Fuel reserves
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
Pace, haven't jets like yours always been pretty heavily regulated?
The answer compared to the beloved AOC ops is NO. Ban other regs a problem so look for another way to eliminate the thorn?
So lump the so called "serious" stuff into a regulated invironment and the insignificant stuff can play where no one wants to go. Out of sight out of mind.
Pace
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
A complex aircraft is:
* a jet (even a single-engine jet)
* a multi-engine turboprop
* any aircraft with more than 19 seats
* any aircraft more than 5700 kg
* a jet (even a single-engine jet)
* a multi-engine turboprop
* any aircraft with more than 19 seats
* any aircraft more than 5700 kg
Any pressurised aircraft
single engine turbo prop
piston turbo charged
piston retractable
piston constant speed prop
Any twin
Any combination of above
BW's list effectively excludes virtually all piston types or stuff not requiring a type rating
Were any of the above categories included in a previous CAA/JAA definition rather than an EASA one?
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
Were any of the above categories included in a previous CAA/JAA definition rather than an EASA one?
Interestingly, JAA never defined a "complex" aeroplane in JAR-FCL 1. In LASORS the CAA defines it as "an aeroplane certificated for the carriage of at least four persons, have a variable pitch propeller and retractable landing gear", though the definition is only used in requiring a certain amount of complex time in CPL training. Differences training is required for a number of features in the list you quote (VP, retractable, turbo, pressurised, tail-wheel) but the "complex aeroplane" definition is not used, nor is the number of seats ever referred to.
The FAA defines it as "an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller". This is one of the things that requires differences training in FAA-land. Others include high performance (> 200 hp), pressurized and tail-wheel.
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
From: UK
Whilst it is entirely appropriate that public transport commercial operations should have a clearly defined fuel policy, applying a similar blanket policy to private light aircraft operations is not.
When flying on my PPL I mostly operate out of an airfield with three runways, with numerous farm strips nearby, several other GA airfields in the vicinity and ultimately a landing distance requirement that would allow me to make a precautionary landing in almost any field I choose. My fuel gauge is direct reading and I know the burn rate and re-measure it frequently. If flying in the local area VFR on a CAVOK day, there is approximately zero chance of me having to utilise so much reserve fuel. If flying visual circuits at my home field, which take about 4 minutes each, why must I stop when I have 30 minutes fuel remaining? In my previous job, flying military helicopters, we routinely operated down to a minimum landing fuel equivalent to 5 minutes. It needed a fair bit of mental dead reckoning, planning and judgement but it worked.
I would rather have the freedom to use my own common sense and airmanship to choose my own minimum fuel appropriate to the nature of the flight I am undertaking, rather than have an arbitrary figure (designed for a different type of operation altogether) imposed on me.
Incidentally, when flying cross-country I normally choose to keep 1 hour fuel up my sleeve. I think I am quite capable of making these decisions myself without EASA deciding for me.
When flying on my PPL I mostly operate out of an airfield with three runways, with numerous farm strips nearby, several other GA airfields in the vicinity and ultimately a landing distance requirement that would allow me to make a precautionary landing in almost any field I choose. My fuel gauge is direct reading and I know the burn rate and re-measure it frequently. If flying in the local area VFR on a CAVOK day, there is approximately zero chance of me having to utilise so much reserve fuel. If flying visual circuits at my home field, which take about 4 minutes each, why must I stop when I have 30 minutes fuel remaining? In my previous job, flying military helicopters, we routinely operated down to a minimum landing fuel equivalent to 5 minutes. It needed a fair bit of mental dead reckoning, planning and judgement but it worked.
I would rather have the freedom to use my own common sense and airmanship to choose my own minimum fuel appropriate to the nature of the flight I am undertaking, rather than have an arbitrary figure (designed for a different type of operation altogether) imposed on me.
Incidentally, when flying cross-country I normally choose to keep 1 hour fuel up my sleeve. I think I am quite capable of making these decisions myself without EASA deciding for me.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
If flying in the local area VFR on a CAVOK day, there is approximately zero chance of me having to utilise so much reserve fuel. If flying visual circuits at my home field, which take about 4 minutes each, why must I stop when I have 30 minutes fuel remaining?
"except for ... taking off and landing at the same aerodrome/operating site and remaining within 50 nautical miles (nm) of that aerodrome/operating site..."
Are there sensible scenarios you can think of which wouldn't be?
Actually I just thought of one:
Aircraft A is on a VFR cross country from X to Y, and joins the circuit at Y for some practice. An identical Aircraft B gets airborne from Y into the circuit. Both get down to 30 mins fuel. Aircraft B can keep going. One interpretation of the proposed rule is that Aircraft A must land. That seems a bit odd, doesn't it?
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
I would rather have the freedom to use my own common sense and airmanship to choose my own minimum fuel appropriate to the nature of the flight I am undertaking, rather than have an arbitrary figure (designed for a different type of operation altogether) imposed on me.
I tend to agree with you with a caution. I think there should be a basic structure for fuel management but with some flexibility.
Placing something into a cast iron regulation then also brings in the question of insurance. You did not have the legal required fuel and hence insurance is void.
The pilot has to make descisions regarding fuel anyway. Stronger than forecast headwinds may result in an early diversion?
Fog? so unpredictable which may require the pilot to carry more fuel than the legal requirements.
I can remember flying to Scotland with the whole country under a blanket of fog. My departure airfield had 4000 metres my destination was in the clear but everything else seemed down. Ireland was totally clear so I took on enough fuel for a long diversion if all went pear shaped.
I must admit to being cautious with fuel. Have plenty and you can go anywhere have little and your options close if something goes wrong.
Again I can remember a fuel problem in a Seneca twin years ago over unforecast fog. The fuel transfer jammed on legal minimal fuel with all alternatives down and I took a PAR with colour code red to a cloudbase of 80 feet and 600 metres into a military base. The controllers knew I was not visual at 200 feet and carried the talkdown to the ground. The cloud was on the hangar tops! never again.
Pace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
From: UK
Fair point Bookworm, maybe I should have used another example, and the one you have proposed is very applicable. I have been known on occasions to fly to an airfield more than 50nm from base, where I do not have to pay landing fees, and spend an afternoon circuit bashing. I then might land, have a coffee, refuel and fly home. The proposed regulations would seem to require me to be carrying reserve fuel whilst flying circuits. I personally feel that individual captaincy decision-making might be a better policy here than imposition of an arbitrary figure.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
Fair point Bookworm, maybe I should have used another example, and the one you have proposed is very applicable. I have been known on occasions to fly to an airfield more than 50nm from base, where I do not have to pay landing fees, and spend an afternoon circuit bashing...
"except for ... taking off and landing at the same aerodrome/operating site and remaining within 50 nautical miles (nm) of that aerodrome/operating site..."
I think it would be quite reasonable to consider a flight A to B/ multiple circuits and return to B as.
Flight 1 A-B, requires 30 minutes of reserves
Flight 2 B-B circuits, exempt from reserve requirement
Flight 3 B-A, requires 30 minutes of reserves.
Would there ever be a reasonable requirement to make flight 1 or 3 with less than 30 minutes reserves?
I know in the military world aircraft operate on very thin reserves, but that is their job, is largely a fact of life, and a significant training and infrastructure system helps make it safe - non of which can be relied on to exist for a private operator.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
“Would there ever be a reasonable requirement to make flight 1 or 3 with less than 30 minutes reserves?”
Some aircraft only have around 1 hours fuel but could be landed on a very short strip.
Some aircraft have very limited w & b so by forcing more fuel you would just create another issue of being over weight on takoff.
As I said in my post above, if you have 3 places within 5 min and 10 within 10 min then 30 min reserve is ok, if you are in Scotland with fog then you need a lot more. A machine which can land in 300m is likly to have many more options than a Twin needing 1000m. One rule for all is not the way to go.
Rod1
Some aircraft only have around 1 hours fuel but could be landed on a very short strip.
Some aircraft have very limited w & b so by forcing more fuel you would just create another issue of being over weight on takoff.
As I said in my post above, if you have 3 places within 5 min and 10 within 10 min then 30 min reserve is ok, if you are in Scotland with fog then you need a lot more. A machine which can land in 300m is likly to have many more options than a Twin needing 1000m. One rule for all is not the way to go.
Rod1
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
Rod
If I was flying something like a Husky on tundra tyres and I knew that any farmers field would be a safe landing strip then YES that would influence how much I would push the fuel.
Pace
If I was flying something like a Husky on tundra tyres and I knew that any farmers field would be a safe landing strip then YES that would influence how much I would push the fuel.
Pace
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Difficult to argue for regulation of a private activity which has a long proven record of negligible 3rd party risk... OTOH most GA planes can carry passengers and these passengers can be assumed to have at least some expectation of safety. Tricky...
I don't think any legislation is going to work - because the whole GA scene runs on (mostly) crap hardware and (mostly) crap procedures. One cannot legislate fuel margins of say 30 mins when the plane might fly for 3 hours (full rich; few people are taught to lean) but 99% of the planes have useless fuel gauges and 90% of the punters are not flying with freshly topped-off-to-the-rim tanks but (acting fully in accordance with PPL training methods) are taking the fuel level from the tech log so they are lucky if they are within half an hour of what they think they have.
The only way to do really accurate fuel management is to have a fuel totaliser e.g. Shadin. Otherwise, the best one can do is to know accurately the fuel flow at given MP/RPM etc and this can be established only with a test flight; no good reading the POH.
I don't think any legislation is going to work - because the whole GA scene runs on (mostly) crap hardware and (mostly) crap procedures. One cannot legislate fuel margins of say 30 mins when the plane might fly for 3 hours (full rich; few people are taught to lean) but 99% of the planes have useless fuel gauges and 90% of the punters are not flying with freshly topped-off-to-the-rim tanks but (acting fully in accordance with PPL training methods) are taking the fuel level from the tech log so they are lucky if they are within half an hour of what they think they have.
The only way to do really accurate fuel management is to have a fuel totaliser e.g. Shadin. Otherwise, the best one can do is to know accurately the fuel flow at given MP/RPM etc and this can be established only with a test flight; no good reading the POH.
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
From: UK
mm,
I don't really want to get to deep into specific details as I am really trying to make a much more general point of principle. However, a transit from A to B going straight into circuits at B without an intervening full stop landing would be considered by most to be a single flight, and would seemingly fall foul of these regulations.
Whilst I would not generally have any good reason to operate down to the old 'military reserves', my experience does give me the confidence to decide for myself what is an appropriate minimum fuel for the flight I am undertaking. Sometimes the answer I come up with is more than 30 minutes, sometimes less. I'm sure everyone here can do the same, taking into account their own experience, met conditions, aircraft type, fuel accuracy, alternates and so on. I simply do not think that legislation is wanted or needed here.
I don't really want to get to deep into specific details as I am really trying to make a much more general point of principle. However, a transit from A to B going straight into circuits at B without an intervening full stop landing would be considered by most to be a single flight, and would seemingly fall foul of these regulations.
Whilst I would not generally have any good reason to operate down to the old 'military reserves', my experience does give me the confidence to decide for myself what is an appropriate minimum fuel for the flight I am undertaking. Sometimes the answer I come up with is more than 30 minutes, sometimes less. I'm sure everyone here can do the same, taking into account their own experience, met conditions, aircraft type, fuel accuracy, alternates and so on. I simply do not think that legislation is wanted or needed here.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
From: Dublin
Another way of looking at it is to ask if it actually makes any difference?
If you don't run out of fuel, then noone will know that you didn't have the required reserves, and noone will really care.
If you do run out of fuel, then the CAA has a policy of prosecuting (at least as I understand it) so all it will do is mean that they will charge you with this as well/instead of endangering.
If you don't run out of fuel, then noone will know that you didn't have the required reserves, and noone will really care.
If you do run out of fuel, then the CAA has a policy of prosecuting (at least as I understand it) so all it will do is mean that they will charge you with this as well/instead of endangering.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
I can get home from Compton Abbas in 5 minutes, and it is mostly down hill...That could be one reason for not carrying minimum reserves. Nearest alternate is 11 miles further on or back to CA. There are a couple of strips in the area too....
Not saying I'd plan to fly like that, but it could be good enough reason. Considering it is about 10 miles from home, wouldn't that fall into the "within 50 miles" catagory even if landing away?
Not saying I'd plan to fly like that, but it could be good enough reason. Considering it is about 10 miles from home, wouldn't that fall into the "within 50 miles" catagory even if landing away?
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
The more basic problem here, highlighted in not a few accident reports, is that the widespread practice of departing with the fuel level below the visible point (which admittedly is "commercially necessary" on some piston twins especially if used for AOC charter work, where you never know in advance if a bunch of fatties will turn up) is likely to correlate with the practice of cutting things a bit fine on the "calculated" FOB at the destination 
The worst combination is a low performance piston twin, occassionally used for both AOC charter work and self fly hire, with the customery crap/nonexistent/knackered instrumentation.
The best combination is an owner-pilot, flying 1- or 2-up, in a long range plane like a TB20
I have never, in my 8 years of onership, done a flight of any substance without departing with full tanks, and I never depart for any flight with less than 50% because that is the lowest visible-check level.
The worst combination is a low performance piston twin, occassionally used for both AOC charter work and self fly hire, with the customery crap/nonexistent/knackered instrumentation.
The best combination is an owner-pilot, flying 1- or 2-up, in a long range plane like a TB20
I have never, in my 8 years of onership, done a flight of any substance without departing with full tanks, and I never depart for any flight with less than 50% because that is the lowest visible-check level.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
is that the widespread practice of departing with the fuel level below the visible point
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
Which of course is only really relevant to N-reg operators as they do get ramp checked even over here where as private EASA reg aircraft are almost never ramp checked.
Given this is in the NPA, I think Bookworm needs some more concrete examples to work into a response.
So far the main ones that seem to have come out are
1 - There are aircraft with very limited endurance (i.e. less than 1 hr) that can not practically operate with 30 minutes reserve
2 - A lack of clarity regarding circuits at a remote field (which I suspect is pedantry)
3 - There are aircraft with sufficiently limited W&B ranges that 30 minutes reserve is not practical (may be the same group of aircraft as 1 above)
4 - I can make the decision on my own and regulating is not necessary (not that compelling an argument to a regulation obsessed Continent)
Given this is in the NPA, I think Bookworm needs some more concrete examples to work into a response.
So far the main ones that seem to have come out are
1 - There are aircraft with very limited endurance (i.e. less than 1 hr) that can not practically operate with 30 minutes reserve
2 - A lack of clarity regarding circuits at a remote field (which I suspect is pedantry)
3 - There are aircraft with sufficiently limited W&B ranges that 30 minutes reserve is not practical (may be the same group of aircraft as 1 above)
4 - I can make the decision on my own and regulating is not necessary (not that compelling an argument to a regulation obsessed Continent)
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
Back to fuel reserves...
I'd like to understand how FAA Part 91 requirements are normally interpreted.
"Sec. 91.151 - Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.
(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed --
(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or
(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes."
That raises two questions (assume 'day'):
i) If I depart airport A for B with 60 mins fuel, knowing that B is 30 minutes away, I'm legal. So I arrive at B with 30 mins in the tanks. Must I land?
If the answer to i) is no...
ii) If I depart airport A for A with 30 mins fuel, knowing that A is 0 minutes away, am I legal?
I'd like to understand how FAA Part 91 requirements are normally interpreted.
"Sec. 91.151 - Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.
(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed --
(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or
(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes."
That raises two questions (assume 'day'):
i) If I depart airport A for B with 60 mins fuel, knowing that B is 30 minutes away, I'm legal. So I arrive at B with 30 mins in the tanks. Must I land?
If the answer to i) is no...
ii) If I depart airport A for A with 30 mins fuel, knowing that A is 0 minutes away, am I legal?