|
New Fuel Rules! Land in a "field" what a joke!
https://www.casa.gov.au/publications...alian-aircraft
All pilots must conduct in-flight fuel management, including in-flight fuel quantity checks at regular intervals.When conducting these checks, you may discover that you would be landing at your original planned destination without sufficient fuel, that is, your fixed fuel reserve remaining.If this occurs, make an alternate plan to land safely with sufficient fuel at a different location than you had originally planned. Your new safe landing location will depend on your aircraft capabilities and the conditions. In some instances, it may not even be an aerodrome but could be a field.However, if a safe landing location is not an option and you are landing with less than your fixed fuel reserve, then you must declare Mayday Fuel. You have to be joking? Who in their right mind is going to call a MAYDAY if they believe they might be 5 or 10 minutes short on their planned fixed reserve? And just who is going to risk their aircraft by landing in a field just short of their destination? The proposition that pilots are required to put out a MAYDAY if they expect to arrive with less than the mandated reserves, but a MAYDAY FUEL is to be treated differently (by those on the ground) from other MAYDAY's in that "a declaration does not automatically mean that emergency services will be mobilised". A MAYDAY call is supposed to mean "drop everything and pay attention, lives are at risk". A PAN call is what is used for "I have a problem and may need assistance". I think it's a very bad idea to be telling emergency services some MAYDAYs warrant a response and others don't. Obviously there are people in CASA that believe this is a safety issue. What is the problem they are trying to fix? |
When planning to crash, ensure your Fixed Fuel Reserve remains at the end of your crash sequence.
Then, if you are capable of moving, make all efforts to stop your Fixed Fuel Reserve escaping from any breached fuel tank. :} |
and if you don't declare a fuel mayday it's a criminal offense. if you land with less than fixed reserve it's a criminal offense. and CASA personnel are now empowered by this regulation to check your fuel state on landing. What this effectively does for any thinking pilot is to cause the carrying of a "litigation reserve" reducing payload and increasing costs. How many pilots are going to make less than safe decisions with concomitant accidents as a result of this lunacy? |
The CASA link does not open, however I do completely agree with what CASA has been quoted. Minimum fuel is declared when you look like you will be landing with less than fixed reserve but still above fixed reserve, and mayday declared when reaching your fixed reserve. It entirely appropriate for a helicopter or a light aircraft to consider an off airport landing for reducing light, weather, or fuel. Many accidents have occurred in the past where people have pressed on without a good outcome. We all would have had to demonstrate a precautionary landing for a restricted PPL or GFPT. Far better to find a good spot to put down and live to fly another day while you still have fuel than to push on. |
Originally Posted by swh
(Post 10167851)
We all would have had to demonstrate a precautionary landing for a restricted PPL or GFPT. Far better to find a good spot to put down and live to fly another day while you still have fuel than to push on.
Say you figure out you are 5 minutes short on your fixed reserve at your ultimate destination being an aerodrome with a 2km 30 metre wide asphalt runway with refuelling facilities, you are going to land in a farmers paddock 5 minutes short of your destination and potentially kill yourself running in to power lines or risk bursting into flames with all the useful fuel still in your aircraft when you hit unseen small obstacles when on the ground? Suit yourself.... |
There are pedants and then there are Pprune posters on the GA Australian forum. |
The solution if simple: carry a small saw around with you..if you see a CASA ramp checker approaching..quickly cut off the bottom end of your dipstick |
The CASA information sheet is quite clear that it is in line with ICAO, and the OP highlighting the 'land in a field' option seems to have overlooked that helicopters are aircraft and quite capable of landing in paddocks, car parks and hotel gardens :D
Although I do think that declaring an emergency (Mayday) rather than a PAN leads to a diminution of the effectiveness of Mayday calls overall and seems to overlook that a reserve is just that; fuel to rely upon if the planned flight runs into an unexpected delay or increased fuel burn. From one who came through a system where we kept very, very quiet until the gauge read 12 minutes remaining in a single engine helicopter hovering alongside the carrier ;) |
The requirement to declare MINIMUM FUEL and MAYDAY FUEL has been in the Jepps for a while. It applies to the big planes as well as the little ones. So statements such as:
and if you don't declare a fuel mayday it's a criminal offense. if you land with less than fixed reserve it's a criminal offense. and CASA personnel are now empowered by this regulation to check your fuel state on landing. |
That’s exactly correct. Reserve fuel, whether it’s alternate, holding, weather, contingency etc is there to be used. If that need arises..it only has to be exactly correct on departure ..what if a plane has lost a wheel on the runway at your destination and the tower advises it will take 15-20 minutes to get a tug to tow it clear...and your alternate if required is 35 minutes away..are you required to divert immediately in case or wait 20 minutes..what if after 20 minutes they say we just need 10 minutes to do a runway inspection..and now you don’t have enough fuel for your alternate plus legal reserve..have you done anything wrong? |
Reserve fuel, whether it’s alternate, holding, weather, contingency etc is there to be used. it will take 15-20 minutes to get a tug to tow it clear...and your alternate if required is 35 minutes away.. |
This whole thing reminds me of dealing with thick airline storemen as in: Me: "Give me the spare Thronomister!". zzstoreman: "But if I give it to you, I won't have a spare!".
i can see the necessity of the CASA procedure for any aircraft in controlled airspace since scheduling and prioritization is obviously an issue. But to apply it as a blanket measure to light aircraft operating into uncontrolled airports is overkill. |
At all points along the flight you must have your reserve and any holding be it traffic or weather available. |
This issue has been done to death. It’s just another pointless rule. The pilots involved in fuel exhaustion or starvation incidents aren’t in that situation as a consequence of a lack of rules. I’m not going to be doing a precautionary landing into a “field” to ensure the entirety of my fixed reserves remain intact rather than land at my planned destination with less than my fixed reserves intact. And I won’t be declaring a MAYDAY when I calculate that I’ll land with less than fixed reserves intact. The arseclowns who make these rules can go their hardest, accordingly. |
Folks,
The BIG PICTURE of the "why" of a 30 minute fixed final reserve is ---- that you actually have some fuel left in tanks on landing. What too many of you seem to not understand or want to understand is that various errors can be cumulative, so that a calculated/indicated fixed final reserve may or may not actually be in the tanks. You may or may not, in the real world, have 30 minutes endurance remaining. ICAO didn't pull this one out of thin air, it is the result of a serious of fuel exhaustion or near exhaustion accidents/incidents over many years. Without the need for "regulation", most major airlines adopted a FFR of 30 minutes thirty or more years ago. If you want to criticize on this one, criticize CASA for: (1) Taking this long (thirty years or more) to catch up, and; (2) Making little or no effective attempt to explain, by effective education (assuming anybody in CASA understands the rational for the ICAO requirement) why the concept of 30 minutes FFR makes a serious contribution to air safety. Tootle pip!! |
If the forecast or the traffic holding requires x amount of fuel and you have put that on board then there is no problem. If you only carried x and the requirement is now x+y then you need to have x+y fuel on board. If you don't have x+y then you go find somewhere to land that doesn't require x+y and put more fuel on. If you continue to your destination and ignore the new requirement and end up landing with 10 minutes of fuel in your tank then that is a decision that you will have to justify. If you have decided to arrive at your destination with only the FR and your destination is now closed due to a disabled aircraft then you are required to declare MAYDAY FUEL and do whatever is required to ensure the safety of yourself and your passengers. If you had a possible alternate that is 10 minutes away you still have to declare a mayday if you will arrive with less than 45 minutes. If you stooged around waiting because ATC or whoever said it will be cleared up in 35 minutes then had to divert and arrived with only fuel vapours then once again you would have to justify that decision.
|
I got down to about 300ft under rainy scuddy weather with very low viz on a cross country as a new ppl. I landed in a field. It was grouse. I’d highly recommend it to anyone. The farmer gave me a smoke and I was on my way an hour later :)
|
Lookleft,
Wonderful post, completely ignoring the fact that, with such small amounts of physical fuel remaining, you have absolutely no idea of endurance remaining, thirty minutes calculated/indicate might be forty minutes, or it might be as good as nothing, it might even be nothing, that is the whole point of FFR, the final order of accuracy safety buffer. Tootle pip!! PS: Framer, a smart move. |
Originally Posted by mikewil
(Post 10167855)
Is your post a wind up?
Say you figure out you are 5 minutes short on your fixed reserve at your ultimate destination being an aerodrome with a 2km 30 metre wide asphalt runway with refuelling facilities, you are going to land in a farmers paddock 5 minutes short of your destination and potentially kill yourself running in to power lines or risk bursting into flames with all the useful fuel still in your aircraft when you hit unseen small obstacles when on the ground? Suit yourself.... The main reasons why light aircraft run low on fuel would be due to weather or being lost. They may not even know there is a runway nearby. If I knew there was a runway nearby and I could get in that is where I would land, it is the safer outcome. |
LS what are you actually commenting on? You are either planning for 30 minutes or you are not. If it is such a small amount of fuel and indeterminate then I would be adding an additional amount for the possible discrepancy. On the one hand you are saying it is difficult to know how much fuel 30 minutes then straight away you are saying thats why there is a FFR. Are your meds up to date?
|
“However, if a safe landing location is not an option and you are landing with less than your fixed fuel reserve, then you must declare Mayday Fuel.” If the above quote from the CASA website from post#1 is taken literally, as long as you have a safe landing location even with than less fixed reserve fuel, you are not required to declare Mayday Fuel. As to to the possibility of having to land in a paddock, running low on fuel has always been given as one possible reason for a precautionary landing off airport, so no change really. |
Surely we all flew on a company minimum fixed reserve at flight school. My company used 45 minutes. We prepared a nav log beforehand as normal in CPL cross country training. A-B-C-A in a tomahawk (he says crossing himself) the nav log showed that that you did due diligence to the requirements using forecast *sic winds and 95knots cruise. The strips at B and C were remote at times and had no avgas. We planned an overhead join and touch and go at them then onward. Weather and notams and a weight and balance showing that A-B-C-A fuel plus 45 minutes and you and instructor into the underwhelming tomahawk meant that you were 45pounds overweight. Oh well change your weights to standard weight and you were good to go. 4 hours later calling up for joining instructions back into A and the tower says there are 6 in the pattern..hold south of the local town and call back in 5 minutes (of course it’s a fine Sunday afternoon and all the recreational pilots are out flying) so boom..you’re landing with 40 minutes of fuel..naughty naughty..? no ...your instructor says ‘there you go..that’s why we take 45 minutes extra fuel’ |
Then your instructor is an idiot.
|
So......Declaring "MAYDAY FUEL" achieves......?
|
Like any other mayday-assistance and priority.
|
Originally Posted by Chief galah
(Post 10168079)
So......Declaring "MAYDAY FUEL" achieves......?
|
You're in a perfectly serviceable aircraft, that's under control with at least 30 minutes of fuel and you want some twit in Canberra telling you what to do?
|
The most upsetting thing about all this is that the CASA imbeciles are more than likely paid
a six figure sum to come up with this horse****. :( |
I recall from decades ago that the 30 minutes fixed reserve for a 737 was 1200 kgs. That was calculated for a final approach from the Outer Marker, a go around, a circuit to get back to the OM, land, full reverse and run out of fuel on the runway.
|
One point that doesn’t seem to crack much of a mention here is what happens in-flight to update the fuel plan enroute. Yes, the first critical step is to work out as accurate a plan on the ground as you can, but then you’ve got to do what you can to ensure it’s working (or not, and make decisions accordingly). A couple of pinpoints per leg and a watch gives you a ground speed and a fuel flow (depending on the limitations of your your fuel indicating system, but better than blind trust), while any GPS can tell you the time to the next point but not to destination, if there’s a significant track change. How many of us do these simple but critical calculations in whatever we fly? If you’re diligent with your fuel management and still get short of fuel due to factors beyond your control, then you’re still way ahead of Joe Bloggs who jumps in and launches in blissful ignorance. If you’ve done everything right and for some reason are into your fixed reserve, then declare a mayday, get priority and assistance and be bloody happy about it. If you didn’t plan or check, well have a look in the hall of mirrors. |
LS If it is true that “fixed final reserve may ... not actually be in the tanks” and “you have absolutely no idea of endurance remaining” as a consequence of cumulative errors, despite calculated fuel remaining on landing being 30 minutes, shouldn’t the rule require the declaration of a MAYDAY when calculated FFR on landing falls below 60 minutes? If your actual FOB “might be nothing” at a calculated FOB of 30 minutes, doesn’t the supposed “grave and imminent danger” start 30 minutes earlier? |
What concerns me is that this eminently sensible idea in principle will be used as a tool by CASA to continue the embuggerance of GA. For example, a simple check of a weeks fuel dockets, given you know the capacity of the aircraft, and you can pinpoint any large uplifts that might mean transgression of the reserve rule. Similarly FOI's now have an excuse to check your fuel state on arrival.
Furthermore, I fail to see how declaring a fuel emergency on track to Binjimup or some station somewhere is going to get you anything but a "show cause" letter from CASA. |
Yes, fairly pointless declaring a mayday unless you’re in CTA. However, people just shouldn’t be landing with less than fixed reserve without a bloody good excuse, so if they get caught out by anyone (CASA, their CP or just someone who knows right from wrong) then they should be explaining themselves, don’t you think? |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10168564)
LS If it is true that “fixed final reserve may ... not actually be in the tanks” and “you have absolutely no idea of endurance remaining” as a consequence of cumulative errors, despite calculated fuel remaining on landing being 30 minutes, shouldn’t the rule require the declaration of a MAYDAY when calculated FFR on landing falls below 60 minutes? If your actual FOB “might be nothing” at a calculated FOB of 30 minutes, doesn’t the supposed “grave and imminent danger” start 30 minutes earlier? The name of the game is to ensure you don’t run out of fuel. By always landing with at least 30 mins indicated or calculated, your chances of running out of fuel should be sufficiently low. |
Sunfish, you shouldn’t be concerned about someone checking your fuel state on arrival. |
Of course they should “explain themselves”, AOTW. I planned to land with 45 minutes of fixed reserve, realised I was going have only 30 due to higher than forecast winds, and decided to continue and land with only 30. What’s the safety issue? I planned to land with 45 minutes fixed reserve, and I have no idea why I only have 30 minutes remaining. That’s a safety issue. I planned to land with 60 minutes fixed reserve, all of my on ground and in flight calculations confirmed that I was going to land with 60 minutes of fixed reserve, but I ran out of fuel. That’s a safety issue. So much depends on aircraft-specific knowledge. I’m looking forward to the day that an FOI watches me pump 153 litres into a tank marked “140 Litres Useable”. I’ll explain that I used all the useable unuseable fuel in that tank, to ensure that I had more than enough useable FFR in the other tank in addition to the 11 litres of useable unuseable fuel in that tank. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10168605)
Of course they should “explain themselves”, AOTW. I planned to land with 45 minutes of fixed reserve, realised I was going have only 30 due to higher than forecast winds, and decided to continue and land with only 30. What’s the safety issue?. The guys in that RJ football charter that ran out of fuel probably planned to have 30 and then stuff happened and they ended up with none. Could that have been because they’d got into a habit of treating the fixed reserve as a suggestion that could be burnt if it was inconvenient to refuel somewhere. Personally I think your example is a safety issue, not because you would be likely to run out of fuel, but because you have a disregard for the rules if following them causes inconvenience. |
What rule do I break if I plan to land with 45 minutes FFR then make an in-flight decision to instead land with 30? What rule? I think you’ll find the answer is: No rule. What is the safety issue if I decide to land with 30 minutes reserve, and I in fact land with 30 minutes reserve? The safety issue. What if I decided from the start to land with 30 minutes reserve rather than 45, and in fact land with 30? If that’s not a safety issue, why does it become a safety issue if I instead planned to land with 45 minutes reserve then make an in-flight decision to land with 30 as a consequence of higher winds than forcecast, and in fact land with 30? What is reserve fuel for? |
AOTW; people just shouldn’t be landing with less than fixed reserve without a bloody good excuse, so if they get caught out by anyone (CASA, their CP or just someone who knows right from wrong) then they should be explaining themselves, don’t you think? To put it another way, you don't explain anything to CASA, it will simply be used as evidence against you. |
Originally Posted by Lookleft
(Post 10168053)
LS what are you actually commenting on? You are either planning for 30 minutes or you are not. If it is such a small amount of fuel and indeterminate then I would be adding an additional amount for the possible discrepancy. On the one hand you are saying it is difficult to know how much fuel 30 minutes then straight away you are saying thats why there is a FFR. Are your meds up to date?
Only somebody as thick as you and your cohort would not understand!! I am not "saying" anything, I am (once again) stating a simple fact of the real world. The origin of the ICAO requirement is well known by those who want to know, and has been well covered in previous threads on the subject. Tootle pip!! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:11. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.