Low Fuel
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
One of the main problems in all of this discussion is that a lot of machines don't have a fuel flow indication in the cockpit, and the fuel gauges aren't really accurate enough to use over a 3 minute period for determining fuel flow.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick's comments on Shawn's:
If you bought a helo without fuel flow, it is beacuse you are one of those people who think hours of fuel is sufficient, so this whole thread is moot! I am kidding but only a little. When I insisted on fuel low gages being an option on S76's, I was told nobody will buy them. I believe we never delivered an S76 without them. Pilots, buy FF gages, they are worth it (unless you think hours of fuel is a unit of measure, in which case, nevermind!)
Regarding accuracy, Shawn, you are (for the first time??) wrong. The relative accuracy is the issue, and that is not an issue. Even the absolute accuracy of FF gages is quite nice, about 5%, in my experience. When I set a wrold record once, I used a fuel hygrometer to measure the density of the gas I bought for the 20 hours prior to the record, and I calibrated the gages - bothe were within 3%!
If you bought a helo without fuel flow, it is beacuse you are one of those people who think hours of fuel is sufficient, so this whole thread is moot! I am kidding but only a little. When I insisted on fuel low gages being an option on S76's, I was told nobody will buy them. I believe we never delivered an S76 without them. Pilots, buy FF gages, they are worth it (unless you think hours of fuel is a unit of measure, in which case, nevermind!)
Regarding accuracy, Shawn, you are (for the first time??) wrong. The relative accuracy is the issue, and that is not an issue. Even the absolute accuracy of FF gages is quite nice, about 5%, in my experience. When I set a wrold record once, I used a fuel hygrometer to measure the density of the gas I bought for the 20 hours prior to the record, and I calibrated the gages - bothe were within 3%!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Nick:
Nice to see that someone insisted on the fuel flow gauges as an option. Why aren't they mandated by regulation?
There is no requirement to provide fuel flow, range or endurance information to the pilot - some manufacturers do, but some don't. Yet we hang people who run out of gas (if they survive).
So why aren't fuel flow meters required equipment? (hmmm - sounds like the subject for another column...)
And I meant that the fuel tanks indications were inaccurate in most cases, not fuel flow. Over a very long period, you can get a reliable indication of fuel flow from the fuel tank gauges, but not over a short period.
Nice to see that someone insisted on the fuel flow gauges as an option. Why aren't they mandated by regulation?
There is no requirement to provide fuel flow, range or endurance information to the pilot - some manufacturers do, but some don't. Yet we hang people who run out of gas (if they survive).
So why aren't fuel flow meters required equipment? (hmmm - sounds like the subject for another column...)
And I meant that the fuel tanks indications were inaccurate in most cases, not fuel flow. Over a very long period, you can get a reliable indication of fuel flow from the fuel tank gauges, but not over a short period.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a point that needs to be made is if you're flying something older or cheaper (and plenty of fules fancy themselves equipped to fly overwater in R22s with four dials on the panel...), that doesn't have FF gauges, you should ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS use the most conservative range and consumption estimates you have. As an example, flying in a 206B in the US, use 30 gph (actual burn is between 27 & 29). As far as groundspeed goes, now that GPS is ubiquitous, there's pretty much no excuse for inaccurate groundspeed. No-wind estimates are an extremely unsafe idea unless you KNOW you have a tailwind component... and even then...
I would never, never EVER go fooling around someplace I couldn't land and get anywhere near a fuel margin if I didn't know my fuel flow, didn't write down the time and quantity figures in case the electronic gizmos went south, and didn't know cold the unusable fuel in my machine in case of any and all fuel or engine-related maladies. To do otherwise is just begging for trouble.
To use a furniture-making analogy, cutting fine dovetails is a futile exercise when your marking and measuring is done with a stick and piece of chalk and your chisel and saw are made out of flint. I believe Nick is advocating a fine marking knife and razor-sharp tools.
Question for Nick... now that all avionics gizmos are getting better and cheaper, what kind of new generation fuel measuring systems exist that provide some fair amount of precision and could be retrofitted into lower-cost machines yet still be cost-efficient (flow and quantity). Many of the systems currently on existing aircraft ain't much better than these:
1st generation "I cain't see how much gas is innit... gimme match..." (this one wasn't very successful...)
2nd generation "Gimme stick..."
3rd generation "Gimme stick with marks on it..."
4th generation "Stick with a float on it sticks out the top..."
5th generation "Toilet float thingie what moves a needle an' mebbe turns on a light"
and so on... into various electronic level sensors, impedance systems, and who knows what else... what's next?
I would never, never EVER go fooling around someplace I couldn't land and get anywhere near a fuel margin if I didn't know my fuel flow, didn't write down the time and quantity figures in case the electronic gizmos went south, and didn't know cold the unusable fuel in my machine in case of any and all fuel or engine-related maladies. To do otherwise is just begging for trouble.
To use a furniture-making analogy, cutting fine dovetails is a futile exercise when your marking and measuring is done with a stick and piece of chalk and your chisel and saw are made out of flint. I believe Nick is advocating a fine marking knife and razor-sharp tools.
Question for Nick... now that all avionics gizmos are getting better and cheaper, what kind of new generation fuel measuring systems exist that provide some fair amount of precision and could be retrofitted into lower-cost machines yet still be cost-efficient (flow and quantity). Many of the systems currently on existing aircraft ain't much better than these:
1st generation "I cain't see how much gas is innit... gimme match..." (this one wasn't very successful...)
2nd generation "Gimme stick..."
3rd generation "Gimme stick with marks on it..."
4th generation "Stick with a float on it sticks out the top..."
5th generation "Toilet float thingie what moves a needle an' mebbe turns on a light"
and so on... into various electronic level sensors, impedance systems, and who knows what else... what's next?
Nick's comments on Shawn's:
If you bought a helo without fuel flow, it is beacuse you are one of those people who think hours of fuel is sufficient, so this whole thread is moot! I am kidding but only a little. When I insisted on fuel low gages being an option on S76's, I was told nobody will buy them. I believe we never delivered an S76 without them. Pilots, buy FF gages, they are worth it (unless you think hours of fuel is a unit of measure, in which case, nevermind!)
Regarding accuracy, Shawn, you are (for the first time??) wrong. The relative accuracy is the issue, and that is not an issue. Even the absolute accuracy of FF gages is quite nice, about 5%, in my experience. When I set a wrold record once, I used a fuel hygrometer to measure the density of the gas I bought for the 20 hours prior to the record, and I calibrated the gages - bothe were within 3%!
If you bought a helo without fuel flow, it is beacuse you are one of those people who think hours of fuel is sufficient, so this whole thread is moot! I am kidding but only a little. When I insisted on fuel low gages being an option on S76's, I was told nobody will buy them. I believe we never delivered an S76 without them. Pilots, buy FF gages, they are worth it (unless you think hours of fuel is a unit of measure, in which case, nevermind!)
Regarding accuracy, Shawn, you are (for the first time??) wrong. The relative accuracy is the issue, and that is not an issue. Even the absolute accuracy of FF gages is quite nice, about 5%, in my experience. When I set a wrold record once, I used a fuel hygrometer to measure the density of the gas I bought for the 20 hours prior to the record, and I calibrated the gages - bothe were within 3%!
Range is good and I copy what you're saying about this...HOWEVER, if you're a navy guy like me, sometimes (like when you're on task hunting a submarine rather than going from point A to point B) endurance (in hours, minutes, or whatever time unit you desire) is the name of the game. So, we go out to the operating area at max range speed, and then kick into max endurance mode so we can stay on task for the longest time. For this reason, Seahawks do NOT have fuel flow gauges and, except for a few times on long transits, I've never missed them. If, however, I got into the proverbial poo with fuel (which is why we're here talking) then of course I'd like to have one.
So, an alternate point of view AGAIN.
Cheers,
HP
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HP, you are absolutely right, endurance is a whole nuther thing, and a property of helos that is mission-important.
But 99.99% of the guys who ask "How much fuel?" and expect "2.6 hours" as an appropriate answer are not thinking about hunting subs or survivors!
Regarding fuel flow gages on a Sea Hawk, anyone with 4 hours of gas in normal mode has already solved his fuel problem!!
But 99.99% of the guys who ask "How much fuel?" and expect "2.6 hours" as an appropriate answer are not thinking about hunting subs or survivors!
Regarding fuel flow gages on a Sea Hawk, anyone with 4 hours of gas in normal mode has already solved his fuel problem!!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,605
Received 466 Likes
on
246 Posts
I disagree with the notion that the RAF used to bring an engine back to idle for ferry flying the Puma. Certainly not in my time on that type, either on a squadron or instructing for two tours on the OCU.
If the freewheel isn't engaged, then the engine is compressing air and burning your precious fuel reserve for no output whatsoever. I think there was even something in the pilot's notes to that effect.
All turbines are inefficient at low power, the Turmo 3C4 was amongst the worst of them in that respect, albeit a superbly reliable engine.
Also flew the S-76 in a SAR role on what was a relatively new unit, over sea, long range - as far as we could go, because there was no other SAR cover in that area. We used to fly with the Specific Fuel Consumption page up on the FMS (shows nm/lb) and experiment on the day with cruise Tq settings and altitude changes, which also took into account the wind. My experience was that the best profile was to make a gentle cruise climb to about 6,000 feet and make a steeper descent at the business end, subject to the job in hand (radar search of the oggin, or whatever was required). The wind was most often the deciding factor, especially when a typhoon was inbound. Once got back with only VFR reserves but the Wx had gone bad (very - cloud below 200 feet). After one abortive attempt to get in visually, we didn't have enough to do a radar with the pattern, but good old ATC fitted us in against the flow, which was nice
NEVER flew with one engine throttled back, though, complete waste. In a 76 with Arriel engines it's about 100-150 lbs an hour of waste at idle, IIRC.
If the freewheel isn't engaged, then the engine is compressing air and burning your precious fuel reserve for no output whatsoever. I think there was even something in the pilot's notes to that effect.
All turbines are inefficient at low power, the Turmo 3C4 was amongst the worst of them in that respect, albeit a superbly reliable engine.
Also flew the S-76 in a SAR role on what was a relatively new unit, over sea, long range - as far as we could go, because there was no other SAR cover in that area. We used to fly with the Specific Fuel Consumption page up on the FMS (shows nm/lb) and experiment on the day with cruise Tq settings and altitude changes, which also took into account the wind. My experience was that the best profile was to make a gentle cruise climb to about 6,000 feet and make a steeper descent at the business end, subject to the job in hand (radar search of the oggin, or whatever was required). The wind was most often the deciding factor, especially when a typhoon was inbound. Once got back with only VFR reserves but the Wx had gone bad (very - cloud below 200 feet). After one abortive attempt to get in visually, we didn't have enough to do a radar with the pattern, but good old ATC fitted us in against the flow, which was nice
NEVER flew with one engine throttled back, though, complete waste. In a 76 with Arriel engines it's about 100-150 lbs an hour of waste at idle, IIRC.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick
Not often we can correct you but Bristow S76A G-BJVZ S/N 760084 was delivered with fuel pressure gauges not the Foxboro fuel flow gauges. It was based on the Southern North Sea for many years before being transferred to Nigeria as 5N-SKY?.
Not often we can correct you but Bristow S76A G-BJVZ S/N 760084 was delivered with fuel pressure gauges not the Foxboro fuel flow gauges. It was based on the Southern North Sea for many years before being transferred to Nigeria as 5N-SKY?.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hippo, I stand corrected, but then again Alan Bristow was a business genius and a very cheap one at that! I recall that he wouldn't put rad alts into his 61's for a very long time!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick
760084 was the only one which was delivered like that so I don't think it was for reasons of economy.
When I started flying S61s in 1980, they all had Rad Alts so I can't comment on that aspect.
Yes, Alan was a business genius but with the help of some good people around him. He is still around and in OK health, sailing at the moment I believe.
760084 was the only one which was delivered like that so I don't think it was for reasons of economy.
When I started flying S61s in 1980, they all had Rad Alts so I can't comment on that aspect.
Yes, Alan was a business genius but with the help of some good people around him. He is still around and in OK health, sailing at the moment I believe.
Hippo....
In the mid-70's, we were flogging the oggin in the Ekofisk using our three BarAlts while the Helicopter Services folks were using RadAlts for infield transit heights.
It made for some interesting times...Bristow on BarAlts thus using MSL heights and the HS guys using AGL heights. All altimeter settings were in QNH there.
I reckon they just did not understand the importance of QFE altimeter settings and the fun one could have fiddling with three BarAlts during approaches and missed approaches.
I remember a very, very senior Bristow Manager showing me my new horse....and being told how well instrumented the bird was.....Decca, three BarAlts, two channel SAS (one doesn't need Yaw SAS you know old chap!)
It was all good fun however....loved flying the 58T...and enjoyed the folks working that part of the company.
By the way, I assume you have heard Garth Parfitt has passed away while at his retirement home in the South of France. I will miss him and his wonderful sense of humour.
In the mid-70's, we were flogging the oggin in the Ekofisk using our three BarAlts while the Helicopter Services folks were using RadAlts for infield transit heights.
It made for some interesting times...Bristow on BarAlts thus using MSL heights and the HS guys using AGL heights. All altimeter settings were in QNH there.
I reckon they just did not understand the importance of QFE altimeter settings and the fun one could have fiddling with three BarAlts during approaches and missed approaches.
I remember a very, very senior Bristow Manager showing me my new horse....and being told how well instrumented the bird was.....Decca, three BarAlts, two channel SAS (one doesn't need Yaw SAS you know old chap!)
It was all good fun however....loved flying the 58T...and enjoyed the folks working that part of the company.
By the way, I assume you have heard Garth Parfitt has passed away while at his retirement home in the South of France. I will miss him and his wonderful sense of humour.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the Huey Days
Back in the Huey Days...
In the UH-1 of course we could beep down. The N2 range was 6600 to 6200 and we usually flew around at 6400 and about 30 to 35 pounds of torque for a "normal" cruise of 90 to 100 KIAS.
Flew with an old DAC once and he said to beep it down to 6200 and pull 40 pounds and that would get you 30 to 40 miles further down the road on a tank of gas. Tried it several times, he was right. This would also give you about 110 to 115 KIAS.
I may have the numbers wrong but this is the best I can remember.
The results have to do with the engine being more efficient at closer to its temp limit, and also the reduction in drag from the rotor at lower RPM. Maybe I have this wrong, Mr. Lappos feel free to chime in, I am just a pilot but I know this worked.
Now I can no longer beep down the rotor, FADEC is in command. Progress.
In the UH-1 of course we could beep down. The N2 range was 6600 to 6200 and we usually flew around at 6400 and about 30 to 35 pounds of torque for a "normal" cruise of 90 to 100 KIAS.
Flew with an old DAC once and he said to beep it down to 6200 and pull 40 pounds and that would get you 30 to 40 miles further down the road on a tank of gas. Tried it several times, he was right. This would also give you about 110 to 115 KIAS.
I may have the numbers wrong but this is the best I can remember.
The results have to do with the engine being more efficient at closer to its temp limit, and also the reduction in drag from the rotor at lower RPM. Maybe I have this wrong, Mr. Lappos feel free to chime in, I am just a pilot but I know this worked.
Now I can no longer beep down the rotor, FADEC is in command. Progress.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
arismount,
I do believe it, and I agree, except I think the major effect was on the rotor not the engine. The tip speed of a Huey is way too high for efficiency, especially at 110 knots, so beeping the rotor down would get it more efficient (but I would believe only about 5 to 10%, vice the 40 miles out of 220 max range in a Huey.)
I do believe it, and I agree, except I think the major effect was on the rotor not the engine. The tip speed of a Huey is way too high for efficiency, especially at 110 knots, so beeping the rotor down would get it more efficient (but I would believe only about 5 to 10%, vice the 40 miles out of 220 max range in a Huey.)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I recall my Huey days beeping down/selecting a certain altitude was to find a combination that produced the most efficient angle of attack. None of the types I've flown since have the ability to beep RRPM over such a range if indeed the RRPM could be altered at all.
GAGS
E86
Of course PPPPPP applies!
GAGS
E86
Of course PPPPPP applies!
My two penneth worth.......
There are plenty of type-specific techniques that have been helpfully posted, but I'm not sure that's the point of this thread.
In my opinion, the wind is by far the greatest performance variable when discussing max range. We all know wind generally is stronger at height and veers slightly (in the N hemisphere). Therefore, with more than about 10kts of surface wind, you always fly high with a tailwind component and low with a headwind component.
As for best-range cruise speed (best specific fuel consumption), I don't fly anything with a fuel flow gauge, so would dearly like someone to post a rule of thumb that works for modifying the AFM best range speed for wind effects.
J
There are plenty of type-specific techniques that have been helpfully posted, but I'm not sure that's the point of this thread.
In my opinion, the wind is by far the greatest performance variable when discussing max range. We all know wind generally is stronger at height and veers slightly (in the N hemisphere). Therefore, with more than about 10kts of surface wind, you always fly high with a tailwind component and low with a headwind component.
As for best-range cruise speed (best specific fuel consumption), I don't fly anything with a fuel flow gauge, so would dearly like someone to post a rule of thumb that works for modifying the AFM best range speed for wind effects.
J
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Along the lines but no answer for the question. I am curious though if OZ land is so remote why does the Government not have pre-positioned fuel caches maintained for emergencies along well traveled routes. Other than they may be stolen once in a while.
We used them in Alaska for certain missions and it helped.
We used them in Alaska for certain missions and it helped.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
For most helicopters, whatever you get at maximum continuous power is going to give you pretty close to maximum range speed.
There is, however, another small issue to consider.
Specific air range (miles per pound of fuel) vs true airspeed will give you a curve that (in theory) should peak - this is the absolute maximum range airspeed. Then the curve will show a decrease in specific air range at a higher airspeed. If you draw a horizontal line at 99% of maximum specific air range, you will interest the curve at two points. If you use the higher of the two airspeeds, you will take a 1% hit from absolute maximum range, but you will arrive more quickly. When flying into a headwind, this will make a significant difference in time enroute.
There is, however, another small issue to consider.
Specific air range (miles per pound of fuel) vs true airspeed will give you a curve that (in theory) should peak - this is the absolute maximum range airspeed. Then the curve will show a decrease in specific air range at a higher airspeed. If you draw a horizontal line at 99% of maximum specific air range, you will interest the curve at two points. If you use the higher of the two airspeeds, you will take a 1% hit from absolute maximum range, but you will arrive more quickly. When flying into a headwind, this will make a significant difference in time enroute.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KPHL
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way the wind effect made sense to me is to consider a max range speed of 100 knots while flying into a 100 knot wind. You'll go nowhere. If you want to go upwind, you'll have to fly faster.
Conversely, you'll have to fly slower with a tailwind.
The real question is how much faster/slower? With a fuel flow gauge we can do the math. I think SFC displayed in the cockpit trumps the fuel flow gauge because then we don't have to fly AND do math, but even better would be a doppler/INS based wind calculation and enough performance data programmed into your computer that the max range speed is calculated for you. We're now escaping the upgrade budget of most operators.
If you have a helicopter where the relationship between fuel flow and power is a straight line, or nearly so, then there is a way to determine how much faster/slower. If you look at the power required curve (power required versus true airspeed is best, but IAS will be fairly close), you can find the zero wind max range speed by drawing a line between the origin (0 airspeed and 0 power) that just touches the curve (the tangent). Someone posting a sketch of this will help me very much.
If you have 20 knots of headwind, then draw the line from the point that is zero power, but +20 knots of wind. Why? Because your hover power with a 20 knot headwind would be the same as flying at 20 knots. Now when you draw the tangent line it intersects the power required curve at a higher speed. This will be your best range speed with a 20 knot headwind.
If you have a 20 knot tailwind, then do the above but start drawing your line at zero power and -20 knots.
Note that you will never have a max range speed that is less than your max endurance speed, no matter how fast the tailwind is.
While this sounds easy, you might not have the power required curve, and even if you do, it's not just one curve but is many curves depending on temperature, pressure altitude, and aircraft weight. Also, the result may exceed a limitation, in this case just fly at the maximum continuous rating for whichever limitation is of concern.
Back to the original question. In general, beeping down, climbing, reducing bleed air and electrical loads, jettisoning external stores, and flying with zero sideslip will reduce your fuel flow rate. Shutting an engine down may help in an emergency, but its a risk because without performance charts you might be running out of fuel further from shore with less power to ditch. Idling an engine is less likely to give you a fuel flow advantage than shutting one down, but is less risky.
Summing up: consider the winds and don't do procedures that aren't authorized or recommended for your type.
Matthew.
Conversely, you'll have to fly slower with a tailwind.
The real question is how much faster/slower? With a fuel flow gauge we can do the math. I think SFC displayed in the cockpit trumps the fuel flow gauge because then we don't have to fly AND do math, but even better would be a doppler/INS based wind calculation and enough performance data programmed into your computer that the max range speed is calculated for you. We're now escaping the upgrade budget of most operators.
If you have a helicopter where the relationship between fuel flow and power is a straight line, or nearly so, then there is a way to determine how much faster/slower. If you look at the power required curve (power required versus true airspeed is best, but IAS will be fairly close), you can find the zero wind max range speed by drawing a line between the origin (0 airspeed and 0 power) that just touches the curve (the tangent). Someone posting a sketch of this will help me very much.
If you have 20 knots of headwind, then draw the line from the point that is zero power, but +20 knots of wind. Why? Because your hover power with a 20 knot headwind would be the same as flying at 20 knots. Now when you draw the tangent line it intersects the power required curve at a higher speed. This will be your best range speed with a 20 knot headwind.
If you have a 20 knot tailwind, then do the above but start drawing your line at zero power and -20 knots.
Note that you will never have a max range speed that is less than your max endurance speed, no matter how fast the tailwind is.
While this sounds easy, you might not have the power required curve, and even if you do, it's not just one curve but is many curves depending on temperature, pressure altitude, and aircraft weight. Also, the result may exceed a limitation, in this case just fly at the maximum continuous rating for whichever limitation is of concern.
Back to the original question. In general, beeping down, climbing, reducing bleed air and electrical loads, jettisoning external stores, and flying with zero sideslip will reduce your fuel flow rate. Shutting an engine down may help in an emergency, but its a risk because without performance charts you might be running out of fuel further from shore with less power to ditch. Idling an engine is less likely to give you a fuel flow advantage than shutting one down, but is less risky.
Summing up: consider the winds and don't do procedures that aren't authorized or recommended for your type.
Matthew.
.
Another interesting question arises from a low fuel situation:
Once you have established that your fuel state looks a bit tight, at which point would you consider telling someone about it or even declare an emergency? It would be interesting to see the different responses from different countries as well as compare what you should have done to what you actually did.
Here in the UK there is no such thing as a "Fuel emergency" - preferential treatment for routing/landing can only be achieved by declaring an emergency (PAN call). It will also trigger the usual events associated with a PAN call i.e. don't be surprised to see the fire engines waiting for you .... in any case questions will be asked!
Here is what JAR-OPS 3.375 says:
(a) An operator shall establish a procedure to
ensure that in-flight fuel checks and fuel
management are carried out.
(b) A commander shall ensure that the
amount of usable fuel remaining in flight is not
less than the fuel required to proceed to a heliport
where a safe landing can be made, with final
reserve fuel remaining.
(c) The commander shall declare an
emergency when the actual usable fuel on board is
less than final reserve fuel.
Thankfully I haven't been in this situation yet (even though it did look like it on one or two occasions early in the flight). I can see the temptation in not declaring an emergency and hoping for an expeditious clearance which on the other hand can make things much worse if it doesn't work out!
Any thoughts or experiences?
Woolf
Another interesting question arises from a low fuel situation:
Once you have established that your fuel state looks a bit tight, at which point would you consider telling someone about it or even declare an emergency? It would be interesting to see the different responses from different countries as well as compare what you should have done to what you actually did.
Here in the UK there is no such thing as a "Fuel emergency" - preferential treatment for routing/landing can only be achieved by declaring an emergency (PAN call). It will also trigger the usual events associated with a PAN call i.e. don't be surprised to see the fire engines waiting for you .... in any case questions will be asked!
Here is what JAR-OPS 3.375 says:
(a) An operator shall establish a procedure to
ensure that in-flight fuel checks and fuel
management are carried out.
(b) A commander shall ensure that the
amount of usable fuel remaining in flight is not
less than the fuel required to proceed to a heliport
where a safe landing can be made, with final
reserve fuel remaining.
(c) The commander shall declare an
emergency when the actual usable fuel on board is
less than final reserve fuel.
Thankfully I haven't been in this situation yet (even though it did look like it on one or two occasions early in the flight). I can see the temptation in not declaring an emergency and hoping for an expeditious clearance which on the other hand can make things much worse if it doesn't work out!
Any thoughts or experiences?
Woolf
Last edited by Woolf; 11th Jan 2007 at 11:53. Reason: added JAR-OPS 3 paragraphs
