I think the Virgin B737 incident where they headed to ADL and didn't get in due I believe un-forceast fog and diverted to Mildura as didn't have the legs to go anywhere else. On arrival Mildura fog again. A missed approach or two and a MUST land off the last approach as almost dry tanks.

How these new proposed regs would have helped I don't know.

CASA are very good at putting a giant blanket on any fire!

Guidance material required only..

Car Ramrod, The current rule is copied below. It is not quite what you are saying.

I guess I have 2 main problems with the proposed change:

1. I don't believe that it will lead to an increase in safety but is just a rule for the sake of prosecution. The ATSB publication "Starved and exhausted" give s a good rundown of the accident statistics but I would argue that these new rules would not have made a difference in any of those reported situations. The vast majority of accidents and serious incidents occur due to starvation. All of the fatalities and injuries in the report were due to starvation not exhaustion. The new rules will not improve anything. Could we end up with the situation that people are so fixated on the inflght calculations now required that they forget to switch a tank?

2. The current rules do allow for all the unusual situations that don't fit a hard and fast rule. CASA will be forever issuing exemptions for this new rule as it will prove unworkable when they finally realize all the implications.

(1) 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.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) An operator of an aircraft must take reasonable steps to ensure that an aircraft does not commence a flight as part of the operator's operations if the aircraft is not carrying sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(3) For the purposes of these Regulations, in determining whether fuel and oil carried on an aircraft in respect of a particular flight was sufficient within the meaning of subregulations (1) and (2), a court must, in addition to any other matters, take into account the following matters:

(a) the distance to be travelled by the aircraft on the flight to reach the proposed destination;

(b) the meteorological conditions in which the aircraft is, or may be required, to fly;

(c) the possibility of:

(i) a forced diversion to an alternative aerodrome; and

(ii) a delay pending landing clearance; and

(iii) air traffic control re-routing the flight after commencement of the flight; and

(iv) a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft; and

(v) where the aircraft is a multi-engined aircraft--an engine failure;

(d) any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA for the purposes of this regulation.

(4) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.

I've only done it for my 15 years of flying whilst not blissfully disregarding rules, so I must only be half as good and know half as much as you sir. Or ma'am, I don't know.

I was not suggesting that the only people qualified to comment would be those who have published reports on the matter. Your insinuation that I needed to read up on the matter before I am worthy to discuss the topic with yourself was rebutted; evidently neither of us are leaders in the area of fuel exhaustion and starvation events and we are basing our comments on what we have been told and learnt ourselves. What's good enough for you is obviously not good enough for others.

Do you really think I am that stupid? Of course you do, hence the remark! That's very endearing thanks :ok:


Here I was thinking we were debating the rule itself as opposed to the substandard reform program and the "theory" of that!

I wouldn't say there is no obligation to an aircraft flying around as we speak. Whilst it isn't a reg, AIP ENR 1.1 60.5 has minimum and mayday fuel declarations listed.


Thanks for agreeing on that one.


Be careful what you wish for! :}


TBM, I don't believe this new rule would have had any impact on the flight you mention- that's exactly the scenario of what the FR is for, all the rule says now is they have to declare a mayday. It's going to be paperwork anyway regardless of the new rule. The rule just states they have to declare it. If you have precious little fuel and going to bust minimums because there isn't any other option, wouldn't it be wise to declare the emergency?

Maybe if Avianca declared their fuel emergency properly (ie the new Mayday Fuel) they wouldn't have ploughed in?


No_one, I haven't gotten into the application of the rule towards starvation/exhaustion. I'm simply debating that the rule itself does not say "if you use FR you are a criminal" - which is what most people have thought to be the case.
People already forget to switch tanks and prang, hence the statistics! Maybe monitoring the fuel state better would have brought them to realise that they have fuel in other tanks, who knows.

Folks,
Probably not, but it would absolutely guarantee no repeat offenders??
Tootle

So Car Ramrod, let's cut to the chase.

Let's set aside the fact that, contrary to promises, the proposed rule is highly prescriptive rather than outcomes-based.

Let's set aside the fact that despite the critical importance of fuel management to the safety of flying operations that require fuel, the content of the proposed rule is not in the Act, the content of the proposed rule is not in the regulations, and the content of the proposed rule is not in a Civil Aviation Order. Instead, it's proposed to be in the ever increasing pile of CASA 'instruments' that can be changed in accordance with the next CASA a*sclown's view of the world.

Let's set aside the fact that the proposal is contrary to the recommendations of the ASRR Report.

Let's cut to the chase:

What is the problem to which the proposed rule is a more effective practical solution than the current rule?

Do you think that the people who end up behind engines starved or exhausted of fuel got there because of a lack of knowledge of the rules?

Do you think that the people who fail to comprehend the significance of the fuel state in which they find themselves are going to behave differently as a consequence of the proposed rule?

I'm not sure that safety and common sense can be effectively regulated nor enforced in a democratic society.


With GA VFR flying, the risk takers generally kill themselves eventually. Sometimes along with their trusting pax.


I wonder if CASA garnish their estates for the penalty units?

Not specifically, not as an outright factor itself. But I do not blindly believe though that the new rule is "pointless" like most people think. I actually think that making people think more about their fuel state whilst enroute is a good idea. Yes maybe bringing us super pilots (I'm not super duper yet, need 30 years of flying before that) down to the lowest common dominator isn't the best thing since sliced bread, I don't actually see a problem with the intent of the rule as I understand it. Heck it's a strict liability offence to not take into account the requirements that no_one posted earlier before they go flying, why shouldn't it be much the same when you are actually airborne?

If people are now forced to monitor their fuel state better because of the new rule the maybe there will be fewer starvation or exhaustion events. You nor I can either prove or disprove that.

Take starvation for example. I see too many people only verify total amount of fuel at random times on trip logs. Now imagine if the threat of becoming a criminal weighs so heavily on you that you start logging a bit more often, and also log each tank. Now when the engines cough and splutter the pilot may (notice I said may, not will) just realise that they have fuel available in other tanks! I can name at least one accident where there was plenty of fuel available in other tanks, yet they didn't select them and pranged it.

You believe it won't help, I believe it might. Suppose we just have to live with that.


Now that is an entirely different topic and believe it or not, one that I agree with you on.


Have we cut enough chases and set enough things aside yet? :E

And what evidence do you have to show that:

- people aren't thinking enough about their fuel state whilst enroute now

- the new rule will result in them thinking more about their fuel state whilst enroute, and

- as a consequence of that increased "thinking", there will be fewer fuel related accidents and incidents?

No amount of thinking enroute can make up for a lack of knowledge of:

- how much fuel was in the aircraft's tanks at the start

- how much of that fuel is usable as a matter of fact

- the actual rates of consumption at various powers settings of the engine/s,

with the outcome being that the person is merely using the WAG method to calculate remaining fuel usable at each point s/he pauses to think about fuel state.

Nor can more enroute thinking make up for a lack of knowledge of where all the fuel comes and goes when the various selectors are in various positions.

Most of the people who have suffered fuel-related accidents and incidents did quite a lot of thinking about fuel enroute. It's just that what they were thinking was erroneous.

Do you really think this will change anyones approach to fuel monitoring and situational awareness of fuel states any more than say, i dont know, the fear of an accident and possible death? J Reason, 1997, has published quite a few papers on situational awareness, and how mistakes can be made in things like fuel starvation and exhaustion, and not one of those mentions penalties for making those kids of errors, as a useful deterrent in reducing slips as their known in academic circles.
the fear of becoming a criminal in CASA's eyes is a hollow threat, we are already criminals in their eyes, just as everyone who fails to fill out their log book at the end of every flight, before the end of the day is a criminal and liable for a $9000 fine for every offence.. yet, almost all professional pilots i know, fill out their logbooks at the end of the dat at the earliest, not every flight.. after a busy week, i know of some who dont fill out their logbooks until the end of the week, or month in some cases, so now ar criminals owing fines of almost $1M!!! but that doesn not change their behaviour.. because, you know, failing to fill out your log book at the end of your flight is a serious, Million $$ safety issue..

Actually, if CASA was competent and / or interested in objective, transparent decision making, it could.

The proposed rule change is pretty much going back to the rules that were in place until the mid 1980's. All CASA has to do is publish the fuel related accident rate before and after the last rule change. It has all the data. Simple. You've got to ask why didn't they?