New Fuel Rules! Land in a "field" what a joke!
Thread Starter
CASA web page change
The CASA link referenced in post #1 has been amended to delete the suggestion that you might have to land in a "field". This I understand was the result of various representations from some in industry. The original quote:
The amendment in full:
This change has been presented very poorly, with certainly no apparent consideration of the differences between ICAO ops (RPT etc) and domestic GA operations and no indication of what the problem was that they were trying to fix? Is the possibility of a strict liability offence going to help the average GA pilot speak up??
Does anyone in the regulator fly GA these days?
Rule One - don't run our of fuel!
If this occurs, make an alternate plan to land safely with sufficient fuel at a different location than you had originally planned. Your new safe landing location will depend on your aircraft capabilities and the conditions. In some instances, it may not even be an aerodrome but could be a field.
In-flight fuel management
From 8 November 2018, all pilots must conduct in-flight fuel management, including in-flight fuel quantity checks at regular intervals.
When conducting these checks, you may discover that you would be landing at your original planned destination without sufficient fuel, that is, your fixed fuel reserve remaining.
If this occurs, make an alternate plan to land safely with sufficient fuel at a different location than you had originally planned. Your new safe landing location will depend on your aircraft capabilities and the conditions.
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.
Preserving fixed fuel reserve is the foundation for in-flight fuel decision making which in-turn leads to safer operations.
That doesn't mean that in all instances preserving your fixed fuel reserve is the highest priority. There may be occasions where it is more important to exercise your judgement to determine the safest outcome, which may include landing with less than fixed fuel reserve remaining.
From 8 November 2018, all pilots must conduct in-flight fuel management, including in-flight fuel quantity checks at regular intervals.
When conducting these checks, you may discover that you would be landing at your original planned destination without sufficient fuel, that is, your fixed fuel reserve remaining.
If this occurs, make an alternate plan to land safely with sufficient fuel at a different location than you had originally planned. Your new safe landing location will depend on your aircraft capabilities and the conditions.
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.
Preserving fixed fuel reserve is the foundation for in-flight fuel decision making which in-turn leads to safer operations.
That doesn't mean that in all instances preserving your fixed fuel reserve is the highest priority. There may be occasions where it is more important to exercise your judgement to determine the safest outcome, which may include landing with less than fixed fuel reserve remaining.
Does anyone in the regulator fly GA these days?
Rule One - don't run our of fuel!
Something cockeyed somewhere...
This (same as OP's) link still has the field comment (I do have "check for newer versions every time I visit" set) : https://www.casa.gov.au/publications...alian-aircraft
And in the CAAP section, there is only 234 version 1, not 2, as mentioned on https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/landing-page/fuel
This (same as OP's) link still has the field comment (I do have "check for newer versions every time I visit" set) : https://www.casa.gov.au/publications...alian-aircraft
And in the CAAP section, there is only 234 version 1, not 2, as mentioned on https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/landing-page/fuel
The changes to the content of the CASA webpage are a manifestation of the completely busted regulatory ‘reform’ program we have.
There is no longer any process of proper policy development and rule making. The policy is whatever one or two people with strong opinions in CASA - on six figure salaries of course - decide the policy should be from time-to-time, translated into regulatory requirements from time-to-time to become ‘objective truths’.
If Leadsled was in there, his strong opinions would become the ‘objective truths’. If Aerocat was in there, his strong opinions would become the ‘objective truths’. And so on for Lookleft etc.
Policy ‘development’ in aviation regulation is a process of trying to change the strong opinions of individuals in the regulator. That’s not how policy is developed and implemented in efficiently functioning regulatory regimes.
I coughed up my muesli when I read that. It’s an outrage!
I demand the right to continue to take off and ignore the fuel gauges, fuel flow meter and fuel totaliser, refrain from doing groundspeed checks to confirm whether my actual flight time will be the same as planned, and just declare a MAYDAY when the fuel runs out.
You’re getting there, slowly.
Try this as the next amendment: As pilot in command you are always required to exercise your judgment to determine the safest outcome, which may include landing with less than fixed fuel reserve remaining.
There is no longer any process of proper policy development and rule making. The policy is whatever one or two people with strong opinions in CASA - on six figure salaries of course - decide the policy should be from time-to-time, translated into regulatory requirements from time-to-time to become ‘objective truths’.
If Leadsled was in there, his strong opinions would become the ‘objective truths’. If Aerocat was in there, his strong opinions would become the ‘objective truths’. And so on for Lookleft etc.
Policy ‘development’ in aviation regulation is a process of trying to change the strong opinions of individuals in the regulator. That’s not how policy is developed and implemented in efficiently functioning regulatory regimes.
From 8 November 2018, all pilots must conduct in-flight fuel management, including in-flight fuel quantity checks at regular intervals.
I demand the right to continue to take off and ignore the fuel gauges, fuel flow meter and fuel totaliser, refrain from doing groundspeed checks to confirm whether my actual flight time will be the same as planned, and just declare a MAYDAY when the fuel runs out.
There may be occasions where it is more important to exercise your judgement to determine the safest outcome, which may include landing with less than fixed fuel reserve remaining.
Try this as the next amendment: As pilot in command you are always required to exercise your judgment to determine the safest outcome, which may include landing with less than fixed fuel reserve remaining.
LB why is your amendment better than the CASA one, isn't it just semantics? Why does the pilot in command bit need to be added? I would have thought that the "exercise your judgement" would only be referring to the PIC.
Exercising your judgment to determine the safest outcome is of continuous paramount importance. I’d be interested in hearing the reasons for strong opinions to the contrary.
If this was the only statement in the amendment
I would agree but you have to include the whole section to have any context which includes:
Really, it is just semantics. I don't disagree with your sentence as a stand alone statement but I also don't disagree with the massage that CASA are trying to put out. Ultimately, who cares? However pilots want to run their flight is entirely up to them, but if the engine runs out of fuel before the mixture is put to the ICO position then the pilot will probably need to explain why.
“there may be occasions where it is more important to exercise your judgement to determine the safest outcome” implies that exercising judgment to determine the safest outcome is only occasionally of paramount importance.
Preserving fixed fuel reserve is the foundation for in-flight fuel decision making which in-turn leads to safer operations. That doesn't mean that in all instances preserving your fixed fuel reserve is the highest priority.
We’ll have to agree to disagree with it just being semantics. But I agree entirely with your subsequent point.
Folks,
If I was "in CASA", it would not be "objective truths", but for every rule proposed it would be a risk analysis process, and cost/benefit justification, and many of the "rools" would never see the light of day.
The 1998 draft of CASA Part 91 was an example of that process, if you can find a copy, you will be very surprised as what a concise and clear document resulted. Its page and word count is significantly less than the FAA or NZ CAA equivalents -- it is amazing what a bit of ruthless pruning (without the double p) can do, without reducing the utility of the document for its the core purpose --- General Operating and Flight Rules. Of course, in total contrast to the current draft, about five times the page count, and often bordering on the indecipherable.
Indeed, at one point, when I did have some influence, CASA did a very instructive exercise, in part with two performance based rules consultants from the ATO, of all places.
The rules set chosen for the exercise was a slab of the maintenance rules. Using outcome based performance criteria, risk analysis based on probable "air safety outcomes" and benefit/cost analysis, something in the order of 70% of the maintenance rules would have been scrubbed, leaving what "common sense" said most people would probably do, anyway, but things like "ICAO" still required a minimum.
Interestingly, in mid 1990s, "mandatory" fuel reserves were scrubbed, in favour of better education for both pre-flight planning and in-flight monitoring ----- but "mandatory" fuel rules remained in Operations Manuals.
The results were instructive. In subsequent years up to the post-implementation review, amongst non-AOC operations, fuel exhaustion accidents had a major and statistically significant reduction, in AOC operations, the numbers did not change. So much for the power of "mandatory". But FOIs hated the idea, so much less to "pingya" on ramp checks.
The big message here ---- for real risk management (aka "air safety") it is using your brains that counts, not slavish and mindless conformity with "the rules".
Tootle pip!!
If I was "in CASA", it would not be "objective truths", but for every rule proposed it would be a risk analysis process, and cost/benefit justification, and many of the "rools" would never see the light of day.
The 1998 draft of CASA Part 91 was an example of that process, if you can find a copy, you will be very surprised as what a concise and clear document resulted. Its page and word count is significantly less than the FAA or NZ CAA equivalents -- it is amazing what a bit of ruthless pruning (without the double p) can do, without reducing the utility of the document for its the core purpose --- General Operating and Flight Rules. Of course, in total contrast to the current draft, about five times the page count, and often bordering on the indecipherable.
Indeed, at one point, when I did have some influence, CASA did a very instructive exercise, in part with two performance based rules consultants from the ATO, of all places.
The rules set chosen for the exercise was a slab of the maintenance rules. Using outcome based performance criteria, risk analysis based on probable "air safety outcomes" and benefit/cost analysis, something in the order of 70% of the maintenance rules would have been scrubbed, leaving what "common sense" said most people would probably do, anyway, but things like "ICAO" still required a minimum.
Interestingly, in mid 1990s, "mandatory" fuel reserves were scrubbed, in favour of better education for both pre-flight planning and in-flight monitoring ----- but "mandatory" fuel rules remained in Operations Manuals.
The results were instructive. In subsequent years up to the post-implementation review, amongst non-AOC operations, fuel exhaustion accidents had a major and statistically significant reduction, in AOC operations, the numbers did not change. So much for the power of "mandatory". But FOIs hated the idea, so much less to "pingya" on ramp checks.
The big message here ---- for real risk management (aka "air safety") it is using your brains that counts, not slavish and mindless conformity with "the rules".
Tootle pip!!
Is there anyone who has commented on this thread that would be happy to jump on a Virgin, QF, Jstar or Tiger flight from Brissy to Sydney if the Captain was planning on landing at destination with 45 minutes of fuel remaining in tanks?
Just wondering.
Just wondering.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well now there’s a loaded suggestion. Need a lot of extra information Framer..what’s the weather for a starter..what time of day? As a multiple vector runway on a lovely day with nothing in TAFs or TTFs to hold extra fuel for, outside of the times when extra holding fuel is required (or even if the holding fuel was required to be used) you wouldn’t get too much change out of 45 minutes (especially if you’re talking holding fuel on 2 engines at 1500’ or whatever the CAOs say these days)
Depends on your company requirements of course but the accounting department doesn’t like you burning fuel to carry fuel on a domestic flight either..that’s for sure
Depends on your company requirements of course but the accounting department doesn’t like you burning fuel to carry fuel on a domestic flight either..that’s for sure
As matty suggests, framer, it depends on what assumptions the Captain makes. If the Captain makes completely unreasonable assumptions about how ‘swimmingly’ the ATC system is going to work, and interprets all of the forecasts wearing a ‘pollyanhah’ hat rather than conservatively, I’m not happy theoretically.
But the new rules are going to ‘fix’ this problem. If the ATC system and forecasts don’t ‘work out’, the captain just declares a MAYDAY at 30 minutes calculated left on board, and we get priority. If I’m in a hurry to get into Sydney as a passenger I’d prefer the captain to plan on the ‘best case’, get stuffed around by ATC and inaccurate forecasts then get priority on declaration of MAYDAY due 30 minutes remaining.
All rules have unintended consequences...
But the new rules are going to ‘fix’ this problem. If the ATC system and forecasts don’t ‘work out’, the captain just declares a MAYDAY at 30 minutes calculated left on board, and we get priority. If I’m in a hurry to get into Sydney as a passenger I’d prefer the captain to plan on the ‘best case’, get stuffed around by ATC and inaccurate forecasts then get priority on declaration of MAYDAY due 30 minutes remaining.
All rules have unintended consequences...
Yip, I’ll wear that. Bit of a silly question without more info. I’m curious if anyone would be happy with what I am picturing so I will try to put a bit more info around it and see if I can make a clear scenario;
perfect flying weather, CAVOK, 15 degrees, 5 knots of wind, no chance of rain or fog or dust storms or smoke etc.
Lets make the flight Syd- Melbourne landing at 10am so the holding fuel is only 10 minutes. Required fixed fuel reserve is of course 30 minutes.
No other notams or interesting factors that would lead a reasonable person to expect delays beyond the Notam’d 10 minutes ATC holding.
Anyone ok with a Jetstar or Tiger or Virgin or QF skipper planning to arrive with 45 minutes of fuel in tanks?
what’s the weather for a starter..what time of day?
Lets make the flight Syd- Melbourne landing at 10am so the holding fuel is only 10 minutes. Required fixed fuel reserve is of course 30 minutes.
No other notams or interesting factors that would lead a reasonable person to expect delays beyond the Notam’d 10 minutes ATC holding.
Anyone ok with a Jetstar or Tiger or Virgin or QF skipper planning to arrive with 45 minutes of fuel in tanks?
As a passenger, I’m ecstatic! Go for it.
The sooner you have to call MAYDAY and get me to the gate as a matter or priority, the better!
The sooner you have to call MAYDAY and get me to the gate as a matter or priority, the better!
I’m declaring bankruptcy to avoid having to spend the funds I have in reserve to avoid bankruptcy....
The change in language in CASA’s blurb suggests that someone finally paused for a moment to ponder the question: What is reserve fuel for? Then it dawned on them: Maybe it’s safer to fly 10 minutes into your reserve to get to your destination than do a precautionary landing in a field to preserve that 10 minutes of reserve.
CASA might look a little less silly if it paused to ponder these kinds of questions before leaping to print.
The change in language in CASA’s blurb suggests that someone finally paused for a moment to ponder the question: What is reserve fuel for? Then it dawned on them: Maybe it’s safer to fly 10 minutes into your reserve to get to your destination than do a precautionary landing in a field to preserve that 10 minutes of reserve.
CASA might look a little less silly if it paused to ponder these kinds of questions before leaping to print.
No, but it's one thing you should consider- so just how little fuel are you willing to land at destination with having over-flown safe landing sites??
Never ceases to amaze me the hysteria that get's set off in Aus when a rule identical to how the rest of the world has operated for decades is introduced.
Final reserve is just that, and if you have to use it it's because you've screwed the pooch and is an emergency. That doesn't mean don't use some of it, it means you are in an emergency situation and need to act accordingly. Considering all options including an out landing- something people used to do as routine (and glider pilots still do)- is just good airmanship.
Final reserve is just that, and if you have to use it it's because you've screwed the pooch and is an emergency. That doesn't mean don't use some of it, it means you are in an emergency situation and need to act accordingly. Considering all options including an out landing- something people used to do as routine (and glider pilots still do)- is just good airmanship.
Your calm and sober posts assume that all destinations are surrounded by safe landing sites, and assume all circumstances in which some of the FFR is consumed are caused by mistakes on the part of the PIC.
Pardon my hysteria, but I’d suggest your assumptions may not be valid.
You’re flying from YBHI to YTIB. You plan to carry, and triple check that you’re carrying, 45 minutes’ margin. Your enroute checks confirm that you should arrive arrive overhead YTIB with 45 minutes’ margin, as planned.
10 miles out you put out a CTAF call. You receive a response from ABC: “I’m on the ground at YTIB. My mate in DEF has just landed wheels up in his Baron and is on the sealed runway at the intersection of it and the gravel runway. The refueller’s on his way. He says that we should be able to drag DEF off the runway within 20 minutes.”
There’s insufficient fuel to return to YBHI.
What mistakes did you make and where will you be conducting your forced landing?
Pardon my hysteria, but I’d suggest your assumptions may not be valid.
You’re flying from YBHI to YTIB. You plan to carry, and triple check that you’re carrying, 45 minutes’ margin. Your enroute checks confirm that you should arrive arrive overhead YTIB with 45 minutes’ margin, as planned.
10 miles out you put out a CTAF call. You receive a response from ABC: “I’m on the ground at YTIB. My mate in DEF has just landed wheels up in his Baron and is on the sealed runway at the intersection of it and the gravel runway. The refueller’s on his way. He says that we should be able to drag DEF off the runway within 20 minutes.”
There’s insufficient fuel to return to YBHI.
What mistakes did you make and where will you be conducting your forced landing?
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 14th Jun 2018 at 05:02.