CASA Fuel and Oil requirements
 

I may have missed it in the noise on this forum but I am surprised that there has been no discussion of CASA's proposed new rules for fuel requirements on this site. See link below for details.

https://www.casa.gov.au/regulations-...y-requirements

2 things stand out for me. One is that you need to have 45 minutes of fixed reserve. If you touch that you will commit a 50 penalty unit offence.

The second one is that the CAAP talks of "aerodromes" for both the destination and alternate.. I am not exactly sure of this but is an ALA an aerodrome? Under CASR 139 it only talks about registered and certified aerodromes. The definition of an ALA from the part 139 MOS is:

ALA
Aircraft landing area, being an area for the landing, movement and take-off of aircraft that is not a certified or registered aerodrome.

IF an ALA is not an aerodrome then the way that this new CAAP is written you couldn't use an ALA as an alternate. I wonder if this is a mistake, my misunderstanding or deliberate CASA meddling?

Limited Category operators are already making their feelings known about the ridiculous fuel reserve proposal. You can write (postage free) to

Reply Paid 2005
Standards Documentation Coordinator
CASA's Standards Development and Quality Assurance Branch
Canberra, ACT 2601

It has significant implications for Yak 52 and jet operators and warbirds transiting to air shows. To my knowledge, no Limited Category aircraft in Australia has ever had an issue with insufficient fuel reserves.

It's just one battle after another with these idiots.

Everything is old is new again or is it back to the future. When the 45 minute reserve was compulsory prior to the mid 1980s (?) it didn't stop fuel exhaustion then.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Seriously, why are we spending all this money on regulation reform when CASA changes it back again as soon as no-one is looking?

This is basically identical to how it was when I learned to fly in the seventies. In the eighties, pilots were credited with having some brains and it was relaxed to the current situation.

For most GA pilots, who cares? The prudent pilot still works to 45 minutes. In fact, I use 45 min plus 15% for my PRIVATE flying. But for some areas of aviation this is not sensible and probably reduces safety.

Aerobatic flights that are typically about 15 minutes and directly above an airfield is one. Carrying an additional 45 minutes for a 15 minute flight is just plain dumb and blind bureaucracy and the additional fuel mass under a 8-10g load is significant.

I can imagine parachute dropping might be another where the additional weight of fuel might be a performance issues. I'm sure there are many more.

I see that the preamble says that this is due to recent fuel related accidents. When were fuel related accidents ever not a major cause of accidents (if not THE major cause)? If CASA was competent, it would show an analysis of fuel related accidents before and after the previous rule change. The supporting documentation for this proposed rule change does not contain any objective reasons why there is a need for the rule change.

The other justification is alignment with ICAO. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing this and I don't believe it. I have pilot licences in 3 other countries and no one else seems to be slavishly aligning with ICAO like CASA does. I'm suspicious its just a motherhood reason to avoid scrutiny of the changes they want to make for CASA's own benefit.

Interestingly, the area with the greatest change seems to be operation to remote Islands. I wonder if the real motivation is butt covering after Norfolk Island that they are trying to hide with an overall re-write.

Nope, the new aspect is that if you eat into your reserve at all then that becomes an offence - you will be required to replan to land somewhere else with reserves intact.

Most aerobatic pilots could do with losing 8 kg - 1% or so in weight is not significant, just a slight edge. Competition aerobatic flights may entail holding as part of the contest activities (even at world championships) but I agree that 45 mins is excessive when the whole flight is directly above the aerodrome.

I'm not surprised.

Some people understand the concept of not running out of fuel, and have sufficient knowledge and expertise to mitigate the risks of doing so. Some people don't.

Neither group cares much about the latest regulatory non-solution to the underlying problem.

The really important aspect of the current proposal is that the substantive fuel carriage requirements are moved to an instrument made (and changeable) by CASA. There is no fuel carriage standard or outcome specified in the law. This is, of course, directly contrary to all the promises and representations made about the regulatory 'reform' program. But nobody should be surprised about that.

This structure will allow CASA to more quickly implement the next non-solution to the next manifestation of the underlying problem. Again, nobody should be surprised about that.

Haven't read it in detail but if your destination requires an alternate, wouldn't you be some sort of IFR operation? Given ALAs are generally just cleared bits of land to plonk on to, how could you use one as an alternate? No Forecast? No Notam Service?

Have a read of it in detail. It says:

If, as a result of an in-flight fuel quantity check in accordance with subsection 5 (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'

and

en-route alternate means an alternate aerodrome at which an aircraft would be able to land in the event that a diversion becomes necessary while en-route.


This means that if you are flying along VFR or IFR and say due to head winds are going to eat into your 45 minutes fixed reserve even if only by a liter you must divert to an alternate aerodrome.

So if I'm flying say Apollo Bay to King Island - where does CASA expect me to land? Probably a poor example for a few reasons but you get my point - what if there is no enroute alternate?

Carry extra fuel.

It is a bit of a worry that you guys appear to consider it's OK to use your Fixed Reserve just because the wind's a bit stronger than what you'd planned-for...

Bloggs - as Akro says, I also carry a variable reserve for a PVT flight - point being, there will always be a scenario where there is a need to use the fixed reserve - planned or not. If your argument is that you should be able to plan to never use the fixed reserve then why not make it 1 minute or 5 minutes? What's the point of having a 45 minute reserve?

You do understand that if you declare a PAN PAN for encroaching on your final reserve (or whatever CASA arbitrarily decides you require on board) then you're committing an offense? And this doesn't concern you?

For a remote area operation, there is also a risk to safety in diverting to an alternate and potentially needing to stay overnight in extreme conditions waiting for the required fuel or help to turn up.

All this only applies "...if as result of an inflight fuel calculation IAW with section xxx you determine less than 45 minutes"

Simple just do a basic calculation if you think you are going to nudge into it. Learn and move on.

I assume you mean Mayday. If I have to declare a Fuel Mayday, then I will quite happily stand up in court and defend myself, because I know that it was because of circumstances beyond my control (which doesn't include pressing on because the wind's stronger than I thought it'd be).

All the more reason to use the responsibility and authority bestowed upon you by your licence and carry more fuel...

If you don't like the rules, email Glenn!

"Everything old is new again"
Yup, even the shiny new part 61 licence, remarkably like my old licence from 1979, only difference the old licence fitted in your shirt pocket, the new one you need a valise to fit it in, guess the next one will require a wheelbarrow, after that a minivan.

With regards to fuel remaining, I wouldn't worry too much, after the Pel Air disaster.
(sorry incident)

A whole bunch of CAsA experts calculated entirely different fuel burns for the event, all of them were wrong according to the real experts from the industry.

Let the Numpies think or accuse what they like..."prove it"

if you run out completely, well you deserve all you get.

Oh and Bloggsie, you can stand up in court all you like, you've still committed a strict liability offence, for which there is no defence.

So, it begs the question....'Wot's the 45 mins for, IF you can't use it 'in extenuating' circumstances..??

Is it just to keep the sludge slushing around OK?
(There's NO sludge in MY tank)

Going to get a 'coffee'....be back in a while... take ya time.....

Cheers:eek:

Nothings changed in the 30 years I've been flying, it's always been 45 fixed reserve for piston, I was also taught to add 15% veriable if I could carry it.

Having said this, I can understand why some warbirds may be having grief with this.

Maybe point A to point A operations, ie air displays and circuit trainers could warrent a lesser amount, no less than 30 minutes IMHO.

The rule is basically saying that you should check your fuel state en-route (I'm guessing a fair percentage of those that have run out probably didn't check very well en-route). If this check tells you that you'll be landing having eaten into your fixed reserve, then you should be diverting to a place where you can still land with the reserve intact.

This rule doesn't say outright that just because you have touched your fixed reserve it is an offence. The offence is to not divert to a place where you can land with the reserve intact but rather continuing and knowingly burning into the reserve.

In the Apollo Bay to King Island example yep that's a bit more of a tough one. Probably should have done a calculation prior to the PNR I suppose.

I'm with Bloggs on this. If I end up eating my fixed reserve because of something a bit more drastically unplanned (headwinds greater than expected would be a piss poor excuse) then I'll happily say g'day to the magistrate. For example you arrive over an aerodrome with legal fuel but your mate ahead of you bellies in and blocks the only runway. No fuel to go elsewhere so the locals grab the Troopie and drag the plane off the strip for you to land. What is the safer option, eat some reserve or divert somewhere and run out on the way?



Oh and why haven't we been getting stuck into these rules yet? Probably still too busy dealing with the part 61 debacle, upcoming fatigue rules and the myriad of other changes all being dumped on us at once.

Hey Bloggs,

Betcha didn't carry 45 mins reserve in your Mirage :p

Emergency fuel 60 gallons... 1 circuit=20 gallons! :eek: :ok:
Furphies on Area Freqs on charts, Unicoms on the "My Way Highway" at Ballina and other red herrings being chucked up on a regular basis... :{

LOL @ Alidad. :)

IIRC, The vampires internal only fuel endurance is 45 minutes. ??????

Another scenario.. The aeroplane i'm flying, the book says burns 36 litres per hour for the perfect engine/perfect lean.. Planned flight leaves me with 50 mins FOB.

Don't get it leaned right................. oops 50 penalty units.

IIRC the old rules stated Fixed Reserve that You could not PLAN to use
Said nothing about a penalty for using it if you had to.

jas24zzk has it in one. I am not advocating planning to use the 45 minute fixed reserve, I am just not sure that calculating that you will nudge into it and not instantly diverting is worthy of a $9000 fine.

Another one is that there is a blanket requirement to declare a mayday if you will land without the fixed reserve intact. If you don't then again another $9000.

6(4)The pilot in command must declare a situation of emergency fuel when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the fixed fuel reserve for the flight.

The other one is that previously the CAAP was advisory. The instrument is now regulatory and the way it is written it refers only to aerodromes for arrival, departure and destination. Too bad if you want to land at an ALA.

The draft CAAP clearly refers to fuel remaining at the destination aerodrome and the accompanying proposed change to the Regulation will make it an offence to ARRIVE without that reserve on board. As someone who knows more than I said, "they want to have something absolute to measure, Kaz."

"FIXED FUEL RESERVE – the amount of fuel, expressed as a period of time, required to fly at holding speed at 1,500 feet above aerodrome elevation at ISA conditions, calculated with the estimated weight on arrival at the destination alternate aerodrome, or the destination aerodrome when no destination alternate aerodrome is required, that would be useable fuel remaining in the fuel tanks until completion of the final landing."

The current Regulation CAR 234 just as clearly refers to the fuel uplift at TAKEOFF.

" (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."

Be aware also, that there are more calculations required both pre-flight and in-flight, and a Fuel Mayday must be called if the total remaining fuel falls below the mandatory minimum fixed reserve. Call it and you get pinged, of course! That will undoubtedly encourage transparency and full compliance.

Finally, you have to use aircraft specific fuel consumption data taken from the AFM, or the engine manufacturer if not available. Only where no specific fuel consumption data exists for the precise conditions of the flight, may the aircraft be operated in accordance with estimated fuel consumption data.


Kaz

Alidad, Your name suggests that you may have spent some time looking into a Mirage Cyrano radar indicator? In Air to Ground mode. :)

Capn Bloggs, Any troop who was ever lucky enough to get a supersonic flight in the back seat of a Mirage dual, was always happy to offer a tow for any pilot who may have run out of fuel taxying in.. :ok:

Sorry. Back to topic now.:O

It all looks like pretty straight forward to me!

It is an offence to plan a flight such that the mandated fixed reserve will not remain intact.

It is an offence to not divert (while the opportunity still exists to do so) when the PIC becomes aware that continuing to the original destination will mean landing with the reserve not intact.

It is NOT an offence having satisfied the requirements above, and at a point beyond the latest point to make a safe diversion, that unforseen circumstances cause the flight to be completed with less than the required reserve.

Examples of Unforeseen circumstances;
Winds stronger than forecast (should have planned some variable reserve!)
Unforeseen traffic or weather holding at the destination (effective after the latest safe point to divert)
Aircraft system issue that delays the landing at the destination (eg landing gear problem)
Any other issue that delays the landing beyond the PIC's control!

I get it now. Someone who makes a deliberate decision to continue to the original destination and land with reserve minus 1 litre intact without declaring an emergency, rather than take an available diversion option, is a criminal. I think the penalty should be increased to a substantial gaol term, to ensure such recklessly criminal activity never happens.

I look forward to some a*seclown trying to prove it did it, given that I can choose to plan and actually cruise at fuel flows spanning a range of about 20 litres per hour, and I have 22 litres of unusable fuel that I frequently use.

What this means is that it is now possible for CASA to ramp check fuel quantities and furthermore pilots are required to incriminate themselves.

So landing minus a litre of fixed reserve can result in a criminal conviction that will disbar you from entering the USA and probably other places as well.

The net result I predict will be an increase in fuel exhaustion events if this regulation is enacted in its current form.

My reason is that I am quite sure that some fringe dwellers in the aviation community will simply make up new dipsticks with a "litigation calibration offset" of say, 20 litres. They then become the only bloke who knows what the real fuel state is, but the "dip" figure will always satisfy a nosey FOI.

This works well until some poor bastard buys or borrows the aircraft.

We all probably are going to need to increase the accuracy of our dipsticks. I struggle to get an accurate reading to 5L let alone 1!

Maybe thats why CASA changed back to the old requirement of regular fuel gauge calibration?

ANOTHER "Back to the future" step.

I can see a whole new bunch of students for an APS class. We can teach a segment on how to make your 30 minutes of fuel go 45 minutes. Out of jail :}



A good EMS and well calibrated K factor and you can :ok:

I am with AKRO………is anyone going to seriously do anything different? Are CASA changing anything for safety sake?Or is it to cover up for their failings and that of an operator who created a small reef in the pacific? :=

I'm with Jabawocky.

Recently installed a JPI EMS system.

When we did an actual fuel check ie drain the tanks the reading was within 5 litres after 150 hours of use with 24,000 litres going thru the tanks.

Beside which what idiot wants to fly round with minimum fuel nudging the 45 minute reserve. ( comment excludes those flying ex military types which have very different capacities)

Hey….I am happy arriving near my 45 minutes…….when I am certain of what is going on. Most of the time however I have 15% and INTER/TEMPO or more….just because it is there.

I wrote an article recently for a couple of magazines and an aeroclub. All about fuel management. Not the CAO's/CARs/CASRs/Part XXX……about doing rather than what what the law requires. It is not hard. But what is hard is keeping up with regulatory change that makes no sense.

We are all suffering change fatigue and becoming non compliant as a result. Look at the CTAF debacle.

So is all this change really about achieving a safer outcome? :uhoh: :hmm:

I think your 'new reef' comment may be the 'real cause' of all of this crap...

'Closing the stable door after ........'

And, as an aside, I don't recall this 'manic' behaviour on the part of the regulator following the fuel related crash of a Citation approaching Kal on a RPT(?) flight from AD to Kal,
around the mid 80's?

Cheers :ok:

It was not RPT. It was a BHP or North BHP aircraft full of company executives. That's all I can remember - can anyone find the ATSB report? I remember that it was very interesting as to why there was insufficient fuel.

Folks,
In the original consultation, the fixed final reserve was 30 minutes at "normal fuel flow", it was pointed out that there was no such thing as "normal fuel flow".

Hence the long time convention of using "holding fuel flow", which can be defined, but the ICAO 30 minutes has been increased to 45 for piston engine aircraft.

The question is why? What was wrong with complying with ICAO, why is a piston engine a reason for greater reserves??

"In the day" the "45 minutes plus 15%" was all legally usable fuel, the minimum fuel on landing was nil, not a good idea. I hope by now that we all understand the rational of "fixed final reserve", but there is not even an attempt to justify 45 minutes.

Tootle pip!!

Re Citation near Kalgoorlie- Investigation: 198304358 - Cessna 501, VH-BNK, 10 Km NE of Kalgoorlie WA, 5 December 1983
I was in Broken Hill Flight Service at time of incident - there were numerous phone calls from interested parties within 10 mins of the incident - bush telegraph working really well - certainly no mobile phones.
I seem to remember BNK belonged to North Broken Hill - had the Managing Director on board and as I heard it due to the safe landing, despite only breaking out of cloud at low level, the pilot kept his job.
I believe the only penalty for the pilot from Flight Standards (forerunner of CASA) was to redo 1 (or more?) senior commercial subjects.

i can see it now, 15 mins out of Bankstown, last fuel check calculation, oh SH**, im going to land using 2 ltrs into my reserve! MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY! no, im not in imminent danger tower, just going to land with 43 mins reserve, thats all, yes, i know i called mayday, im 15 mins out.. CASA greet you on the ground, fuel measurement taken, oh, look, i stuffed up a calculation, i actually have 48 mins of fuel left, sorry about that..

or, as someone else quoted from another forum,
Thinking about it a bit more, maybe some form of industrial action in the form of work to rule, such as my example, maybe this kind of thing needs to happen regularly to make casa realise the error of their ways..

How many points can I build up before they shoot me

Griffo :ok:

Leady, do you think it could be that pistons of old had very wild fuel flow management before a bunch of witch doctors and snake oil salesmen came along an educated folk on the use of an EMS? :O

I think of the crash out need Thargo a few years ago. That plane should have made YBCV and missed by a long shot. OK that was an extreme but 45 min due to less precise control and also more effect from head winds etc.

That might explain it perhaps? What do you reckon, having been around a long while :ooh:

Excess fuel didn't weigh anything when I was flying in PNG 🇵🇬🇵🇬🇵🇬🇵🇬