The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

The new fuel rules - CASA fail

Old 15th Nov 2018, 00:47
  #61 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 650
donpizmeov, you are missing the point. The point is that CASA:

1. Have set the rules for minimum fuel too low, and
2. By not understanding variable reserve, are incompetent.

Your point seems to be that the rules are irrelevant because pilots will do their "pilots stuff" and always recognise when they will need to load fuel additional to that required by the rules - thus always making for a safe flight.

Regrettably, this approach has never, ever worked, and this point was very well made by Ixixly, at post #43.

Last edited by FGD135; 15th Nov 2018 at 02:02. Reason: Minor wording change
FGD135 is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2018, 00:57
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,557
There have been several exhaustion and starvation events under the old rules, so they weren't that great.

Maybe a change of rules will also bring about an attitude change and thus the event rate will reduce because more pilots are being more prudent about their fuel planning/monitoring. Maybe.
Neither you or I can say that it will or won't happen.
So your theory is that there was some causal connection between those events and deficiencies in the rules, which deficiencies have now been rectified?

I’m pretty sure there were already plenty of rules requiring PIC’s not to run out of fuel and plenty of rules requiring PIC’s to have systems knowledge to ensure available fuel was accessed when necessary. I’m not sure how the folks whose ‘attitude’ resulted in them nonetheless flying to exhaustion or starvation will behave differently because of a different set of rules intended to achieve the same outcome.

We’ll see what the stats suggest, in the long term.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2018, 04:07
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 2,846
But LB what was the minimum amount of fuel you needed to land with before? I remember you arguing that a Mayday when you were going to land with less than 30 min intact was OTT . You seemed then to think, that landing with 20min or less was OK, and were worried people would be prosecuted for landing with 29min . Could this attitude have anything to do with motors going silent when the fuel flow stopped?
These rules work . They have been doing so around the world for decades . But it does require the PIC to take responsibility for his fuel planning .

Last edited by donpizmeov; 15th Nov 2018 at 05:45.
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2018, 06:15
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,557
Finally the rules require the PIC to take responsibility for his/her fuel planning! If only CASA had thought of that before.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2018, 06:42
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 2,846
Your suggestion that fuel exhaustion events had happened before this CASA change would support that .
Seems youre never happy LB. They were telling you to land with too much fuel a couple of months ago WRT the min fuel ruling . Now you think they are telling you to not take enough!
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2018, 06:47
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,557
I know this might be confronting for you, don, but maybe the people who suffer fuel exhaustion or starvation events aren’t that good at knowing what the rules are and complying with them, whatever the rules happen to be.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2018, 07:03
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,652
Folks,
I am reminded that, about 20+ years ago, CASA effectively eliminated mandatory reserves by regulation (but for AOC operations, the methods of determining fuel loads including reserves preserved the "old regulation" by mandating in the FCOM.

So, for non-AOC operations, we now had guidelines in a CAAP, but mandatory minimum reserves were still required by a FCOM., if applicable.

Put another way, the PIC of a non-AOC operation had to consider what he/she/it actually needed "on the day", whereas the "professional" pilot (for GA) only had to whack on flight fuel; +15% + 45 minutes --- or whatever the figure was.

So, for "professional" operations nothing really changed, including the rate of fuel exhaustion/near exhaustion accidents/incidents.

The big change was the mugPPL/weekend warrior/blundering bug smasher ----- now being encouraged to actually think, instead of "comply" ---- fuel exhaustion/near exhaustion accidents/incidents almost disappeared from the statistics.

A great example of the FAA style EDUCATION actually working.

Of course, a few years later, for "standardization" we reverted to "mandatory reserves" ----- and the statistics also reverted to the 'traditional" when the education program to think about what you really need for THIS flight was effectively dropped.

But the "traditionalists" were so happy when we reverted to "mandatory" (no thinking required ---and so easily audited for compliance).

Donald Horne's " The Lucky Country" strikes again.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is online now  
Old 15th Nov 2018, 07:07
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 2,846
See there we are agreeing on something. So no matter if a 10% variable is required or no variable reserve is required, some will opt for the Darwinism rule and do whatever they want .
A search of the Low Fuel equals Mayday thread will give ample examples of where fellas thought it was ok to stretch the range of their aircraft, and how they were offended if they had tell someone they were eating into their 30min final reserve .
Since those that really need a rule to operate, don't use the rules anyway, why penalise those that do follow the rules with more restrictions?
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2018, 09:11
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,590
Since those that really need a rule to operate, don't use the rules anyway, why penalise those that do follow the rules with more restrictions?
Quite so. How is this more restrictions?
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2018, 11:31
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,775
On a lighter note. We of the long in tooth might recall the story of the Boeing B50 Superfortress pilot being offered a trip in a RAF single seat Vampire jet fighter. The endurance of the Vampire to empty tanks was around one hour and 15 minutes if you were lucky. My old RAAF log book shows why all my Vampire trips were in general less than one hour chock to chock.
The B50 pilot was used to flying for ten hours at a time. When briefed that the endurance of the Vampire was only 1.2 hours at the very most, the Superfortress pilot was shocked and heard to say "Man - I'm in a Mayday situation even before I start the engine."..
Centaurus is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.