Fuel reserves
 

The OPS rules proposed in EASA's NPA (for aeroplanes) have explicit fuel reserve requirements, with a limited exception.

Except for non-commercial flights with other than complex motor-powered aircraft
taking off and landing at the same aerodrome/operating site and remaining within 50
nautical miles (nm) of that aerodrome/operating site, flights conducted in accordance
with VFR shall carry reserve fuel not less than:

(1) 30 minutes fuel at normal cruising altitude by day; or
(2) 45 minutes fuel at normal cruising speed by night.

(d) For flights conducted in accordance with IFR the amount of fuel to be carried shall be
sufficient:

(1) to fly to the aerodrome/operating site of intended landing, and thereafter to fly
45 minutes at normal cruising altitude, when no alternate is required or no
suitable alternate is available (i.e. the aerodrome/operating site is isolated and
no suitable alternate is available); or

(2) when an alternate is required, to fly to and execute an approach and a missed
approach at the aerodrome/operating site of intended landing, and thereafter:
(i) to fly to the specified alternate; and
(ii) to fly at least 45 minutes at normal cruising altitude.

These are much more explicit than the current UK ANO requirements:

52(e) in the case of a flying machine or airship, that sufficient fuel, oil and engine
coolant (if required) are carried for the intended flight, and that a safe margin has
been allowed for contingencies, ...

I can't think of many occasions when a requirement for a 30/45-minute final reserve would prevent a planned flight of mine. But are there times when it is reasonable to depart with less than 30 mins planned reserve? Does anyone do this on a regular basis? Or depend on having a lower reserve for particular type of flying activity/operation?

My club's rules state that we shouldn't arrive with less than 1 hours fuel remaining when planning a flight. I'm not sure how comfortable I'd feel planning a flight and arriving with less than 30 mins fuel remaining.

My fuel reserve depends on the likely diversion. For example, if I am flying to Wick then the most likely problem is unexpected fog. This fog could knock out the island airfields so my diversion would be Inverness. On the other hand if I am flying to a local strip, there are a significant number of places I could land on in 15 min, so 30 min would do. In practice I never go below 45 min (13.5L). The amount I need is partly dependent on speed, so a strong headwind in the direction of the diversion can alter the calculation.

(this is all VFR)

Rod1

Just to make sure I understand, do you mean 45 minutes after you've reached your diversion (alternate) airfield, or 45 mins overhead your intended destination?

Aerobatics, particularly during competitions. But it looks like that is an exception that's allowed under those rules.

Although a Yak-52 could possibly be called a complex aircraft (wobbly prop, retractable gear) and would therefore not be excepted.

Personally, I wouldn't be flying with just 30 mins of a reserve, but I suppose those with more accurate fuel measurement systems might be happier to do so.

For nothing more than clarity, am I correct in reading that regulation as requiring those reserves at any point during the flight, and not just at the take off point.
eg. a VFR flight with 35 mins reserves at take off encounters a head wind and now is calculated to have 25 mins reserves, must now land at the next suitable airport, because they are no longer carrying the minimum reserve.

Or would it be taken as the more liberal: min reserves are the required reserves at the point of take off.?

dp

Anybody departing with anywhere near 30-45 mins' reserve in GA (x/country) needs their head examined.

Most pilots don't even know their fuel flow because nobody knows what it is when full rich, to any accuracy.

I require 20USG (3hrs at cruise; max usable is 86USG) at the alternate and it has never been an issue - except going to places where there are lots of Customs/avgas/PPR "issues" anyway. And this is despite very good fuel metering; flew to Germany and back this week and upon refilling back home the computed FOB was 0.12% off. With a spamcan I would be more careful.

The joke is the proposition to plan for 30/45 mins, when 90% + of GA pilots do such poor fuel planning (as a result of training methods, and available equipment) that they are lucky to be within 1hr of their true fuel endurance. At this rate, EASA may as well mandate accurate navigation ;)

Is a glider considered to be an aeroplane ? Never can remember the correct definition (pretty sure it's an aircraft). If so, does it have to comply with the fuel minima? As my "fuel" is ultimately the Sun then I usually have several hours of reserves! That said, there's many a time when the Sun has shone and I've landed after only a few minutes of soaring :-(

Sorry bookworm having re read my post it was very unclear. I was trying to say that you need sufficient fuel to divert to a second alternate from overhead your first alternate and that this can vary vastly depending on distance, aircraft speed and weather, so one should not adopt a one solution fits all cases approach. Having 45 min reserve overhead Inverness after diverting from Wick would be too little, but over my strip, with three choices within 5 min, it would not be a problem. I never go below 45 min over alternate and have very accurate fuel metering.

Rod1

"You can never have too much fuel on board, unless you are on fire.."

(or you have occupants in all the seats of your PA28)

ILAFFT....

Many years ago I had the engine start to misfire on the ILS due to a bad combination of fuel calculations, bad weather forecasting, and another plane having an "emergency" resulting in us holding for 30 minutes prior to landing (pressurisation problem on a 737 - didn't seem that much of an emergency to me as they were < 10k, but the controller got in a bit of a panic)....Luckily for me, switching tanks got me on the ground in one piece. I was flying with a BA captain at the time and will never forget his words, camly spoken... " I should switch tanks if I were you"....I can't remember the exact times but from memory we'd been flying a Dakota for over 5 hours when filled to tabs....

Now I want 1 hrs reserve when I land at the alternate, and make sure i plan fuel accurately,or fill up. The new plane will have a fuel computer as these bloody "guestimated" techlogs are a nightmare and always wrong.

GPN01,

Actually the regs say you have to "carry" enough fuel for 30/45 minutes. How much matter (E=mc2) is converted into energy in the sun in 30/45 minutes? That's the amount you've got to carry. Plus the insulation to make sure your plane doesn't melt and the radiation doesn't kill you.

Alternatively, you can simply consider a glider a non-powered aircraft, in which case these regs do not apply at all...:ok:

Was thinking about whether the 'power' for a glider is actually gravity, and therefore the 'fuel' is potential energy (which converts to kinetic energy to provide speed). On that basis, to ensure 30-45 minutes of potential energy, I'd have to be towed to (45 mins x 150' per min) = 6750' each time I wanted to fly! much relieved therefore to learn that the rules don't apply. Wonder how it works with SLMG's though?

The proposed rules are similar to FAR 91.151 and 91.167.

Though it will stifle the fascinating debate on power sources and the definition of fuel, the answer is no. An aeroplane is a fixed-wing, heavier-than-air, powered aircraft.

So what about SLMGs?

Do they still exist as a category - it's a looong time since I had anything to do with them?

IMHO - no. You simply don't know what's going to happen, even behind you, on the rwy you just left. Less than 30 mins is, as far as I'm concerned, bordering on madness, especially in anything like a typical spamcan - how, please, do you know you even have 30 mins in the tanks, let alone anything less? Look at the gauges? Didn't think so...

My personal rule is to apply the FAA IFR reserves (pretty much the same as the proposed EASA ones) when doing a x-country. And yes, I had to use it in anger!

PS: I think the only situation where I'd say 'yes' to the OP's question would be aerobatics.

PPS: what are EASA on about re 'complex' a/c?? Typical EU attitude of needlessly complicating matters ? :ugh:

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

The distinction is designed to allow rather more regulation to be placed on fractional ownership operations (which are not technically "commercial") than on little guys like you and me.

Bookworm

I just love your posts ;) You have it right on the nail EASA are determined to put my type of aircraft right under their sweaty little hands.

The thorn in their sides! That leaves the paper darts with the wind up rubber band single props to be seen and not heard!!! :ugh: insignificant! ? and we worry about the IMCR in the big picture? V light GA is not even a snapshot never mind a big picture in the EASA scheme. believe it!!!

Pace