Not judging anyone’s opinion here, I know the business and the kind of pressures that might force a pilot to get the job done. However, say that you’re operating with a solid fuel-low warning and a stopwatch that’s showing your estimated seconds to starvation, what if someone other than you screws up? Off course, it might be a simple A-to-B lift with no screw-up factors involved (and that’s fine), but some jobs are more than a one-man show. Are those few extra kilos/pounds really worth endangering the safety of the guys on the ground for?

Just for an example.. What if you’re mounting something... say a heavy mast section (with your seconds ticking), and suddenly one of the legs wont fit into its dedicated attachment? One of the guys in the mast has already attached his bolts on his leg, and you are stuck. “Stupid anxious guy!” It is going to take a few minutes to sort the situation out. With the seconds ticking, you have nowhere to go but to sit tight. If you drop it the mast might fall and the guys will be hurt/killed, if you haste it the guys in the mast might be hurt/killed by the section, and if you wait for your fuel to cut the engine the mast might fall and the guys will be hurt/killed.

Just saying... operating on the very limit to starvation might be forced upon from time to time, but you better think the whole scenario through a few times before you choose to accept the challenge. You might be confident to get the job done safely, but what if something unexpected happens?

I trust it that you guys that are doing this exception from time to time really knows what you are doing, and this is nothing new for you. But I just want to highlight the subject that sling loading (especially mounting operations) are a teamwork with more than the pilot’s skills and safety to take into consideration.

Excellent post T and T.

Gordy,

I'm sure the FAA would totally agree with you on that, especially during an interview with them after spreading some skids with a dry tank.

Oh and I'm an offshore guy, haven't flight instructed in quite some time. I do renew my instructor certificate every 2 years. Maybe that's what you're referring to with your condescending tone.:ok:

Hey Darren,

They would agree...Like I said, I would not recommend it, but technically legal.

Good for you. I remember a few years ago when you were a student still. Glad you made it and did not get stuck in the hole like many others around your time.

Was not meant to be condescending.... We need a "sarcastic" font. But still, in the utility world, it is somewhat normal to run the aircraft on "less than perfect world" fuel amounts occasionally to complete a task.

I can assure you that when the fuel available becomes "ZERO"....you are going to land.....legal or illegally....the rules of Thermodynamics and Gravity are just that...Laws!

Gordy is quite correct (as usual)....the law does not address amount of fuel upon landing....just what the minimum, takeoff fuel is....and that is quite flexible by shear definition. The word "Intended" is the key. For day time VFR in excellent weather....Twenty minutes seems a lot....but can be very much not enough with just a few shifts in the weather or availability of landing spots.

Gordy's record of being correct risks termination early Spring 2012 from what I hear.

Yeah, got into tours & charter for 2-3 years after instructing, and then made the move to offshore. Better money & schedule.

So the FAA wouldn't violate you for running out of fuel then?

Running out of fuel....is a Mortal Sin!

Fuel Exhaustion warrants a violation.

Fuel Starvation due mechanical reasons is forgiveable.

They may violate you under 91.13, but cannot violate you for "running out of fuel" nope.... I had this verified by an FAA inspector a few years back---now bear in mind the different FSDO's may interpret it differently....but I would have no problem fighting it in court.

I even have the "proverbial" encyclopedia set for sale too... :eek:

Gordy,

Despite your vast collection of Books of Knowledge, years of life experience, and extraordinary commonsense...upon uttering those infamous words..."I Do!".....all that is trumped by the results of that act. Your usual retorts, responses, and utterances shall all be narrowed down to a humble "Yes Dear!"

The one Law of Life that shall prevail is the one that states "If Mom ain't happy....ain't nobody happy!"

Beware the Ides of March!

...
 

Very good post T & T

Very good post, SASless.

(Don't ask, personal experience!!!!)

Obviously the pilot -with his experience- thought it was ok and he was proven wrong.

Luckily nobody got seriously hurt.

Now, would the same have happened to a pilot with less experience or simply not being the owner of the aircraft? Who knows...

I have the feeling, he will not continue again with a FUEL warning showing for 15 minutes...

ICAO Law
FAA Regs
JAR-OPS ---> EASA
National Law...

The 20 minute VFR or 30 minute IFR reserve is common to most regs/air law. Contingency fuel is usually calculated on top of that and may be an operational or regulatory requirement. Discretionary fuel is just that.

If you're out of planned fuel; and you've used up your discretionary fuel (assuming you had any); and you've used up your contingency fuel (assuming you needed to carry any); then what's left is final reserve fuel. It isn't intended for operational use.

Depending on the aircraft type and the individual setting, some fuel lights come on with 20 mins fuel left, some with 12, some with about 8, some with less than that.

Of course, most of us know all of that and [almost] nobody here is saying flying with a low fuel light is operationally appropriate. But without debating the finer points of regs, surely flying routinely into the 20/30 minute reserve and not regarding this as at least a critical situation, if not legally an emergency, is cavalier.

Quite a few pilots run it real close at times and consider themselves good "commercial/real-world pilots". And some of them crash.

TT

Although not applicable in this case (non-CAT), JAR-OPS has additional protection built in for this very eventuality:

Even when the calculation of fuel is simplified, for example for small types and non-complex operations, the amount of the final reserve fuel has to be established in the OM to permit this in-flight procedure to be applied.

Landing with reserve fuel intact, or the declaration of an emergency, appears to indicate the gravity of this provision.

Jim

Oh gosh.....does this mean a permanent "heliport" or just a temporary helipad, cow pasture, or pub parking lot?

Common sense would suggest some place where fuel can be obtained...but as in Ag Operations...that might be atop a Batch Truck in a cotton patch.


http://www.applebeeaviation.com/wp-c...-2-165x135.jpg

Would there be a problem caused by mere "definition" as written there JimL?

Such as mentioned here?

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP168.PDF

No, it means exactly what you'd like it to - i.e. for operations within a local area, the amount of reserve fuel can be reduced:

Jim