Fatal accident Loss of all four engines due fuel exhaustion
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're arguing that the proposed rules are poorly thought through I agree. They suffer from being written with a specific type of operation in mind, which means they seem perfectly reasonable if you look at them in terms of that operation. If you start to look at other operations, however, you find problems.
A cross country flight is obviously what they had in mind. There are other operations where less than 30 minutes might be reasonable:
A cross country flight is obviously what they had in mind. There are other operations where less than 30 minutes might be reasonable:
- If you take off with known 45 minutes of fuel, and do 20 minutes of aerobatics over the airfield
- If you keep an aircraft on a farm, it might be reasonable to take off with known 40 minutes of fuel to go to an airfield 10 miles away to get fuel.
I agree. As of today, the pilot in the scenario I gave is not a dangerous criminal. If the new instrument comes into effect without amendment, the pilot in the scenario is a dangerous criminal.
The people who churn out these rules like confetti seem oblivious to the fact that someone who is not competent to comply with a rule that says “have enough fuel” is also not competent to comply with a rule that says “have enough fuel plus 30 minutes”.
The people who churn out these rules like confetti seem oblivious to the fact that someone who is not competent to comply with a rule that says “have enough fuel” is also not competent to comply with a rule that says “have enough fuel plus 30 minutes”.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's also big differences between 30 minutes in 1 tank, 30 minutes in 2 tanks that can feed together, and 30 minutes distributed across multiple tanks that can only feed 1 at a time.
Indeed. The latter is a very dangerous situation. On trips to close to the boundaries of endurance I have all the remaining fuel in one tank and the other/s exhausted.
Aircraft-specific systems knowledge is critically important.
Aircraft-specific systems knowledge is critically important.
LB .CAR 234 point 4 states it's an offence of strict liability to land with insufficient fuel .CAAP 234-1 gives information and guidance for aircraft fuel requirements required by the regulation .
... CAAP 234-1 gives information and guidance for aircraft fuel requirements required by the regulation .
You should read both, twice.
I ask again: What is the Australian law that I break if I decide to consume 10 minutes of my planned 30 minutes’ FFR?
I'm not a lawyer but it would be pretty hard to prosecute under the "current" rules except for Fuel Exaustion but a civil case is another story. Insurance could also be a headache for those not following the CAAP. Apart from the "Minimum Fuel" and "Mayday Fuel" all that is now happening is that we're going back to the regulator now having rules that need to be followed and the powers to enforce them. I'd go as far as saying the new rules are more lenient than before when fuel requirements were stipulated in the ANO's, ie FFR 30mins and no Contigency or Variable Reserve against FFR 45mins and 5% Variable Reserve for Private Ops.
LB, it would be up to the courts to decide what is "Insufficient Fuel". I would guess that there are precedents already set in the Australian Courts from past prosecutions. Find them and you'll have your answer.
LB. The CAAP 234-1 para 5.1 seems pretty clear .As does its definition of fixed reserve. It also states 45min for VFR private piston ops not the 30 min you mentioned. Private Turbine ops can use 30min though .
The CAR does state it's an offence of strict liability. Also pretty clear .
If you feel comfortable flying around on min fuel all the time, and happily use reserve fuel as a range extender, hats off to you . When I see my planning isn't working, and reserve fuel may be touched, I stop to get some more .
When reading your reply above the phrase “Is this the right room for an argument?” jumped to my mind.
The CAR does state it's an offence of strict liability. Also pretty clear .
If you feel comfortable flying around on min fuel all the time, and happily use reserve fuel as a range extender, hats off to you . When I see my planning isn't working, and reserve fuel may be touched, I stop to get some more .
When reading your reply above the phrase “Is this the right room for an argument?” jumped to my mind.
I did invite you to read reg 234 and the CAAP, twice. It appears you have rejected that invitation or have been unable to comprehend what they say and do.
Reg 234(1) says:
Your opinion may be that anyone who lands with less than FFR has breached that rule, but your opinion is irrelevant.
Page 1 of the CAAP says, with my bolding:
There may be people in CASA labouring under the misapprehension that non-‘compliance’ with a CAAP results in a breach of the law, but they are labouring under a misapprehension.
Yep. 
Good guess!
I already have.
Reg 234(1) says:
The pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a flight within Australian territory, or to or from Australian territory, if he or she has not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft carries sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety.
Page 1 of the CAAP says, with my bolding:
This publication is only advisory but it gives a CASA preferred method for complying with the Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) 1988.
It is not the only method, but experience has shown that if you follow this method you will comply with the Civil Aviation Regulations.
Always read this advice in conjunction with the appropriate regulations.
It is not the only method, but experience has shown that if you follow this method you will comply with the Civil Aviation Regulations.
Always read this advice in conjunction with the appropriate regulations.
LB, it would be up to the courts to decide what is "Insufficient Fuel".
I would guess that there are precedents already set in the Australian Courts from past prosecutions.
Find them and you'll have your answer.
The relevant regulations and other references This publication should be read in conjunction with regulations 220 and 234 of the Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) 1988.
Who this CAAP applies to This CAAP applies to all operators of Australian aircraft.
Why this CAAP was written This CAAP provides information and guidance on fuel requirements for aircraft required by regulations 220 and 234 of CAR 1988.
As I said, para 5.1 seems straight forward in defining sufficient fuel.
When you decide to use your fixed reserve LB, are you in the enroute phase of flight or are you using unplanned manoeuvring in the vicinity of the aerodrome?
Doesn't enroute phase stop at 1500 feet above the aerodrome?
From that CAAP
fixed fuel reserve means an amount of fuel, expressed as a period of time holding at 1 500 feet above an aerodrome at standard atmospheric conditions, that may be used for unplanned manoeuvring in the vicinity of the aerodrome at which it is proposed to land, and that would normally be retained in the aircraft until the final landing.
and para 5.1
5.1 Where it has been determined that an alternate aerodrome to the destination aerodrome is not necessary, the amount of fuel on board an aircraft at any particular point in the flight should be an amount that is sufficient:
(a) to enable the aircraft to fly from that point to a height of 1 500 feet above the destination aerodrome, make an approach and land; and
b) to enable the aircraft to continue to fly at a cruising speed for a specified percentage of the time that it would take to fly in accordance with paragraph (a), being the percentage specified in Table 1 of this CAAP for that category and class of aircraft; and
(c) to provide for contingencies of the kind described in section 6; and
(d) to provide holding fuel to take account of any traffic delays of the kind mentioned in paragraph 4 (c); and
(e) to provide the fixed fuel reserve that is specified in Table 2 of this CAAP.
Note it says the above fuel on board during any particular point in flight for it to be sufficient. Once you are 1500 feet over the aerodrome you are landing at, you are now in the arrival phase of flight. Fixed reserve can now be burnt if needed by any unplanned manoeuvring, but will normally be retained until final landing .
Fixed reserve is not for traffic holding .It's not for stronger than expected winds . It's not a range extender fuel.
Who this CAAP applies to This CAAP applies to all operators of Australian aircraft.
Why this CAAP was written This CAAP provides information and guidance on fuel requirements for aircraft required by regulations 220 and 234 of CAR 1988.
As I said, para 5.1 seems straight forward in defining sufficient fuel.
When you decide to use your fixed reserve LB, are you in the enroute phase of flight or are you using unplanned manoeuvring in the vicinity of the aerodrome?
Doesn't enroute phase stop at 1500 feet above the aerodrome?
From that CAAP
fixed fuel reserve means an amount of fuel, expressed as a period of time holding at 1 500 feet above an aerodrome at standard atmospheric conditions, that may be used for unplanned manoeuvring in the vicinity of the aerodrome at which it is proposed to land, and that would normally be retained in the aircraft until the final landing.
and para 5.1
5.1 Where it has been determined that an alternate aerodrome to the destination aerodrome is not necessary, the amount of fuel on board an aircraft at any particular point in the flight should be an amount that is sufficient:
(a) to enable the aircraft to fly from that point to a height of 1 500 feet above the destination aerodrome, make an approach and land; and
b) to enable the aircraft to continue to fly at a cruising speed for a specified percentage of the time that it would take to fly in accordance with paragraph (a), being the percentage specified in Table 1 of this CAAP for that category and class of aircraft; and
(c) to provide for contingencies of the kind described in section 6; and
(d) to provide holding fuel to take account of any traffic delays of the kind mentioned in paragraph 4 (c); and
(e) to provide the fixed fuel reserve that is specified in Table 2 of this CAAP.
Note it says the above fuel on board during any particular point in flight for it to be sufficient. Once you are 1500 feet over the aerodrome you are landing at, you are now in the arrival phase of flight. Fixed reserve can now be burnt if needed by any unplanned manoeuvring, but will normally be retained until final landing .
Fixed reserve is not for traffic holding .It's not for stronger than expected winds . It's not a range extender fuel.
Don, there could be a variety of ways you could get to that point, obviously if you just haven't been paying attention then you've stuffed up or perhaps something indicates you have less fuel than you thought, either way the point then is what do you do at that moment? Land in a field directly below and take your chances or continue the 10mins away to a proper airfield that you are prepared for whilst keeping an eye out for suitable sites along the way incase the worst happens?
Don, I don't think LB is advocating at all to use the FFR as a "Range Extender", I highly doubt he'd ever take off knowingly intending to use it to get to destination and you definitely wouldn't either. As I said, I think you're both arguing the same point here really.
LB, from your writing it could be construed that this is what you're advocating that it is fine for a Pilot to take off knowing they'll have to burn into their FFR to reach the destination, but as mentioned above I don't think any Pilot (Including yourself) would knowingly take off and do so and consider it to be acceptable without some pretty exceptional reasons.
Don, I don't think LB is advocating at all to use the FFR as a "Range Extender", I highly doubt he'd ever take off knowingly intending to use it to get to destination and you definitely wouldn't either. As I said, I think you're both arguing the same point here really.
LB, from your writing it could be construed that this is what you're advocating that it is fine for a Pilot to take off knowing they'll have to burn into their FFR to reach the destination, but as mentioned above I don't think any Pilot (Including yourself) would knowingly take off and do so and consider it to be acceptable without some pretty exceptional reasons.
Of course I’m not advocating that. Once in 33 years of flying I’ve landed with less than 45 minutes’ reserve.
I’m advocating rules only where the rules address the risk. As I’ve said, a pilot who’s not competent to comply with a rule that says don’t run out of fuel is not competent to comply with a rule that says have 30 minutes more fuel when you arrive than you need to avoid running out of fuel.
I’m also advocating rules that don’t treat someone as a dangerous criminal when they’re not. Tell me how the pilot in the scenario I gave above is able to comply with the rule Andrew quoted, that is due to come into force in November, and tell me how that pilot is a dangerous criminal in the circumstances.
I’m advocating rules only where the rules address the risk. As I’ve said, a pilot who’s not competent to comply with a rule that says don’t run out of fuel is not competent to comply with a rule that says have 30 minutes more fuel when you arrive than you need to avoid running out of fuel.
I’m also advocating rules that don’t treat someone as a dangerous criminal when they’re not. Tell me how the pilot in the scenario I gave above is able to comply with the rule Andrew quoted, that is due to come into force in November, and tell me how that pilot is a dangerous criminal in the circumstances.
I agree that linking rules like this to a criminal offence is beyond bizarre .
Hey! see, we are all able to get along and be on the same page 
I get the feeling they justify all the "Strict Liability" parts as being that us being unsafe in the Air puts others on the ground in danger and therefore makes it a Criminal Offence to break these laws, flimsy argument and adds nothing I feel to the laws.
I get the feeling they justify all the "Strict Liability" parts as being that us being unsafe in the Air puts others on the ground in danger and therefore makes it a Criminal Offence to break these laws, flimsy argument and adds nothing I feel to the laws.
The pilot in my YBHI - YTIB scenario will commit a criminal offence attracting a penalty of $10,500 (on the current value of a penalty unit) for arriving with 29 minutes’ FFR. And if the pilot does not transmit a MAYDAY when the in-flight calculation indicates that the will aircraft arrive with 29 minutes’ FFR, that’s another criminal offence attracting a penalty of $10,500.
Why wouldn’t the pilot transmit a MAYDAY? Other than it not being an emergency, the transmission would be an admission of the strict liability offence of landing with less than FFR.
Not sure what risk this pilot and the aircraft is posing to people on the ground. Lots of gaffa out YTIB way.
All angel on the head of a pin stuff, of course. Short of fuel exhaustion and an off-airfield forced landing with injuries/SAR effort, who’s going to be at YTIB proving there’s less than 30 minutes FFR on board.
Why wouldn’t the pilot transmit a MAYDAY? Other than it not being an emergency, the transmission would be an admission of the strict liability offence of landing with less than FFR.
Not sure what risk this pilot and the aircraft is posing to people on the ground. Lots of gaffa out YTIB way.
All angel on the head of a pin stuff, of course. Short of fuel exhaustion and an off-airfield forced landing with injuries/SAR effort, who’s going to be at YTIB proving there’s less than 30 minutes FFR on board.
These rules are based on ICAO recommendations. With that in mind they are designed around where most aircraft in the world operate. That's Europe, Asia and North America. Most aircraft operate in controlled airspace in these places, Canada being one notable exception. Canada like Australia have a few controlled aerodromes and vast amounts of uncontrolled airspace. I can see the arguments why it doesn't make sense in Australia why we have to make a Mayday Fuel radio call at a none controlled aerodrome. At a controlled aerodrome, apart from the obvious, it tells the controller you need priority. It also allows the PIC to deviate from published rules if it's in the best interest for the safe outcome of the flight. This includes landing with less than FFR. The difference at none controlled aerodromes is instead of you telling a controller you need priority, you are telling other aircraft that may be using the same aerodrome or near you that you need priority. Just like a controlled aerodrome It allows the PIC to deviate from the rules to safely get the aircraft on the ground. Now why the aircraft landed with less than FFR will dictate whether the PIC will be prosecuted or not.
Now why the aircraft landed with less than FFR will dictate whether the PIC will be prosecuted or not.
If the Instrument comes into effect in its current terms, it is a strict liability offence if a PIC does not proceed to an en-route alternate so as to perform a safe landing with not less than the fixed fuel reserve remaining, if an in-flight fuel quantity check indicates the aircraft won’t arrive at the original destination with at the least the correct FFR. The question as to why the aircraft couldn’t make it to the circuit area of the original destination with at least the correct FFR is not relevant to any element of that offence.
Why the aircraft landed with less than FFR might be a relevant consideration in the decision to refer the matter to prosecution (or to subject the pilot to administrative torture), but this merely demonstrates how far the aviation regulatory regime in Australia has drifted from proper rule of law principles. These matters should not be left to the discretion of individuals in a regulator.
Lead Balloon
That's what I said:
My bolding. What if as a result of the last inflight fuel quantity check where an en-route alternate is available, fuel remaining at the destination was more than FFR but you landed with less after declaring Mayday Fuel?
What are you implying here? That the regulator shouldn't be able to regulate and prosecute in the courts if they see regulations being broken? Sorry but I don't know anywhere in the world where that would happen.
Why the aircraft landed with less than FFR might be a relevant consideration in the decision to refer the matter to prosecution
Now why the aircraft landed with less than FFR will dictate whether the PIC will be prosecuted or not.
Part 7 Paragraph (3)
If, as a result of an in-flight fuel quantity check in accordance with subsection 6 (2), the usable fuel expected to be remaining on arrival at the destination aerodrome is less than the fixed fuel reserve (where no alternate aerodrome is required), then the pilot in command must take appropriate action and proceed to an en-route alternate so as to perform a safe landing with not less than the fixed fuel reserve remaining.
If, as a result of an in-flight fuel quantity check in accordance with subsection 6 (2), the usable fuel expected to be remaining on arrival at the destination aerodrome is less than the fixed fuel reserve (where no alternate aerodrome is required), then the pilot in command must take appropriate action and proceed to an en-route alternate so as to perform a safe landing with not less than the fixed fuel reserve remaining.
These matters should not be left to the discretion of individuals in a regulator.
Last edited by 404 Titan; 27th Jun 2018 at 05:49.
Here’s how the rule of law is supposed to work.
The parliament passes a law that makes it a strict liability offence to wear a pink bunny suit. The evident policy of that law is that is an offence to wear a pink bunny suit, whether or not the wearer intended to wear the pink bunny suit. Doesn’t matter why you’re wearing the pink bunny suit. Whether you did it deliberately, or inadvertently donned your pink bunny suit rather than your jeans and T shirt or got drunk and ended up in a pink bunny suit because you couldn’t care less - doesn’t matter. (There are, of course, exceptions to strict liability offences. For example, you would not commit an offence if someone held a gun at your head and said they would kill you if you didn’t wear a pink bunny suit.)
Note that this outcome is not a consequence of the exercise of any discretion on the part of a regulator.
If sufficient people disagree with the policy of a law that makes it a strict liability offence to wear a pink bunny suit, the parliament will repeal the law or change it so that an element of the offence is the “why”.
In the case of the offences that will be created by the fuel Instrument in November 18 in Australia, if it comes into force in its current terms, it similarly doesn’t matter why you arrived at your planned destination with less than the FFR or failed to divert to an alternative to ensure you landed with FFR intact. The offence has been committed (unless someone was holding a gun at your head, in which case your actions were not voluntary).
You seem to think there’s another element of the offence - the “why” - whereby a benevolent regulator is going to exercise its discretion not to refer a matter for prosecution or use it to justify administrative torture, on the basis of the regulator’s judgment as to the merits of the “why”. That’s not consistent with the principles of the rule of law (and is also why CASA has the reputation that it does). If the “why” is relevant, it should be built in as an element of the offence, so that the pilot population knows when it will break the law and when it will not, irrespective of CASA’s opinion on the matter.
In your scenario there is a “suitable en-route alternate available”. In the scenario I gave there isn’t (and an alternate did not have to be planned). The PIC in my scenario nonetheless commits a strict liability offence for arriving at the destination with 29 minutes’ reserve, it being impossible to divert to an alternate and land with FFR intact when the estimated fuel state on arrival at the destination became clear.
The question whether the PIC in my scenario is referred for prosecution or administratively tortured for this heinous crime becomes a matter of discretion for the regulator. That’s a bad outcome.
The parliament passes a law that makes it a strict liability offence to wear a pink bunny suit. The evident policy of that law is that is an offence to wear a pink bunny suit, whether or not the wearer intended to wear the pink bunny suit. Doesn’t matter why you’re wearing the pink bunny suit. Whether you did it deliberately, or inadvertently donned your pink bunny suit rather than your jeans and T shirt or got drunk and ended up in a pink bunny suit because you couldn’t care less - doesn’t matter. (There are, of course, exceptions to strict liability offences. For example, you would not commit an offence if someone held a gun at your head and said they would kill you if you didn’t wear a pink bunny suit.)
Note that this outcome is not a consequence of the exercise of any discretion on the part of a regulator.
If sufficient people disagree with the policy of a law that makes it a strict liability offence to wear a pink bunny suit, the parliament will repeal the law or change it so that an element of the offence is the “why”.
In the case of the offences that will be created by the fuel Instrument in November 18 in Australia, if it comes into force in its current terms, it similarly doesn’t matter why you arrived at your planned destination with less than the FFR or failed to divert to an alternative to ensure you landed with FFR intact. The offence has been committed (unless someone was holding a gun at your head, in which case your actions were not voluntary).
You seem to think there’s another element of the offence - the “why” - whereby a benevolent regulator is going to exercise its discretion not to refer a matter for prosecution or use it to justify administrative torture, on the basis of the regulator’s judgment as to the merits of the “why”. That’s not consistent with the principles of the rule of law (and is also why CASA has the reputation that it does). If the “why” is relevant, it should be built in as an element of the offence, so that the pilot population knows when it will break the law and when it will not, irrespective of CASA’s opinion on the matter.
In your scenario there is a “suitable en-route alternate available”. In the scenario I gave there isn’t (and an alternate did not have to be planned). The PIC in my scenario nonetheless commits a strict liability offence for arriving at the destination with 29 minutes’ reserve, it being impossible to divert to an alternate and land with FFR intact when the estimated fuel state on arrival at the destination became clear.
The question whether the PIC in my scenario is referred for prosecution or administratively tortured for this heinous crime becomes a matter of discretion for the regulator. That’s a bad outcome.