NPRM Mandatory fuel reserves

[facthunter]

If you are talking a minimum fuel figure It would be necessary to find out how reliably you can run the tanks to the empty OR unusable figure remaining. Plenty of aircraft have a pitch/ acceleration limitation with low fuel quantities. If you can't reliably use it, it might as well not be there. Nev

 

 

[Roundsounds]

"....approach the planned fixed reserve quantity..." is typically vague.However it's a good example of where a bit more flexibility based on aircraft type and operation (eg within the training area of its local airport) needs to be applied.

The flexibility offered under the existing CAR 234 arrangements work well. There statistical evidence of private operators experiencing fuel exhaustion shows a progressive decline, so why change the rules? To keep some administrator who doesn't fly employed?

 

 

[kgwilson]

When we had parachute ops at our field the jump plane only took on enough fuel to get to 10,000 feet & get back down. This was to save weight & get as many meat bombers in as possible. The old 182 they were using twice landed short of the runway in the swamp due to fuel starvation. I'm pretty sure the incidents were reported but it had no effect on what they did. Given that they were dropping them 10,000 feet above the airfield the pilot should have been able to dead stick it in every time. I suspect this procedure is true of many of the jump planes out there.

 

 

[facthunter]

The descent wouldn't use much fuel and the cargo wouldn't like it if they didn't make their desired drop height if you cut it too fine. Landing engine out wouldn't be a difficult ask but I doubt the authorities would approve it as an approved procedure to plan to do. I had to do a go round as a chute came across my landing path. You never know what will happen, and being out of fuel wouldn't have helped there. Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

The old 182 they were using twice landed short of the runway in the swamp due to fuel starvation.

The attitude towards carrying fuel (among other things) in some sections of GA and private flying is astonishing, and this is sometimes why regulators do the things they do and why that section of aviation has the reputation it does.

If people are going to be d*ckheads about fuel, they can expect no mercy from a regulator about it. In those cases, I have no sympathy at all for them either. Not even a little bit. Zero. Nada.

 

I've seen it happen among the big boys too, though very rarely. Some idiot goes out to prove how little fuel he can order for an 8 hour flight and ends up diverting before he even gets there, while everyone else gets in just fine. Sure fire way to track direct to the Chief Pilot's office when you get back for "tea and bikkies" (cold tea, bring your own bikkies).

 

 

[Roundsounds]

The attitude towards carrying fuel (among other things) in some sections of GA and private flying is astonishing, and this is sometimes why regulators do the things they do and why that section of aviation has the reputation it does.If people are going to be d*ckheads about fuel, they can expect no mercy from a regulator about it. In those cases, I have no sympathy at all for them either. Not even a little bit. Zero. Nada.

 

I've seen it happen among the big boys too, though very rarely. Some idiot goes out to prove how little fuel he can order for an 8 hour flight and ends up diverting before he even gets there, while everyone else gets in just fine. Sure fire way to track direct to the Chief Pilot's office when you get back for "tea and bikkies" (cold tea, bring your own bikkies).

Maybe you're missing the point, I acknowledge skydiving operations are currently classified as private, however private operators don't have the same competing "commercial considerations". You certainly cannot compare an 8 hour sector in a jet (who is only required to carry 30mins as their fixed reserve)with a Pitts S2A doing a local aerobatic sortie overhead an ALA or a Yak 52 flying to Temora on an 8/8ths blue sky day being mandated to carry 45mins fixed reserve!

 

 

[dutchroll]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not saying a "45 minutes" mandate per the draft instrument for all VFR aircraft under all circumstances is necessarily the right way to go and perhaps there's a case for something slightly less. However that should be politely and logically argued with CASA rather than just telling CASA they're a bunch of d*ckheads, which will get no-one anywhere and might well put the recreational/private aviation community in a worse situation than it already thinks it is. I'm also pointing out that it is not "45 minutes" in the sense that most of us would be tempted to think of, due to the way it is allowed to be calculated at a substantially reduced fuel flow.

 

Additionally you can dance around the word "advisory" in "Civil Aviation Advisory Publication" as much as you like (CASA even publish a definition of what a "CAAP" means to them), but for a decade now the CAAP on fuel requirements has stated that you should (the exact word) carry 45 minutes and CAR 234 for as long it has existed states quite bluntly that published CASA guidelines must (the exact word) be considered by a Court in any criminal case against you. So really, what's the actual practical difference here aside from leaving no-one in any doubt as to precisely what they are requiring? If CASA says you "should" do something and you habitually don't, and one day something goes wrong and they find out, where do you think you stand as far as compliance goes? This is the case right now as we speak.

 

In my remarks about the skydiving and commercial operations I wasn't really trying to compare the two operations - just the attitude to fuel carriage of some pilots which spans across aviation communities. But honestly, if some people have talked themselves into believing they're complying with the current CARs by routinely carrying 10 minutes fixed fuel reserve (or whatever number less than 45 you like), go for it. Good luck, and I hope they don't get involved in something which draws investigative attention to what they landed (or crashed) with, because they might then see it with a different perspective.

 

 

[SDQDI]

My problem isn't with the need to have a reserve, my problem is with the fact that I will be charged if I use any part of that reserve. That IMO is so high in stupidity that I can't fathom it. If I have an engine out due to no fuel then I would expect to be charged but if I have a stronger than expected headwind and use a part of my reserve I certainly wouldn't be happy getting charged.

 

As for declaring mayday once you hit your reserve that also IMO is stupid and if EVERYONE honestly complied (which won't happen for obvious reasons!) we would be hearing mayday so often it wouldn't hold the same urgency and serious maydays might be ignored. Obviously mayday should still be used in serious cases!

 

The trouble is I know for myself if I need to cut into my reserves I will be a lot less likely to ask for help until urgently needed knowing that I will be charged for using some of my reserve and I can guarantee that I wouldn't be the only one. It certainly looks to me to be an idea that will hurt rather than help safety.

 

 

[poteroo]

The trouble is I know for myself if I need to cut into my reserves I will be a lot less likely to ask for help until urgently needed knowing that I will be charged for using some of my reserve and I can guarantee that I wouldn't be the only one. It certainly looks to me to be an idea that will hurt rather than help safety.

And therein lies a problem, because by the time you think you are in trouble - what can Center or ATC do for you? But, you can ensure an expeditious arrival in the bush - if you speak out to other traffic.

 

There was a case many years back where a Baron didn't uplift fuel from a take-off limited location, and was en route a regional airport when one tank ran dry. That engine was feathered and secured, but the aircraft was then flown past a good airstrip because there was no fuel there. On arrival at the regional airport, the pilot chose not to declare low fuel, and instead flew a full circuit to allow other traffic to land. Unfortunately they lost the remaining engine on short final and the result was fatal for all 5 on board.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

CASA have added to the risk, not made things safer at all.

 

Now you have to include the risk of being dispossessed and sent to jail on top of the risk of running into stronger than forecast headwinds etc.

 

This guy I knew was sent to jail because his tax accountant was a cowboy. He had a kidney condition which needed prescription drugs.

 

In jail he went without his prescription stuff because the warden was running a " drug free jail". Yep for disobeying "safety stuff" you can be punished with grave dangers.

 

 

[KRviator]

Don't forget folks, it is not 45 minutes at your cruise fuel flow. IT is 45 minutes at your holding fuel flow. Now, while I am yet to formalise that quantity for my RV as part of the flight test program, I'm expecting the holding flow to be in the vicinity of 15LPH (expected cruise FF 25LPH) based on a ~100KIAS holding speed so that's 11.25L in the tanks on touchdown, or less than 30 minutes of my expected cruise fuel flow. And this is at touchdown, not shutdown. Allow another 2-4L for the taxi in and shutdown and you can have as little as 7-8L in the tanks at shutdown. You'd be hard pressed to find an FOI that would be able to convince his bosses - and consequently the DPP - you landed with less than 11.25L.

 

I am strongly against making it a criminal offence to use any part of your reserve, or failing to declare an emergency if you are going to eat into your reserve, but it is not the end of the world, and you would be able to talk your way out of it unless you tried a fuel drain and didn't even fill up a tester...

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

What the criminal offense bit does is to add to the dangers. As well as the tiny aviation danger, we now have the bigger risk of dispossession, incarceration and assault.

 

I knew this guy who listened to the wrong accountant and he was sent to jail in NSW for not paying enough tax. He has a serious kidney condition, but he was deprived of his medication because the warden operated a drug-free jail, prescription or not.

 

To be sent to prison for a safety infringement shows an insane bureaucracy running out of control .

 

 

[facthunter]

NO regulation should make the safest course of action a frightening prospect. This whole "penalty point and fine with no excuses" approach could well be counter productive. Airmanship is doing what is the most safe (under the circumstances) action. If people have a head full of fear about being accused of breaking some obscure rule, they may well not do the right thing under pressure. The rules are Legalese and written for Lawyers by Lawyers to stand up in court and dodge blame. We need Rules for Pilots who operate in the system that are clear, unambiguous , consistent and easy to comprehend. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

How is it any different to what happens on your motor bike FT?

 

 

[facthunter]

I can't see much similarity. The knowledge to get a bike licence is quite small compared to flying (rules wise) and there's not the uncertainty about what they mean. People regularly go to court and modify or eliminate the "crime

 

alleged. Much less stress all around. Years ago the cops did try to get bikes off the road. Perhaps CASA have a similar aim with planes, now that you mention it. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I can't see much similarity. The knowledge to get a bike licence is quite small compared to flying (rules wise) and there's not the uncertainty about what they mean. People regularly go to court and modify or eliminate the "crimealleged. Much less stress all around. Years ago the cops did try to get bikes off the road. Perhaps CASA have a similar aim with planes, now that you mention it. Nev

I'm referring to the "fine with no excuses"

 

 

[facthunter]

You have the option of taking it to court or getting copies of the camera shots or producing your Navman data etc. Nev

 

 

[Russ]

What the criminal offense bit does is to add to the dangers. As well as the tiny aviation danger, we now have the bigger risk of dispossession, incarceration and assault.I knew this guy who listened to the wrong accountant and he was sent to jail in NSW for not paying enough tax. He has a serious kidney condition, but he was deprived of his medication because the warden operated a drug-free jail, prescription or not.

To be sent to prison for a safety infringement shows an insane bureaucracy running out of control .

sorry bruce.........there must be more to this story than this..... person denied script meds, and in this case, could've lead to SERIOUS consequences....medically.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yep Russ , I would never have believed it either. Feel free to research the matter, but I don't feel free to give you the names as they are not mine to disclose.

 

But here is a case which is public knowledge.. A prison transit van in NSW was left in a carpark at a police station on a hot day and the prisoners inside got cooked and died. There was a Greens MP who asked questions for years after this and it is on the record. Nobody ever got into trouble over this.

 

It could have been a pilot in that van who refused to pay his fine for landing without all the reserve fuel required. Great safety stuff huh.

 

 

[Russ]

kaz, ol chum...........i've found all the contact details etc etc, for fuels you will need.

 

avgas...........giles,warburton, and others.

 

 

[kaz3g]

kaz, ol chum...........i've found all the contact details etc etc, for fuels you will need.avgas...........giles,warburton, and others.

That's fantastic, Russ. Will you PM me, please?

 

Kaz