New Fuel Rules! Land in a "field" what a joke!
Me? I’m landing at YTIB.
I have just downloaded all the new guidance material for new fuel rules CASA just sent me.
10 pages of Instrument 29/18 (the rules).
131 pages of guidance material & information.
10 pages of Instrument 29/18 (the rules).
131 pages of guidance material & information.
Finally! Fuel starvation and exhaustion incidents will be a thing of the past.
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?
But I don't see your point- you are now in an emergency. That is the point of the regulation- have FR fuel or it's an emergency and you land? Wherever is safest.
Why would I be carrying fuel for an alternate?
It’s not an emergency from my perspective. I’m in contact with people on the ground and I can see what’s happening with the removal of the aircraft. The worst case scenario is that I land over the disabled aircraft onto the longest remaining into wind runway space. I can blab “mayday” on the radio, but people with an understanding of the problem and an ability to help are already there.
Others have already made the point that rules tailored for high capacity international and domestic operations into big people’s airports aren’t really practical for third world GA.
It’s not an emergency from my perspective. I’m in contact with people on the ground and I can see what’s happening with the removal of the aircraft. The worst case scenario is that I land over the disabled aircraft onto the longest remaining into wind runway space. I can blab “mayday” on the radio, but people with an understanding of the problem and an ability to help are already there.
Others have already made the point that rules tailored for high capacity international and domestic operations into big people’s airports aren’t really practical for third world GA.
Why would I be carrying fuel for an alternate?
It’s not an emergency from my perspective. I’m in contact with people on the ground and I can see what’s happening with the removal of the aircraft. The worst case scenario is that I land over the disabled aircraft onto the longest remaining into wind runway space. I can blab “mayday” on the radio, but people with an understanding of the problem and an ability to help are already there.
Others have already made the point that rules tailored for high capacity international and domestic operations into big people’s airports aren’t really practical for third world GA.
It’s not an emergency from my perspective. I’m in contact with people on the ground and I can see what’s happening with the removal of the aircraft. The worst case scenario is that I land over the disabled aircraft onto the longest remaining into wind runway space. I can blab “mayday” on the radio, but people with an understanding of the problem and an ability to help are already there.
Others have already made the point that rules tailored for high capacity international and domestic operations into big people’s airports aren’t really practical for third world GA.
It's what I'm saying about Australia being different. I flew overseas for 14 years. I didn't do the flight-planning, professional dispatchers did to the rules in place, which were all roughly similar.
I didn't depart without fuel to a filed alternate once in all that time.
Your perspective is irrelevant. You are subject to the regulations you fly to, and if you have less that FR fuel, it's an emergency.
Now, lets say there ate three aircraft all trying to land once the disabled aircraft has been removed- which one has priority to land?
The one who has declared an emergency, obviously.
I'm still not seeing the problem- what exactly is it about "blabbing Mayday"- that is, identifying yourself as an aircraft in a legally defined state of distress-that is in any way detrimental to your situation?
WIZ;
Aaah, the voice of sweet reason! In an ideal world quite correct. However in Australia you cannot trust CASA not to launch a vindictive and unfair investigation, aided by the ATSB, that results in your loss of license or prosecution or perhaps both, as evidenced by what happened to Dominic James. I don't know, but suspect, that many emergency situations go unreported for this reason. That can only have a long term bad safety outcome.
My own two cents worth from student days: never try and teach STOL operations using a touch and go methodology.
I'm still not seeing the problem- what exactly is it about "blabbing Mayday"- that is, identifying yourself as an aircraft in a legally defined state of distress-that is in any way detrimental to your situation?
My own two cents worth from student days: never try and teach STOL operations using a touch and go methodology.
You've made the case for carrying an alternate- you just can't know you will be able to land at your destination.
It's what I'm saying about Australia being different. I flew overseas for 14 years. I didn't do the flight-planning, professional dispatchers did to the rules in place, which were all roughly similar.
I didn't depart without fuel to a filed alternate once in all that time.
Your perspective is irrelevant. You are subject to the regulations you fly to, and if you have less that FR fuel, it's an emergency.
Now, lets say there ate three aircraft all trying to land once the disabled aircraft has been removed- which one has priority to land?
The one who has declared an emergency, obviously.
I'm still not seeing the problem- what exactly is it about "blabbing Mayday"- that is, identifying yourself as an aircraft in a legally defined state of distress-that is in any way detrimental to your situation?
It's what I'm saying about Australia being different. I flew overseas for 14 years. I didn't do the flight-planning, professional dispatchers did to the rules in place, which were all roughly similar.
I didn't depart without fuel to a filed alternate once in all that time.
Your perspective is irrelevant. You are subject to the regulations you fly to, and if you have less that FR fuel, it's an emergency.
Now, lets say there ate three aircraft all trying to land once the disabled aircraft has been removed- which one has priority to land?
The one who has declared an emergency, obviously.
I'm still not seeing the problem- what exactly is it about "blabbing Mayday"- that is, identifying yourself as an aircraft in a legally defined state of distress-that is in any way detrimental to your situation?
My perspective is centrally relevant. It’s the perspective on the basis of which I do stuff. In the scenario I gave, it isn’t objectively an emergency, it’s not an emergency in my mind and I’m not transmitting a mayday. You and anyone else can hold your breath until your face turns blue, but I’ll declare an emergency when and if I decide my passengers and I are in grave and imminent danger and the transmission of a mayday will make a difference.
I’ll make you a promise: On the day that a wheels-up aircraft is jammed at the intersection of the runways at YTIB and there are three aircraft inbound close to consuming fuel to FFR, I’ll buy you a lottery ticket and cartwheel nude down George Street (or whichever capital city Main Street you choose.)
It therefore follows that you’re advocating for mandatory alternates, irrespective of weather and other information pre-flight. If so, I would ask: Do you do much flying in ‘outback’ Australia?
My perspective is centrally relevant. It’s the perspective on the basis of which I do stuff. In the scenario I gave, it isn’t objectively an emergency, it’s not an emergency in my mind and I’m not transmitting a mayday. You and anyone else can hold your breath until your face turns blue, but I’ll declare an emergency when and if I decide my passengers and I are in grave and imminent danger and the transmission of a mayday will make a difference.
I’ll make you a promise: On the day that a wheels-up aircraft is jammed at the intersection of the runways at YTIB and there are three aircraft inbound close to consuming fuel to FFR, I’ll buy you a lottery ticket and cartwheel nude down George Street (or whichever capital city Main Street you choose.)
No, your perspective is not relevant when it comes to regulations. You don't get to be of the opinion that a 10% overload is alright, that 200 below minima is OK because of your experience, or that something defined by regulation as an emergency isn't because you don't think it is. Emergency is a regulatory defined term, and so, if you meet those criteria, you ARE objectively in an emergency.
If you don't want to comply with that regulation, go ahead. You are now in breach and subject to prosecution- your choice, your consequences. You still haven't told me what harm it will do to you or your passengers to comply.
Now, of course, after proposing your own highly unlikely scenario, you make light of the fact that I counter with one.
Difference being, I was proposing one in which you comply with the law without it in any way making your situation worse.
...
No, your perspective is not relevant when it comes to regulations. You don't get to be of the opinion that a 10% overload is alright, that 200 below minima is OK because of your experience, or that something defined by regulation as an emergency isn't because you don't think it is. Emergency is a regulatory defined term, and so, if you meet those criteria, you ARE objectively in an emergency. ...
No, your perspective is not relevant when it comes to regulations. You don't get to be of the opinion that a 10% overload is alright, that 200 below minima is OK because of your experience, or that something defined by regulation as an emergency isn't because you don't think it is. Emergency is a regulatory defined term, and so, if you meet those criteria, you ARE objectively in an emergency. ...
This is a fundamentally important point. The fact that a set of circumstances is defined by law to be an “emergency” does not make those circumstances an objective emergency.
The pollies can pass a law that says the supermarkets running out of shoe polish is an emergency. Doesn’t make it an emergency as a matter of objective fact.
As I said at the start of the thread, I’ll broadcast a MAYDAY when I’m in grave and imminent danger and reckon the broadcast might make a difference. If the rules require the broadcast in other circumstances, the areseclowns that made those rules can go their hardest when I don’t.
No you’re not.
This is a fundamentally important point. The fact that a set of circumstances is defined by law to be an “emergency” does not make those circumstances an objective emergency.
The pollies can pass a law that says the supermarkets running out of shoe polish is an emergency. Doesn’t make it an emergency as a matter of objective fact.
As I said at the start of the thread, I’ll broadcast a MAYDAY when I’m in grave and imminent danger and reckon the broadcast might make a difference. If the rules require the broadcast in other circumstances, the areseclowns that made those rules can go their hardest when I don’t.
This is a fundamentally important point. The fact that a set of circumstances is defined by law to be an “emergency” does not make those circumstances an objective emergency.
The pollies can pass a law that says the supermarkets running out of shoe polish is an emergency. Doesn’t make it an emergency as a matter of objective fact.
As I said at the start of the thread, I’ll broadcast a MAYDAY when I’m in grave and imminent danger and reckon the broadcast might make a difference. If the rules require the broadcast in other circumstances, the areseclowns that made those rules can go their hardest when I don’t.
You still haven't explained what harm it does you to comply.
I think the only potential harm would be if there was consequent radio chatter that caused unnecessary distractions. (Aviate, navigate, then the other...) But yes - I concede your point and would now approach the situation on a ‘no harm done’ basis.
BTW: On what frequency would you broadcast the mayday, in the scenario I gave? My primary tools for making noise on 121.5 are my ELT and PLB, and they also send my position to the nice people in AUSSAR. So I’m using Area.
None of the above are listed in the regulations as mandatory situations in which to declare a MAYDAY but I sure as hell would be using MAYDAY in one of the above examples before I used it because I was in the circuit with 29 minutes of fuel remaining....
The point is, we don't need some arseclown at CASA who has probably never even sat in a cockpit to declare an individual situation an emergency.
Sadly, in AU, if you go back over the record, it demonstrates that what you surmise is, in fact, true.
Fundamentally, in AU, if you get into a mayday area, you must have breached a regulation, most likely a strict liability CAR/CASR, and as we have seen, fear of prosecution all too often overrides the need to call for help. Similarly, avoidance of a breach of regulations for fear of the consequences, has precluded what would have obviously been a preferable flighpath for an aircraft in trouble.
Tootle pip!!
Fundamentally, in AU, if you get into a mayday area, you must have breached a regulation, most likely a strict liability CAR/CASR, and as we have seen, fear of prosecution all too often overrides the need to call for help. Similarly, avoidance of a breach of regulations for fear of the consequences, has precluded what would have obviously been a preferable flighpath for an aircraft in trouble.
Example. Used to do sling loading in a helo and on a certain task it was only possible to lift the load by burning into what was mandated reserve. Naturally not done without thought, transit was from a barge in a river to the bank, all of two hundred yards.
Flying in from offshore, CAVOK, no wind, VFR aircraft, coast and destination in sight, when unforecast wind is seen on the water, GS slowed to a crawl, and went from arriving home with reserve intact to finally landing with a couple of decimal points less than ten minutes. Always had the option of turning around, running with the wind, and landing on a haven immediately behind, or on reaching the coast, being a helo, in a paddock. Safety was never in doubt. So why a MAYDAY with all the embuggerance? Unlike the average GA aircraft with fuel gauges of extremely doubtful accuracy, had the benefit of a capacitance system of great accuracy and low level lights.
Is anyone able to cite a fuel exhaustion GA event where declaring a PAN or MAYDAY would have provided succour?
Megan,
The low fuel procedure that is being discussed here came from ICAO. Other authorities changed to it about 3yrs ago. The major change from what was used originally in the vast majority of the world then, was changing from a PAN call when you thought you maybe landing with less than Fixed Reserve (30min) to a Low Fuell call. There was nashing of teeth when this happened, as it was considered a downgrade from what was already happening. Pilots argued back then that they would still make the PAN call instead of the Low Fuel call. But with time, some thinking, and actually reading the new procedure, they eventually came to understand that the change occurred because not all authorities in the world recognise what a PAN call means.
So, it's not some CASA desk warmer that made this one up. It is an ICAO recommendation that some CASA desk warmer has now complied with.
Can I ask what your legal Min fuel was when you operated these heroic flights landing with just minutes of fuel onboard? Perhaps this catching up to the rest of the world regulation was designed to protect persons such as yourself?
The low fuel procedure that is being discussed here came from ICAO. Other authorities changed to it about 3yrs ago. The major change from what was used originally in the vast majority of the world then, was changing from a PAN call when you thought you maybe landing with less than Fixed Reserve (30min) to a Low Fuell call. There was nashing of teeth when this happened, as it was considered a downgrade from what was already happening. Pilots argued back then that they would still make the PAN call instead of the Low Fuel call. But with time, some thinking, and actually reading the new procedure, they eventually came to understand that the change occurred because not all authorities in the world recognise what a PAN call means.
So, it's not some CASA desk warmer that made this one up. It is an ICAO recommendation that some CASA desk warmer has now complied with.
Can I ask what your legal Min fuel was when you operated these heroic flights landing with just minutes of fuel onboard? Perhaps this catching up to the rest of the world regulation was designed to protect persons such as yourself?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to personally thank a certain Westwind Pilot who ran out of fuel and dropped it in the drink for these new rules! The Definition of Additional Fuel is 90 words long with NO punctuation! A new record from the Flight and Duty CAO which previously had 76 words to say "Take one day off a week!"
