and 3 paddocks he made it to the strip.
You're never beaten till you give up.
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.
Your next judgment was:
The fact you didn't realise this in your own planning is a bit of a worry.
You then judged on the basis of your opinion of the safety ‘high ground’, using the deliciously ambiguous word “minimum”:
I guess the difference is that my judgement is about when to take MORE than the minimum fuel, not about when it's ok to eat into the minimum fuel. Your mileage obviously varies. Touch wood, I hope I don't have an experience similar to yours.
The purpose of the fixed reserve is to keep the fuel tank wet.
Upon closer reading of the rule, it appears that in most cases you would be playing with fire even if you came close to running your tanks down to the new requirements.
We would be used to using something like a 45 minute reserve at the cruise burn rate (45 litres in a C206 as an example).
Now (for day VFR at least), they are requiring 30 minutes at "holding burn rate" (something like 25 litres in a C206). Not sure I would be too comfortable letting my tanks get down to those figures in any case (even with modern guages and fuel totalizer).
CASA's supposed intention was to make things safer, but if everyone starts using this 30 minute holding rate rather than 45 minute cruise rate, then CASA might be disappointed to find the outcome of their 'new safety requirement' is more fuel exhaustion incidents/accidents.
We would be used to using something like a 45 minute reserve at the cruise burn rate (45 litres in a C206 as an example).
Now (for day VFR at least), they are requiring 30 minutes at "holding burn rate" (something like 25 litres in a C206). Not sure I would be too comfortable letting my tanks get down to those figures in any case (even with modern guages and fuel totalizer).
CASA's supposed intention was to make things safer, but if everyone starts using this 30 minute holding rate rather than 45 minute cruise rate, then CASA might be disappointed to find the outcome of their 'new safety requirement' is more fuel exhaustion incidents/accidents.
I think I will stick to my personal fuel reserve policy - fixed reserve of 45 minutes plus variable reserve of 10% of all flight fuel required.
This fits into my two rules of aviation safety.
Rule one - don’t fly into the ground
Rule two - always have enough fuel to ensure you do not disregard rule one.
This practice has kept me safe for fifty years and I see no reason to change at this time.
This fits into my two rules of aviation safety.
Rule one - don’t fly into the ground
Rule two - always have enough fuel to ensure you do not disregard rule one.
This practice has kept me safe for fifty years and I see no reason to change at this time.
CASA's supposed intention was to make things safer, but if everyone starts using this 30 minute holding rate rather than 45 minute cruise rate, then CASA might be disappointed to find the outcome of their 'new safety requirement' is more fuel exhaustion incidents/accidents.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs, agree,post #71 is a case in point.
And it seems most achieve that aim, rather than On Eyre's "into the ground". From ED's link 89 events no injuries, 19 minor injuries, 12 serious injuries, 19 fatal (49 lives lost).
By flying on to the ground
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having given the above a little more thought, having 15 minutes in one tank feeding one engine is the same as 30 minutes feeding two, the original concept for FFR remains.
A good example of the desirability of thinking a little more before attacking the keyboard.
Vital Actions Checklist; (1) Brain ---- ON.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
