NPRM Mandatory fuel reserves

[kaz3g]

This BS needs to be nipped in the bud.

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/164211/download?token=HzJ-JYDC

 

While the CAAP doesn't sound all that horrendous, the Regulation will make it a criminal offence of strict liability for pilots of light aircraft to land with less than the mandatory 45 minutes reserve and the penalty will likely be $5000.

 

All the evidence shows that the number of fuel exhaustion incidents has reduced very significantly over decades and there is no statistical justification for the change. The cynics might say it's more about CASA covering it's collective arse after Pellair.

 

Drop Glenn a line now and tell him "NO WAY".

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

I thought it was already an offence to land without the 45 min reserve.... For years?

 

 

[Roundsounds]

This "regulation reform" needs to be rejected outright. Private operators have had a significant decrease in the rate of fuel exhaustion events over the past 20 years, it seems the CASA education campaign around fuel planning has achieved what it set out to achieve. Commercial operators are currently required to have an approved fuel policy in their operations manual, so the changes have no effect on them. These proposed changes are completely window dressing and have zero safety basis to them. There will be a significant number of RAAus types either rendered useless or they will be operating illegally, as will a number of antique and Warbird types.

 

I urge everyone to respond to this proposed rule change and ask to see the actual safety basis of the changes. (Actual safety issue, not some emotive crap).

 

 

[kaz3g]

I thought it was already an offence to land without the 45 min reserve.... For years?

There were previously a number of factors a Court could take into account...no more. The existing CAR 234 speaks of fuel on board at take off, not landing.

 

AOPA and AAAA are both unhappy.

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

From AOPA...

 

NEW FUEL RESERVE RULES

 

CASA’s proposed new fuel reserve rules have been attacked by special interest aviation groups and experienced commercial pilots as a step to far with no increase in safety outcomes.

 

CASA have proposed to make a fuel reserve of 45 minutes mandatory for day VFR operations. This has the potential to severely impact areas of recreational aviation like the operation of some antique aircraft and warbirds.

 

If the 45 minute rule becomes law it means a pilot will commit a criminal offence if they land having used any of their reserve. This is absurd.

 

Antique Aeroplane Association president Matt Henderson researched the issue and discovered there is no safety case for CASA to make this change.

 

“CASA are using ATSB data as the basis for this change. The wording of the change requirement is that Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) reports have revealed incidents and accidents directly related to carriage of insufficient quantities of fuel,” he said.

 

“They have not identified a trend, nor a major shift in the number of incidents, simply that the ATSB have reports of aeroplanes that have had incidents due to fuel exhaustion. I suspect this is an issue dating back to not long after the Wright brothers first flew!”

 

In the period 1969-1986 there were 312 instances of fuel exhaustion (running out of fuel) or roughly 18 instances per year. From 1991-2000 there were 61 instances of fuel exhaustion or about six instances per year, and in the decade from 2006-2016 there were 48 instances of fuel exhaustion or about five per year.

 

“So based on that data, the trend is actually an improving one...and improved most when there wasn't a mandated fuel reserve,” Mr Henderson said.

 

“The CASA documents also suggest the impact to industry would be ‘minor’ and only affect ‘specific types of operations on short duration flights’ when actually that is the complete opposite of our situation.”

 

Commercial pilot Doug Sprigg, who has more than 10,000hrs on a variety of GA aeroplanes, has also expressed his concern at the proposed changes to the rules.

 

“As the owner operator of an Auster J1N antique aircraft for more than thirty years, I am acutely aware that many of the antique and ex-military aircraft have operated safely and successfully without the need for more prescriptive and restrictive rules,” he said in a submission to CASA.

 

“CASAs guidelines in the current CAP 234 have stood the test of time and I believe are adequate. They should remain unchanged

 

“Many antique and ex-military aircraft have very limited endurance. Several types operating currently have little over an hour’s total endurance. Operators of these aircraft are acutely aware of endurance and monitor fuel state accordingly. Compliance with proposed rulings will severely limit range making operations almost impossible.”

 

 

[jakej]

Agree totally Kaz, they're acting like politicians who drop 'bombshells' like this on a Friday so the impact has less impetus by Monday - Well this WON"T be forgotten & we won't take it lying down.

 

Next thing is we'll be required to have a note from CASA to be able to go flying - GRRRRRRRRRRR

 

 

[jakej]

I thought it was already an offence to land without the 45 min reserve.... For years?

Actually it has been the reverse for years - basically you needed to carry only enough for a flight, but consequences if you run out of fuel like maybe no insurance if a prang etc as a result &/or Casa penalties.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

This is worth a read, the summary on page 2 sums it up (4th page of the document). Mandating 45min fixed reserves for private flights won't stop people mis-managing fuel systems, which caused most problems and injuries/fatalities 2001-2010.

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4115276/ar-2011-112_no5.pdf

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Actually it has been the reverse for years - basically you needed to carry only enough for a flight, but consequences if you run out of fuel like maybe no insurance if a prang etc as a result &/or Casa penalties.

Under the current CAR 234 private operators simply need to carry enough fuel to safely complete the flight, so if you run out of fuel its all your fault - even if you carried the reserves under CAAP 234. If the CAR 234 changes come in, you can run out of fuel and provided you had the appropriate reserves on departure, you may not be a fault.

There's simply no safety basis for the changes and have not followed CASA's own change policy.

 

 

[kaz3g]

The ATSB report shows very clearly that the great majority of incidents have been with starvation, not exhaustion...there was sufficient fuel but it was not provided to the engine(s).

 

Kaz

 

 

[Ultralights]

so, the 45 min reserve is , or was a safety buffer.. in case of unforeseen circumstances.. so now, using the safety buffer, for safety reasons, is now a criminal offence? so, how does this apply to electric aircraft? that have a max flight time of 1 hour, so legally, you can do 1 circuit.. wow, way to go CASA... sometimes i wonder why the industry even bothers to listen to CASA sometimes, 20 year of regulatory reform and rules, and the safety stats haven't changed in all that time, so the solution, more rules..

 

at what point did CASA become the aviation industry micromanager? and who do i send my application for permission so i can look at my aircraft, and go for a fly? Nanna CASA?

 

 

[turboplanner]

so, the 45 min reserve is , or was a safety buffer.. in case of unforeseen circumstances.. so now, using the safety buffer, for safety reasons, is now a criminal offence? so, how does this apply to electric aircraft? that have a max flight time of 1 hour, so legally, you can do 1 circuit.. wow, way to go CASA... sometimes i wonder why the industry even bothers to listen to CASA sometimes, 20 year of regulatory reform and rules, and the safety stats haven't changed in all that time, so the solution, more rules..at what point did CASA become the aviation industry micromanager? and who do i send my application for permission so i can look at my aircraft, and go for a fly? Nanna CASA?

I spent an hour or so tracing CAAP234-1, which in Table 2 specifies a 45 minute fixed reserve, and calls up CAR220 and CAR234, and I also checks the VFRG which specifies: "Guidance concerning fuel to be carried is contained in Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 234-1."

 

So it would appear to me (and I'm not a lawyer):

 

(a) the 45 minute fixed reserve once was mandatory, but currently, since is called up in a CAAP and not a CAR, so currently, I'd agree that CASA may not be able to enforce it, and I'd suggest that may be negligent of CASA.

 

(b) However, given that the CAAP exists, and is referred to in the VFRG, I'd suggest that if you had a fuel exhaustion and killed or injured a passenger, their family would have a good case to go after you for negligence.

 

Correcting a situation where they could be found negligent would be a very good reason for CASA to offload the full risk on to you/your insurance.

 

It's clear from the comments on this and other forums over the past few day that a lot of people have been using up that reserve, at the very least as a variable reserve, but sometimes to carry a full load of passengers on a trip where they don't want to plan two legs.

 

As for your comment about electric aircraft with 1 hour endurance, as you know, you might go for ten years spending an hour flying circuits and arriving back with the only delay being traffic, and I'm guilty of taking Moorabbin for granted for 20 years, however on one occasion a pilot was flying from his home airfield when the weather deteriorated unexpectedly, and he couldn't get back in. He had a decent reserve, and decided to fly to the city where he expected Moorabbin to be all weather, but was advised by the tower that the airfield was closed due to weather. He got into an argument with the tower controller, said he was running low on fuel, but was sent away, only to find the visibility was nil at the next airfield, so he came back, told the tower controller to get stuffed and landed in part IMC. Fortunately he had well over his circuit requirements + 45 minutes.

 

In cross country, I've had days when I've had to divert around storms several times adding hours to the trip; shit happens, and it's best to have the engine running until you can land.

 

 

[kaz3g]

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 234

 

Fuel requirements

 

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a flight within Australian territory, or to or from Australian territory, if he or she has not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft carries sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(2) An operator of an aircraft must take reasonable steps to ensure that an aircraft does not commence a flight as part of the operator's operations if the aircraft is not carrying sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(3) For the purposes of these Regulations, in determining whether fuel and oil carried on an aircraft in respect of a particular flight was sufficient within the meaning of subregulations (1) and (2), a court must, in addition to any other matters, take into account the following matters:

 

(a) the distance to be travelled by the aircraft on the flight to reach the proposed destination;

 

(b) the meteorological conditions in which the aircraft is, or may be required, to fly;

 

© the possibility of:

 

(i) a forced diversion to an alternative aerodrome; and

 

(ii) a delay pending landing clearance; and

 

(iii) air traffic control re-routing the flight after commencement of the flight; and

 

(iv) a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft; and

 

(v) where the aircraft is a multi-engined aircraft--an engine failure;

 

(d) any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA for the purposes of this regulation.

 

(4) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Where is the comment from RAA on this.

 

My short version is that you are a idiot if you don't have a reserve, no matter what.

 

This is the old GA 45 min reserve rule it is based on stuffing up, winds being a lot stronger than forecast, or weather diversion with high GA fuel flows.

 

Now

 

In my humble opinion I recommend 30mins. If people are not doing this then they are asking for trouble.

 

However we are flying ultralights and sport aircraft up to MTOW of 600kg or less. We are not flying GA aircraft and twins that have a huge fuel burn compared to us for this argument so say around 12 liters is the argument we and RAA are having which is fine as far as I am concerned.

 

Most of us can put down in a paddock if really needed or blocked by weather anyway.

 

Rag wing aircraft can put down just about anywhere. (no being rude to my rag wing guys) and most of these guys can fly well and use paddocks all day long. (plus they have usually the incentive of a two stroke engine that can stop anywhere. Smile guys!

 

As for light wing types a good paddock is fine again, common sense. Its not like I am putting a twin down on a paddock and need huge length, weight and speed

 

So for ultralights eg rag wing you don't need 45 mins.

 

But again tell me if YOU really fly more than 30 mins where no strip is available also. I remember VERY few occasions.

 

With the top of the line aircraft not suitable for paddocks 30 mins is a number you can usually get to another strip, usually anyway IF NOT ADD MORE.

 

Again its all bloody common sense...

 

 

[DWF]

I started (GA) flying in 1968 and it has always been a requirement or recommendation that private flights carry 45 min fixed reserve and commercial flights carry the 45 minutes fixed plus 15% variable reserve fuel.

 

45 minutes is a generally accepted but IMHO fairly arbitary figure. Helicopters are only required to carry 30min fixed reserve - I guess it is easier for them to find a place to land if things go pear shaped.

 

The military can get away with a lot less!

 

I have had no problem with carrying 45 min reserve in GA or RAAus aircraft and on a travel flight usually carry as much fuel as I legally can.

 

 

 

You could adjust the amount of fuel (litres/weight) to a certain extent depending on the consumption rate you choose to use.

 

e.g. 75% power high speed cruise rate as against 45% holding rate, etc. You can certainly do this when you have to carry 30 or 60 minutes extra holding.

 

 

 

My concern is that if you use some of your reserve because of unforseen circumstances do you then get pinged (strict liability)?

 

It seems to me that the whole purpose of the reserve is to cater for the unexpected but if it occurs and you use some of your reserve you become a criminal.

 

Would common sense prevail?

 

I don't think the current requirement is broken. Why try to 'fix' it?

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[jakej]

Commonsense is not in CASAs or Lawyers dictionary

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I have no problem with a mandated 45 min reserve on departure, but it is there as a buffer and if you need to use any of it there should not be a penalty.

 

 

[Mick]

So if strict liability is applied to a pilot who has obtained a forcast that proves to be incorrect, can the strict liability be applied to the government department (BoM) that provided the incorrect forcast????

 

 

[Yenn]

Strict liability is what CASA has on all its regs nowadays. It gets them off the hook. What happens if there is a problem with the plane, maybe a bird strike that causes a fuel leak and you land with less than 45 mins. You are in trouble.

 

CASA has been re wriing the rules for years and still has no idea. They know that when they have finished re writing it will be time to start again. Self perpetuating beaurocracy. Australia is awash with it.

 

 

[Russ]

i'd like to know how the R22 boys ( and others ) can do "distant" legs etc, with retaining 45mins fuel.

 

( another good reason to own a jab )......

 

 

[rankamateur]

( another good reason to own a jab )......

What is the other one?

 

 

[Russ]

Geeez.......where do i start, just point em and go. They're good for 100+kts, 6...8hrs duration, comfy,safe,..........that's 4 reasons, toss in........you find em everywhere criss crossing this island, and that's a fact.

 

Could go on .......but i'm packing the ol girl ( jab ) for Qld, NT, WA, Qld.........be gone for 5....6 weeks, tiger country all the way.

 

 

[Russ]

Sumthin like this....

 

 

 

[kaz3g]

Sumthin like this....

Hi Russ

 

Looks like a great plan and hope you have a fantastic time doing it.

 

I'm planning a trip July/August from home in Vic across to Broken Hill, Coober Pedy, Ayres Rock, Warburton, Carnegie Station, Meekatharra, Cobra Homestead (my old place), then down to Perth for a conference and back home via the southern coast.

 

I'm going to have to carry extra fuel because there is no avgas at Warburton and I don't have the long legs you have in the Jabiru. Can't decide whether to use a plastic tank or a bladder but I won't plumb it in; just siphon into main tank on the ground at Warburton.

 

Kaz

 

 

[tillmanr]

Power to you Russ. Living the dream despite the knockers.