New fuel laws

[Jaba-who]

Why would regulation changes influence pilots more than the risk of accident due to running out risking injury?Id reckon if you entered CTA in low fuel state you might let ATC know that you are in risk of running out in 30 min....not a mayday.

 

The more regulation users consider useless, the tendency is to ignore it and other regulation.

If you enter CTA and then announce a low fuel state - at present they will ask you about it and generally expidite your landing. 

From 8 November they will probably have to hit the report button. These days the ATC guys are required to hit the report generation button when anything goes amiss and if they don’t and they get found out that they haven’t then they get into trouble. 

 

But after 8 Nov  they will ping you for the fuel issue and also ping you for not calling Mayday. So I’d guess guys going in and of CTA will be forced to do it. 

 

Back to to the rest of us dicking around in the weeds - different story. 

 

 

[Downunder]

Best solution, is to be "forced" to make a PAN PAN if a viable landing is possible within your 30 min fuel range and MAYDAY if no viable landing area is available.

 

 

[apm]

CASA “However, if a safe landing location is not an option and you are landing with less than your fixed fuel reserve, then you must declare Mayday Fuel.”

 

Maybe I read this different to most commenting here, Mayday fuel is only declared if landing is likely to be unsafe. Seems pretty reasonable use of Mayday.

 

Andrew

 

 

[turboplanner]

Why would regulation changes influence pilots more than the risk of accident due to running out risking injury?Id reckon if you entered CTA in low fuel state you might let ATC know that you are in risk of running out in 30 min....not a mayday.

 

The more regulation users consider useless, the tendency is to ignore it and other regulation.

Mayday is the term that authorises override authority, not a casual conversation.

 

 

[facthunter]

  They used to say "are you declaring an emergency" ? If you said, affirmative  or yes that allows/ requires them to give you priorities. This change is probably along those lines in it's purpose.  It's just not clearly spelled out, and does appear to bring up the Mayday and Pan differences.  The Mayday call does attract full attention at the comms  point too. IF your operation is such that you  have less than 30 minutes fuel in the tanks when you are airborne it's not a "normal operation, I would suggest. I've never in my life intentionally done it. A go around due any cause (not necessarily your lack of skill or misjudgement) is always a possibility. even in a controlled airspace environment and with a lot of planes about that doesn't always mean a quick circuit. It could be easily be 30 minutes before you are sequenced back in the traffic and touchdown.  Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

CASA “However, if a safe landing location is not an option and you are landing with less than your fixed fuel reserve, then you must declare Mayday Fuel.”Maybe I read this different to most commenting here, Mayday fuel is only declared if landing is likely to be unsafe. Seems pretty reasonable use of Mayday.

 

Andrew

Read the other rule:

 "  (5)     The pilot in command must declare a situation of emergency fuel when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the fixed fuel reserve for the flight. The pilot in command must declare an emergency fuel state by broadcasting MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY FUEL.

 

Note   The emergency fuel declaration is a distress message."

 

 

[facthunter]

 Who Knows  DJP?  I don't know for sure what they mean. Landing location? Does that mean alternative (Other) safe landing LOCATION. It also reads as Both conditions  It's AND..   Nev

 

 

[Jaba-who]

 Who Knows  DJP?  I don't know for sure what they mean. Landing location? Does that mean alternative (Other) safe landing LOCATION. It also reads as Both conditions  It's AND..   Nev

Andrew,

thats not how I read it.

 

They are not saying if you can't find a safe place to land  make a mayday call - if you are about to make an unsafe landing - which I agree would be a reasonable use of mayday. They are actually saying make a mayday call because your fuel will be low at your landing  location regardless of whether it is safe or not. It is the fuel state which requires you to call mayday. 

 

The way I read this - which of course could be wrong but how I read it is:

 

If you calculate that you will land with less less than the required reserve at your planned  then you must divert and land at a safe place ( which could be a field).  

 

AND

 

when you land AT THAT NEW PLACE  you must  have more than 30 minutes fuel. If this is possible you don't need to make any mayday call just divert and make normal calls at that new landing place. 

 

IF however you can not find a safe place to land such that you will land with 30 minutes of fuel THEN you must make the MAYDAY calls but then you can just carry on to land at your original destination IF you able to reach it. ( I assume they imply if you can't reach it you would divert to somewhere you can reach anyway )

 

There is no further requiremnt written to do anything different, nor is there any requiremnt to make multiple mayday calls or apparently other other calls to specifically advise anybody after that initial MAYDAY call. 

 

So if you have 29 minutes of fuel left and you are 5 minutes to your destination make the call and mumble and speak quietly and hope no one hears you. 

 

 

[facthunter]

 This is only proving the directive is not "clear and unambiguous.". THAT should have been realized and corrected before it was promulgated. Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

Read the other rule: "  (5)     The pilot in command must declare a situation of emergency fuel when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the fixed fuel reserve for the flight. The pilot in command must declare an emergency fuel state by broadcasting MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY FUEL.

 

Note   The emergency fuel declaration is a distress message."

Note “aerodrome”, not a paddock.

 

kaz

 

 

[jetjr]

Im seeing that if you are in a situation where you will be landing without 30 min fuel reserve INTACT that you declare emergency

 

method to avoid this is to find suitable off field landing area

 

Talk of potential ATC and 30 min to permit traffic etc id suggest would see many here give up flying

 

 

[turboplanner]

Im seeing that if you are in a situation where you will be landing without 30 min fuel reserve INTACT that you declare emergencymethod to avoid this is to find suitable off field landing area

 

Talk of potential ATC and 30 min to permit traffic etc id suggest would see many here give up flying

That is correct; and in a Jab with wing tanks there's no way I'd  plan for 30 minutes anyway.

Facthunter was referring to situations in CTA where the tower controller is setting priorities; so the "many here" would never be in that situation EXCEPT, if someone lands gear up or a student crunches the nosewheel on a country strip, the aircraft could be sitting there when you arrive, so you'll have to divert, or there could be a million other reasons where you'd be down to 30 minutes.

 

Think of it as just a mic change,  which alerts others .

 

 

[Fred]

Be aware that a change to must “land” with 30 minutes intact is a major change from plan 45min reserve (the earlier version).

 

Think in terms of strict liability offences.   Don’t just accept the hype.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Be aware that a change to must “land” with 30 minutes intact is a major change from plan 45min reserve (the earlier version).Think in terms of strict liability offences.   Don’t just accept the hype.

Yep. The strict liability side of aviation laws makes it all worse. 

We have the reserves in case of unexpected delays due to unforecasted winds or weather. So if those eventuate and you have to cut into your reserves you are guilty of the crime of using those reserves and you can not claim mitigating circumstances or defence of failure of another party ( weather bureau) who supplied you with inaccurate information upon which the reserves were calculated. 

 

Under the act because strict  liability exists you are guilty and your sentence will be just the same as if you willfully took off with insufficient fuel. 

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Note “aerodrome”, not a paddock.

kaz

Well I agree the rule you have quoted says that  but in the CASA explanatory webpage  they state:

 

Here is the text -

 

From 8 November 2018, all pilots must conduct in-flight fuel management, including in-flight fuel quantity checks at regular intervals.

 

When conducting these checks, you may discover that you would be landing at your original planned destination without sufficient fuel, that is, your fixed fuel reserve remaining.

 

If this occurs, make an alternate plan to land safely with sufficient fuel at a different location than you had originally planned. Your new safe landing location will depend on your aircraft capabilities and the conditions. In some instances, it may not even be an aerodrome but could be a field.

 

However, if a safe landing location is not an option and you are landing with less than your fixed fuel reserve, then you must declare Mayday Fuel.

 

End. 

 

In this  they specifically state “this may be a field.” 

 

In other words they intend for you to land ANYWHERE ( at what you consider safely) before you reach your reserve fuel, even an out landing rather than carry on flying into your reserve. And only if that is not possible then you make a mayday call and continue to wherever you can while cutting into your reserve ( ?? illegally). 

 

 

[spacesailor]

Like I've said for a long time, Five lawyers to write (a problem) and the layperson is without a clue of what they mean.

 

"Think in terms of strict liability offences.   Don’t just accept the hype. "

 

Keep at it and someone will correct the Lawyer-speak.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I personally would not consider a field as a safe place to conduct an alternate landing unless I had been on the ground and inspected it, had the farmers permission and knew that at that time there were no wires, ditches, cattle pads/paths etc or livestock in the field. 

 

Sure I’d use it for a true forced landing but not an elective landing. There are far too many things that can go wrong. 

 

I can  just see my insurer refusing to cover a crash during an outlanding that happened when there is a perfectly useable airstrip 5 minutes away but I land in a stubble and rock filled field ( even if it looked OK from at altitude) because I only had 29 minutes fuel on board. 

 

 

[jetjr]

Sure as hell wouldnt do it with 30 minutes more flight time available

 

Interested what Melb or Brisbane centre are supposed to do to help you?

 

 

[Yenn]

We can discuss this here as much as we like, but to do any good we need to talk to CASA and tell them how stupid we think it is. We will have to give them good reasons and spell it out simply, but they may take notice. I doubt they will take notice of our ranting here.

 

 

[coljones]

How close do you really think you are to 30 minutes of fuel in the tanks when you think you have 30 minutes of fuel in the tanks?

 

 

 

[spacesailor]

Like I said too many lawyers on the payroll.

 

"and spell it out simply, but they may take notice."  The lawyers will laugh, like the TV add giving the profits back.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Yenn]

coljones. Are you sure you have'nt mad a small mistake in that formula.

 

The answer will be out by a factor of Pi.

 

 

[apm]

I don’t see the problem people are having with this.

 

Fuel exhaustion is no joke and CASA is right to make a law if pilots are tapping into reserves.

 

If my inflight fuel use calc determined that I cannot make a destination safely, I would happily divert, even into a field to land while I still had enough fuel on board for a possible go around if needed.

 

If the calc said will reach the destination with 29 min remaining, There is no problem with the “mayday fuel“ to ensure priority landing. Maybe top the tanks up less 35 min and call it a miscalc during flight in the report if you must lie, But remember 30 min of fuel is not much, only a fool would go too far into reserves knowingly, and those pilots deserve attention from the regulator.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I don’t see the problem people are having with this.Fuel exhaustion is no joke and CASA is right to make a law if pilots are tapping into reserves.

 

If my inflight fuel use calc determined that I cannot make a destination safely, I would happily divert, even into a field to land while I still had enough fuel on board for a possible go around if needed.

 

If the calc said will reach the destination with 29 min remaining, There is no problem with the “mayday fuel“ to ensure priority landing. Maybe top the tanks up less 35 min and call it a miscalc during flight in the report if you must lie, But remember 30 min of fuel is not much, only a fool would go too far into reserves knowingly, and those pilots deserve attention from the regulator.

So if your calculations  said you COULD make your destination safely but someone arbitrarily said to you "I have suddenly decided to call the time frame fuel you have left unsafe for no better reason than I can so you must call Mayday" 

and so you'd do it and then have black marks against you or lose your licence because you did.

 

would  you see the problem then? 

 

 

[jetjr]

Yes fuel exhaustion is very serious, how is a strict liability law going to motivate a pilot to plan beter?

 

do you think you can just call mayday, land and fuel up? Id expect at minimum a please s plain or punitive action, guarantee theres a penalty point attached for those letting it happen more than once in their careers

 

Also indicates you should land or divert rather than land without reserve intact. What you just outlined is now illegal apm

 

how does calling mayday fuel get a priority landing at any non controlled aerodrome ie. most of them?

 

Whats going to happen is is another regulation people will ignore and theres not much they can do about it.