Fatal accident Loss of all four engines due fuel exhaustion
Sunfish I think you are thinking about this procedure the wrong way . When operating your aeroplane, you are expected to have sufficient knowledge of its systems and limitations that you plan your trips accordingly . In normal ops there will be no need to apply this low fuel procedure as you should plan to avoid being in that situation in the first place. If enroute you find the winds are more adverse than expected, you divert to somewhere you have sufficient fuel for and top up . Just as you should now . Enroute stops should always be considered if flying towards the range limit of your aircraft. Fuel management and planning is still just as important as before .
if however, you do your job of correctly planning, and while enroute manage your fuel so that you arrive at the destination with a fuel above your minimum reserve. But for factors beyond your control your approach and landing will be delayed requiring use of the final reserve, a min fuel call, and then a May Day call are there to help you get priority for landing. It is an unambiguous procedure (for most, right LB?) that once adopted can be used world wide. Maybe not much good in the GAFFA. But useful at controlled airports. If you were to arrive at your destination just as an aeroclub flock arrive, your min fuel call would allow you to jump the que and land out of sequence, keeping your reserve fuel intact, thus negating any need for a May Day. And yes I have arrived at a place in the middle of nowhere just as said flock has arrived .
This 30min final reserve is worked at holding speed power setting at 1500 feet rather than enroute fuel flow.
if however, you do your job of correctly planning, and while enroute manage your fuel so that you arrive at the destination with a fuel above your minimum reserve. But for factors beyond your control your approach and landing will be delayed requiring use of the final reserve, a min fuel call, and then a May Day call are there to help you get priority for landing. It is an unambiguous procedure (for most, right LB?) that once adopted can be used world wide. Maybe not much good in the GAFFA. But useful at controlled airports. If you were to arrive at your destination just as an aeroclub flock arrive, your min fuel call would allow you to jump the que and land out of sequence, keeping your reserve fuel intact, thus negating any need for a May Day. And yes I have arrived at a place in the middle of nowhere just as said flock has arrived .
This 30min final reserve is worked at holding speed power setting at 1500 feet rather than enroute fuel flow.
Last edited by donpizmeov; 30th Jun 2018 at 21:17.
I wish I had found this thread earlier.
With the BHI-TIB scenario, did the PIC report ‘Minimum Fuel’ on the taxi out broadcast? If so what was the reply from ATS?
Interesting discussion nonetheless.
With the BHI-TIB scenario, did the PIC report ‘Minimum Fuel’ on the taxi out broadcast? If so what was the reply from ATS?
Interesting discussion nonetheless.
Last edited by hoss; 1st Jul 2018 at 00:32.
The PIC wasn’t “minimum fuel” on departure from YBHI. The PIC departed YBHI day VFR, no alternate required, with in excess of 30 minutes’ calculated FFR for arrival at YTIB. It was an en-route calculation that indicated the aircraft would arrive with only 29 minutes FFR.
And ATS doesn’t listen to or reply to taxi broadcasts from VFR aircraft at aerodromes in G. Those broadcasts are on CTAF.
I’d be interested in a Centre controller’s view as to what, if anything, s/he would do if s/he heard this broadcast on Area: “Centre and all traffic Broken Hill. VFR Jizzler Alpha Bravo Charlie taxiing for Tibooburra, runway 14, minimum fuel.” I suspect that the reply would be the sound of crickets chirping....
And ATS doesn’t listen to or reply to taxi broadcasts from VFR aircraft at aerodromes in G. Those broadcasts are on CTAF.
I’d be interested in a Centre controller’s view as to what, if anything, s/he would do if s/he heard this broadcast on Area: “Centre and all traffic Broken Hill. VFR Jizzler Alpha Bravo Charlie taxiing for Tibooburra, runway 14, minimum fuel.” I suspect that the reply would be the sound of crickets chirping....
You are wrong in your understanding of strict liability. A speeding offence is one of strict liability. The prosecution certainly does have to prove you are guilty, by proving that it was you driving the car and that the car was speeding.. Strict liability means once they prove you’ve done this, you’re guilty, no excuses like “I did it to get my wife to hospital” although that can be used as a plea of mitigation to reduce the penalty.
Thank you for the corrections. I haven’t flown day VFR class G for a couple of decades.
With regard to the PIC on landing in YTIB. Like most of us, the low fuel would easily be ‘masked’ during the refuel. Lessons learnt, life goes on, CASA would be none the wiser. This would be occurring on a daily basis here in Australia, I can’t see a simple solution to enforcing this.
Slight drift, but I would be interested in others thoughts on when you would make a minimum fuel call. For me, anywhere between 35-40 minutes depending on the many variables.
With regard to the PIC on landing in YTIB. Like most of us, the low fuel would easily be ‘masked’ during the refuel. Lessons learnt, life goes on, CASA would be none the wiser. This would be occurring on a daily basis here in Australia, I can’t see a simple solution to enforcing this.
Slight drift, but I would be interested in others thoughts on when you would make a minimum fuel call. For me, anywhere between 35-40 minutes depending on the many variables.
Last edited by hoss; 2nd Jul 2018 at 00:27.
Thank you for the corrections. I haven’t flown day VFR class G for a couple of decades.
With regard to the PIC on landing in YTIB. Like most of us, the low fuel would easily be ‘masked’ during the refuel. Lessons learnt, life goes on, CASA would be none the wiser. This would be occurring on a daily basis here in Australia, I can’t see a simple solution to enforcing this.
With regard to the PIC on landing in YTIB. Like most of us, the low fuel would easily be ‘masked’ during the refuel. Lessons learnt, life goes on, CASA would be none the wiser. This would be occurring on a daily basis here in Australia, I can’t see a simple solution to enforcing this.
No worries.
But now you see why some of us are saying that rules about low fuel risks in heavy metal flying between big people’s airports are not suited to third world GA.
That which is “occurring on a daily basis here in Australia” is not currently criminal. It will be if the new instrument comes into force in November 18. The safety purpose of that outcome is not obvious.
But now you see why some of us are saying that rules about low fuel risks in heavy metal flying between big people’s airports are not suited to third world GA.
That which is “occurring on a daily basis here in Australia” is not currently criminal. It will be if the new instrument comes into force in November 18. The safety purpose of that outcome is not obvious.
Sure, heavy metal and GA are two different animals. Jet transports dispatch with 60 minutes over destination, most load more on. When I’m down to 48 minutes the fuel LOW checklist comes out! GA has a more ‘limits as targets’ mindset. For example, if the new FFR was 10 minutes quite a few pilots would be comfortable.
If I were a young GA pilot and I knew CASA were proactive, I would always turn up with a comfortable margin above FFR. The $10.5K fine wouldn’t be worth the risk.
If I were a young GA pilot and I knew CASA were proactive, I would always turn up with a comfortable margin above FFR. The $10.5K fine wouldn’t be worth the risk.
A fine alone is the least of one’s troubles in Australia. The risk of administrative torture on ‘safety’ grounds is far more costly, and not just in monetary terms. Ask Dominic James, among others. I’ll bet leftie that he’d cartwheel with joy if the only thing that had happened to him out of the ditching of NGA was an infringement notice.
Without knowing all the details, I genuinely feel sympathy for Dominic James and hope he can move forward as a pilot.
The airlines had there moment years later at Mildura. There were some similarities in my opinion, the result of shortfalls in the various agencies. I guess the crew involved would be treated as criminals under the proposal.
Australia has been very lucky for a long time.
The airlines had there moment years later at Mildura. There were some similarities in my opinion, the result of shortfalls in the various agencies. I guess the crew involved would be treated as criminals under the proposal.
Australia has been very lucky for a long time.
Last edited by hoss; 2nd Jul 2018 at 10:00.
Leadsled,
In Australia it is common for “Strict Liability” to be applied to public health, safety and welfare laws, as well as motor traffic rules. Infact virtually every New Zealand Civil Aviation Rule is a “Strict Liability” law.
Under Strict Liability laws in the CAR (1988) AND CASR (1998), just like any other “Strict Liability” laws, the need for prosecutors to prove a “Fault” element, i.e. intent, knowledge, recklessness or negligence when prosecuting is removed. They only need to prove the person committed the offence i.e. “Physical” element.
Defence against “Strict Liability”
Mistake of Fact.
A person will not be criminally liable for a “Strict Liability” offence if:
“External Factors” Division 10 of the Criminal Code Act.
In relation to aviation activities, no criminal liability will result from the following common circumstances:
So why “Strict Liability”
For most criminal offences in Australia the prosecution must prove both “Fault” and “Physical” elements. For certain offences involving public health and safety though, only the “Physical” element needs to be proven, i.e. “Strict Liability”. There are two reasons why governments do this. The first is as a deterrent. The second is, from a legal point of view, a lot of offences would be extraordinarily difficult to prove if the “Fault” element also had to be proven that successful prosecutions would be very unlikely, effectively making the laws meaningless.
In Australia it is common for “Strict Liability” to be applied to public health, safety and welfare laws, as well as motor traffic rules. Infact virtually every New Zealand Civil Aviation Rule is a “Strict Liability” law.
Under Strict Liability laws in the CAR (1988) AND CASR (1998), just like any other “Strict Liability” laws, the need for prosecutors to prove a “Fault” element, i.e. intent, knowledge, recklessness or negligence when prosecuting is removed. They only need to prove the person committed the offence i.e. “Physical” element.
Defence against “Strict Liability”
Mistake of Fact.
A person will not be criminally liable for a “Strict Liability” offence if:
- At or before the alleged offence they were under the mistaken but reasonable belief that certain facts existed.
- Had these facts existed an offence wouldn’t have occurred.
“External Factors” Division 10 of the Criminal Code Act.
In relation to aviation activities, no criminal liability will result from the following common circumstances:
- The offence occurred as a result of an external event or person over which the pilot charged with the offence had no control and couldn’t be expected to guard against.
- The offence occurred as a result of a sudden emergency and there wasn’t any reasonable alternative at the time.
So why “Strict Liability”
For most criminal offences in Australia the prosecution must prove both “Fault” and “Physical” elements. For certain offences involving public health and safety though, only the “Physical” element needs to be proven, i.e. “Strict Liability”. There are two reasons why governments do this. The first is as a deterrent. The second is, from a legal point of view, a lot of offences would be extraordinarily difficult to prove if the “Fault” element also had to be proven that successful prosecutions would be very unlikely, effectively making the laws meaningless.
Last edited by 404 Titan; 2nd Jul 2018 at 15:04.
it doesn't matter Titan, the legal costs will bankrupt you even if you are declared innocent. Just read a few AAT decisions to get an idea of the costs involved in disputing anything with CASA.
To put that another way, any interaction with CASA at all is a bad idea.
To put that another way, any interaction with CASA at all is a bad idea.
And that makes it OK.
Titan: Where did that blurb you quoted at #70 come from?
