New Fuel Rules! Land in a "field" what a joke!

[framer]

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..

I can understand that sort of thinking, and in my younger years would have been tempted. The problem with it is that it comes from a singular inward looking perspective. If the above attitude of wilful violation for commercial/ personal gain is applied to the entire Industry, including Engineering, ATC, Ground Ops etc, then it is obvious that aircraft will crash and people will die. Individuals normally think highly of their own risk assessment capability and operational prowess but they often have an inaccurate view of just how good they are ( read ‘lucky they have been’). You only have to run a few command upgrade courses to see how wildly inaccurate some peoples view of themselves is. So, if you want to contribute to the Industry’s positive safety trajectory you clearly need to stick with the regs unless it is unsafe to do so. If you don’t want to contribute to the Industry’s safety gains, but just want to back yourself and do your own thing, then you get what we see above.

[donpizmeov]

Nicely said framer.

[mattyj]

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?

[Lead Balloon]

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.

[donpizmeov]

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.

[Lead Balloon]

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.

[Dexta]

Originally Posted by donpizmeov

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.

Is not this "one rule for all" part of the systemic problem with Australian Aviation, as a private GA pilot flying solo over an uncontrolled airfield I am now bound by law to call a Fuel Mayday if I choose to land with 29 minutes of fuel remaining, and before all you commercial pilots jump up and down about planning etc, I'm over my own airfield, on a clear day, and about to drain the tanks for a fuel calibration. If a CASA FOI just happens to be strolling by and decides to ramp check me then I have committed an offence by not calling a fuel mayday, but realistically, truthfully what is the safety risk? Is the risk of fuel exhaustion greater than the risk of the wings falling off, being hit by a meteor etc?
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.