Part 91 - Fuel Reserve.
 

It seems that the "final reserve" fuel carried in an aircraft under the new part 91 Manual of standards is never to be used. If you are ever caught with less that the specified reserve in your tanks then you are a criminal. Moreover, you are required to self incriminate.

Thsi requirement also automatically allows your arriving fuel state to be inspected as part of a ramp check.

This is an interesting issue.Basically its the same everywhere now, as mandated by ICAO.For most situations the FINAL RESERVE is equivalent to 30 minutes of endurance fuel based upon holding at 1500 feet overhead an airfield.This will vary with weight, but what is not stated is lets say you TOUCHDOWN with 30 minutes in tanks then have a long taxi then get ramp checked on engine shutdown? Are you a criminal?.If not why not?

CASA's POV is all pilots are criminals, most just haven't been caught .....yet.

So an aircraft that will land with e.g. 29 minutes of reserve fuel rather than 30 minutes of required final reserve fuel is “threatened with grave and imminent danger and requires immediate assistance”? So typical that the aviation regulatory regime turns words into something they don’t mean.

I wonder what “immediate assistance” would be provided in the example I gave, to remove the “threatened grave and imminent danger”. Will aircraft be diverted so that the one “threatened” can land with 30 minutes rather than 29 of reserve? Will RFFS be dispatched and standing by if the aircraft will land with 29 minutes of reserve, but won’t be standing by if the aircraft will land with 30 minutes of reserve?

To quote the Spodman once again: May Jesus pee in a bucket, what are these wombats on?

ICAO does not “ mandate”. The FAA notifies lots of differences with ICAO .

What is the equivalent FAA regulation? Is it more onerous?

Sunfish, surely in this case it is less about making us into criminals and ensuring we take the correct action? There are plenty of Pilots who simply don't want to "Make a fuss" or "Deal with the paperwork" this way it's set out in a clear manner that instructs them to declare an "Emergency" which then gives ATC the full authority to do whatever is necessary to ensure you get down in a timely manner.

I forget the specific incident and I'm sure there's been more than one where a Pilot hasn't declared an actual emergency and should have which resulted in the situation being far worse than it should have been because ATC either weren't entirely sure it was a full emergency or had their hands tied in what they could do for you considering it hasn't been declared an emergency situation yet.

I'm not fan of CASA but this one doesn't seem so bad, perhaps poorly worded for the lay person though.

In contrast to the NZCAA equivalent rule:

91.305 Fuel requirements for flight under VFRCASA must be so much better at writing rules as they use many more words. :E

Folks,
The relevant FAA regs. are 91.151 for VFR, 91.167 for IFR.
If it is a Part 121/125/135, it will be what is in your Operations Specification.
Tootle pip!!

Dick, its just semantics.Mandated or otherwise, all member states including USA are expected to follow ICAOs SARPs.....The 30 minutes final reserve is pretty much universal these days and is a reasonable idea isnt it?

It's whatever you have at the end of your landing roll. What you pull up on chocks with is irrelevant.

Neville, I like the sound of that statement, but where is your reference from or is this just your personal opinion?

Why I ask is because this actually happened to me at RJTT.Because I had been saying things like "request immediate vectors to the runway due to low fuel state" I was met on shutdown by a team from the JCAB.......My calculated fuel remaining was less than the FR and I to do a lot of explaining.

30 minutes of fuel in my aircraft is a matter of trust. It cannot be dipped or seen.

Pirate, in the quoted text above, "...perform a safe landing...".

Your fuel policy should define Flight Fuel or Block Fuel eg "Block fuel is fuel that will be burnt from aircraft brakes release until completion of the landing roll i.e. includes an allowance for start-up, taxi, take-off and approach.".

But landing with (or arriving at blocks?) with 29 minutes rather than 30 minutes of reserve is not an “actual emergency”. At least not on the face of the dictionary meanings of those words.

If it’s so important, we should make the penalty for failing to “making a fuss” life imprisonment or death. Then everyone would surely speak up.

Now that I come to think of it, why not make the penalty for stuffing up fuel calculations and in-air fuel management life imprisonment or death. Then, surely, no one would ever make the mistake.

The solution to most problems in rarely yet another law, or the addition of more complication to existing law. The solution is more education. In the case of fuel, the solution is even more education and more education after that.

Unfortunately, in Australia, at least, the willingness to “speak up” has been diminished by the lack of trust in ATSB and CASA. Good luck with restoring trust in them!

Please explain? PICs choice or an arbitary FOI pop quiz? An alternate where no alternate is required.....seriously?

Ain't that the truth!!

And I don't, sadly, expect to see that change in my lifetime!!

Tootle pip!!

It's clear once again that Govt could save a huge amount of money by simply contracting the NZers to run our aviation. Cheaper and better!

Kaz

Enroute Alternate.

It's not that bl@@dy hard.

Spot on what Ixixly said. This is not an uncommon occurrence with RPT traffic arrivals into Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne when CB's or another occurrence has caused massive delays resulting in fuel emergency calls. No one ends up in the charge dock as a result. Talk of criminality is simply nonsense.

There are still fuel exhaustion incidents occurring among GA aircraft, so I don't think it is a bad thing. As Capn Bloggs said, "It's not that bl@@dy hard".

Flame away!

So LB, what's your cutoff figure for declaring an emergency - 15, 10, 1??

Well that is what has been written in every Operation Manual I have ever seen for 25 something years. If you read the CAAP it makes no reference to inbound taxi fuel. Neither does any flight planning method I've ever seen.

In a system of regulation based on objective risk, the ‘cut off’ should be the point at which the circumstances objectively constitute an emergency.

Calculating a landing with 29 minutes of reserve instead of 30 does not, objectively, constitute an emergency. Not on any planet that uses the usual definition of “objective”. The definition of the circumstances that justified a “MAYDAY” call never covered this crap.

I can understand the objective importance, from a safety perspective, of letting ATS know that an aircraft is likely to land with less than the minimum reserves calculated as being required for a flight, as soon as that likelihood becomes apparent. But making it a situation in which a “MAYDAY” is MANDATED, in circumstances in which the ATSB and CASA will descend to conduct an “investigation” of the “systemic” issues on a “just culture” basis so as to shaft the pilot? You can stick that up your a*se.

Why would anyone be surprised at the unwillingness of pilots to let ATS know that there may be a problem?

The problem is not so much the rules (assuming anyone has a clue what they mean). The problem is the contemporary consequences of breaching them.

LB, no surprise, you didn't answer the question. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

If an objective standard is applied it will clearly depend on all of the circumstances pertaining at the time.

I have one very antiquated rotating gauge in my top tank and none at all for the belly. No fuel flow meter, either.

So I rely totally on a planned rate of consumption and my watch. I start to feel uncomfortable when I have less than one hour left and the degree of discomfort is proportional to the type of terrain I'm overflying at the time.

I understand that some of you have much more sophisticated means of ascertaining your fuel status 😉

Kaz

This is standard ICAO. If you were committed to SYD you would call minimum fuel when the time to SYD would have you landing with fixed reserve. That being either 45, 30, or 15 minutes depending if it was piston, turbine, or ETDO.

Item (4) can be difficult for ATC to understand as EK found out declaring mayday fuel into YVR, ATC said you have YYJ (Victoria) just abeam you which is closer, you sure you want to continue to YVR ? Been a lot of crew applying this incorrectly in the past year in Taiwan and India to get ATC priority. They have been declaring minimum or mayday fuel when they have go below minimum diversion fuel. That is not the case.

Minimum fuel and mayday fuel levels are low, and it is very possible to land below fixed reserve even if you had planned to protect it. For example if you have a very close in alternate like AVV for MEL. You would not be committed to MEL as AVV is so close in, however a diversion to AVV would cost a lot the same amount of fuel as an IFR circuit and approach back into MEL.

Bit like coming into SYD, declaring minimum fuel in the hold at BOREE, Mayday fuel after BELKO and told XRH to your right is closer, state your intentions. My intentions, standby evaluate the information for a minute or two. SYD is now closer.

There no particular requirement to have fixed reserve upon shutdown, there are times I have had to wait for hours to get a gate/stand during poor Wx.

For anyone interested in further detail on the ICAO basis for this feel free to read the “Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual”. http://www.ifalpa.org/store/doc9976.pdf

30 minutes at what fuel burn rate? Cruise? Econ cruise? Holding pattern speed? Climb?

Many (if not most) competition aerobatic flights take-off with less than 30 min fuel. I suspect many skydiving flights would not have much more.

This is a stupid regulation made by ignorant or unthinking people. It shows disrespect for a pilots judgement. It’s back to the pre-deregulation days of the eighties in one easy step.

BACK TO THE PAST
 

Apologies for a slight thread drift and an admission that I've little to do with the CASA Part 91 as we have adopted the NZ rules here in paradise.

Way back when (note the aircraft type for a temporal reference) I was a newly minted controller I had an F4 call me at Amberley, "Amberley ground, Buckshot 28 taxi one for Willy, minimum fuel."

Bit of discussion in the tower with SATCO present and eventually I was tasked with providing a brief on the issue at the following day's mass morning brief -as we did in those days.

The pilot made the correct call, given the forecasts, a couple of NOTAMs and fuel carriage.

MJG
sitting in my weekend office in the dining shelter of The George Hotel Betio in downtown Tarawa

P. S. Grew up in aviation from 1968 with the Australian legislation and had a year "regulating" the AIP but having worked with them now for a couple of years and recently had need to compare some parts with the CASA views and attitude - NZ gets my vote.

MG: It seems the call of “minimum fuel” was made because that was the fuel with which, all relevant factors considered, the aircraft was calculated to land at YWLM. That fact did not mean the aircraft was threatened with grave and imminent danger, requiring immediate assistance. It was a fact that should have been taken into account by ATC in clearing the aircraft throughout the flight, so as to reduce the chances of the flight becoming an emergency. Or maybe the pilot was a dangerous criminal and you should have refused to issue the clearance, without the declaration of an emergency. I imagine that Phantom knucks were shy and retiring types and would have accepted refusal with good grace ....

topdrop: I realise that many people crave the certainty of hard-and-fast rules for every situation. My objection is to turning, into an ‘emergency’, every situation in which fuel state is calculated to result in fuel available on landing being less than an arbitrary number. It is an arbitrary number because, on the objective facts, some of these situations won’t be real emergencies. Whether it’s a real emergency depends on the circumstances pertaining at the time (to borrow kaz’s phrase from a post above with which I agree).

Jenna: One of the points I am trying to make is that the effect of the proposed rule is to make it a criminal offence to, among other things, FAIL to declare a MAYDAY as soon as your calculations indicate e.g a 1 minute shortfall. Doesn’t matter whether it’s a clear day with little-to-no traffic at your destination.

This rule isn’t going to stop aircraft suffering fuel exhaustion. The pilots who make mistakes that result in fuel exhaustion are generally not the pilots who make accurate on-ground and enroute estimates of the fuel that will remain on landing. Otherwise, they’d probably not fly to exhaustion...

And the rule won’t stop fuel starvation.

Most ‘good idea’ rules result in unintended consequences. Will there be commercial pressures for flights into busy airports to be conducted with fuel that can reasonably be calculated as resulting in a 1 minute shortfall/margin in minimum reserves, resulting in an an obliged declaration of an “emergency” and some priority?

Most counter-intuitive rules are the product of some bureaucratic nonsense. Is the problem that if a pilot tells ATC/S that, on current calculations, the aircraft will land with only 29 minutes of reserves, ATC/S shrugs and carries on as usual, but if the pilot declares a MAYDAY in exactly the same circumstances ATC/S does stuff?

By the way, it should go without saying, but I’ll say it: We’re all trying to achieve the same end - safe aviation

Before you start ripping into the regulator (who is simply trying to save your bacon by spelling out what a good fuel policy would be (CAAP) and the requirements (CASR), how about a bit of basic research first: read CAAP 234.

Are you serious? They hadn't even taken off. IMO if they got airborne ATC would have been under NO obligation to :look after them" so they didn't become Mayday Fuel.

So why do you think the Phantom knuck included “minimum fuel” in his call to Ground prior to departure? There’s usually a reason for the inclusion of information in calls to ATC. I can’t think of too many mandatory calls that include irrelevant trivia.

Hopefully MG will tell us why the conclusion of his homework was that the information was correctly included in the call, and what was done about that information. I’d anticipate that the Phantom knuck would have been a little perturbed if everyone in the ATC system merely shrugged and thought: “I wish him luck”.

A commercial flight flying from A to B and a military operation to do military training (with an installed Martin Baker let down option ) are completely different. As is an aerobatic aircraft doing a display overhead the airfield. Best we compare apples with apples.

If you don’t want a hard line drawn at 30 minutes, what number do you want??? If the rest of the world seems happy with 30, why are you so different??? What makes Australia so unique that we can’t comply with ICAO??

Yes the rules are written quite abruptly, if that’s the problem then complain about that and not the actual outcome of the law. Strict liability offences can still be defended, weather is an obvious one, higher levels not available due traffic will probably get you off too. Failure to plan properly will most likely not cut it....

If you can’t demonstrate to yourself or an inspector your ability to successfully complete a flight plan and allowing for a fixed reserve of 30 minutes ... best you don’t go flying that day!

Australia is happy with 30 minutes, Vref. Most of us, that is... There are the anti-establishment control-freaks who whinge about any form of regulation or "interference", but thankfully they are in the minority.

Your other points - well said.

Two defences...honest and reasonable mistake, and necessity.

Honest mistakes are commonly made, but Courts seldom find them to have been reasonable. Necessity is generally about a threat to life or urgent safety considerations.

Both hard to make out but the cost of defending against a Regulator with deep pockets can break most of us.

The NZ Reg is an easy read by comparison to this essay.


Kaz

Capn Bloggs. I am perfectly happy with 30 minutes. What I am NOT HAPPY with are the self incrimination and draconian punishments if you use any of it.

Furthermore, the logic of the proposed regulation and the MOS is block headed and an invitation to crime. If the government wishes to require a thirty minute fuel supply be kept on board an aircraft and criminalizes its use, then mount a 30 minute tank on the aircraft and put a seal on it. Don't call it a reserve. because a reserve is fuel available to be used at the will of the pilot without penalty.

I’ll try again: It’s not about the number. It’s about the number always being an emergency and mandatory MAYDAY.

Rules that make true that which is untrue leave a mess of unintended consequences in their wake.

Riddle me this: What’s the impediment to ATC taking action when a pilot reports “I’ve calculated that we’ll land with less than minimum reserves”?

I believe your interpretation is incorrect. The offence is for knowingly landing with less than the final reserve without you having done anything about ie- you didn't divert to somewhere en-route or you didn't advise atc that you are minimum/mayday fuel.

If you declare and land with less, I believe that's ok. I don't see where in the proposed rules that doing such is strict liability. It's not doing it that ends up strict liability.


In short;
91.320 (1)d says there are procedures to be followed in the MOS when specified amounts are reached.
91.320 (2) says you that if you don't meet a requirement of section (1) then you contravene the regs.

Therefore, if you don't follow the procedure you contravene the regs. Conversely if you follow the procedure you do not contravene the regs.

Any legal wizards out there???

What's with this 'self incrimination'

Doesnt the LAW as opposed RULES say that ...one is innocent until proven guilty and you need not say, do or write antyhing that may incriminate yourself.

Folks,
If you look back through the archives, we have gone through all this before.

In particular, in one post, long ago, I gave a brief history of all the close go fuel exhaustion cases, and several "wents", to airline aircraft, that resulted in the ICAO standard of 30 minutes fixed final reserve.

Briefly, it is to ensure, based on all the "order of accuracy" issues, that "on the day", you have at least some fuel remaining at touchdown, so that any or all engines are "Turning and(or) burning".

This 30 minutes is NOT flight or holding fuel.

As usual, CASA have made a complete pigs ear out of a regulatory issue that should largely be handled as an educational matter, before the event, not a strict liability criminal matter, after the event.

Tootle pip!!