45 min Fuel Reserve Rule
Andrew M. Sarangan
Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR flight.
The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45 minutes
of fuel left.
Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
--
Andrew Sarangan
PP-ASEL
rockman
Absolutely NOT. You only must *depart* with enough fuel to reach
destination, alternate
if required, and then the reserve.
MM
Andrew M. Sarangan wrote in message <6689ad$36...@callisto.unm.edu>...
Mark Klebanoff
On Fri, 5 Dec 1997 07:09:01, sara...@unm.edu (Andrew M. Sarangan)
wrote:
>
> Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR flight.
> The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45 minutes
> of fuel left.
>
> Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
>
Not necessarily. The regs say that you must _plan_ for a 45 minute
reserve. they don't require you to land with 45 minutes of fuel in
the tanks. However, the monkey would probably be on your back to
justify your planning to a Judge.
Scott Brazell
rockman wrote:
>
> Absolutely NOT. You only must *depart* with enough fuel to reach
> destination, alternate
> if required, and then the reserve.
>
> MM
>
> Andrew M. Sarangan wrote in message <6689ad$36...@callisto.unm.edu>...
> >
> flight.
> >The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45
> minutes
> >of fuel left.
> >
> >Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
> >
> >Andrew Sarangan
> >PP-ASEL
The reg is destination, alternate if required, and 45 min reserve for
IFR. However, I really doubt that the FAA would be out anywhere
draining someone's tanks to check for your reserve. Now if you where to
run out of fuel, crash land, and survive, you would probably have to
explain why you didn't have your reserve.
--
Scott Brazell
University of Oklahoma
Aviation
patterson,george r
In article <6689ad$36...@callisto.unm.edu>,
Andrew M. Sarangan <sara...@unm.edu> wrote:
>
>Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR flight.
>The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45 minutes
>of fuel left.
>
>Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
Probably not. The FARs require that you have the proper reserve to begin
a flight, taking all weather information into account. If you can prove
that you had enough fuel to make your destination or alternate with the
proper reserve and unforecast conditions caused you to burn more, you
did not violate any regs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| My candle burns at both ends.
George Patterson - | It will not last the night
| But, oh my foes and oh my friends
| It's such a pretty light.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kunkel
Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
>
> Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR flight.
> The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45 minutes
> of fuel left.
>
> Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
I'm sure opinions on that will vary (as usual in the NG) but, if I'm
not mistaken, they would need your permission to remove your fuel caps.
Just say no.
John
Matthew S. Whiting
Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
>
> Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR flight.
> The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45 minutes
> of fuel left.
>
> Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
Hopefully! Running out of fuel is one of the leading preventable causes
of airplane accidents. This costs me a lot of money in insurance costs.
I'd hope they'd throw the book at anyone who does this in other than a
declared emergency situation.
Matt
Ron Workman
Here's a pilot that has NEVER run into unexpected headwinds, traffic delays
or out of the way vectors -- or hasn't ever made a flight over 3 hours or
so.
Ron Workman out of TIW
Matthew S. Whiting wrote in message <3488A7...@epix.net>...
Norm Melick
John Kunkel wrote:
>
> Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
> >
> > Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR flight.
> > The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45 minutes
> > of fuel left.
> >
> > Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
>
> not mistaken, they would need your permission to remove your fuel caps.
> Just say no.
> John
What he said!!!
Norm
Norm Melick
Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
> Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
> >
> > Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR flight.
> > The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45 minutes
> > of fuel left.
> >
> > Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
>
> of airplane accidents. This costs me a lot of money in insurance costs.
> I'd hope they'd throw the book at anyone who does this in other than a
> declared emergency situation.
>
> Matt
It is NOT illegal to use the 45 min. of reserve.
Declaring an emergency because you are going to
land with 40 mins. left is stupid.
Norm
Norm
Matthew S. Whiting
Ron Workman wrote:
>
> Here's a pilot that has NEVER run into unexpected headwinds, traffic delays
> or out of the way vectors -- or hasn't ever made a flight over 3 hours or
> so.
>
> Ron Workman out of TIW
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote in message <3488A7...@epix.net>...
> >>
> >> Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR
> flight.
> >> The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45
> minutes
> >> of fuel left.
> >>
> >> Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
> >
> >Hopefully! Running out of fuel is one of the leading preventable causes
> >of airplane accidents. This costs me a lot of money in insurance costs.
> >I'd hope they'd throw the book at anyone who does this in other than a
> >declared emergency situation.
> >
> >Matt
Nice try. I make many flights over 3 hours in length as about half of
my flights are business flights to fairly distant locations. Then
again, 3 hours is less than half of the capacity of my Skylane which has
long-range tanks! :-)
Flying in the northeast corridor, I encounter every situation you list
above on a fairly regular basis. However, I stay on top of the impact
of unexpected situations and, if it eats into my fuel reserve, I land
and get some more gas. This isn't rocket science, Ron.
My personal fuel minimum is to always land with at least one hour of
fuel. Now in my plane that would require more than five hours of flight
at max cruise and has not yet been an issue as my bladder range is about
4 hours, but I use the same rule in other airplanes. This is the same
rule that Richard Collins uses and wrote about a few years ago and I
think it is very sound. Anyone who pushes the fuel envelope because
they are unwilling to land for more, is asking for trouble and, IMO,
just plain stupid (unless, as I stated originally, they are in an
emergency situation). For example, if I was in a retractable and knew I
couldn't get the gear down, I'd overfly a small airport to reach a
larger field with better equipment even if it meant compromising my fuel
minimum. The rules will never replace judgement. However, a pilot who
ignores the fuel impact of unforseen occurences during the flight and
fails to make a landing to remedy the situation is exercising very poor
judgement.
Matt
Matthew S. Whiting
Norm Melick wrote:
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> > Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
> > >
> > > Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR flight.
> > > The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45 minutes
> > > of fuel left.
> > >
> > > Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
> >
> > Hopefully! Running out of fuel is one of the leading preventable causes
> > of airplane accidents. This costs me a lot of money in insurance costs.
> > I'd hope they'd throw the book at anyone who does this in other than a
> > declared emergency situation.
> >
> > Matt
>
> Declaring an emergency because you are going to
> land with 40 mins. left is stupid.
I wasn't clear enough here. I meant some emergency other than fuel
status. See subsequent posting for example of what I had in mind.
Matt
Roy Smith
John Kunkel <JohnL...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR flight.
>> The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45
>> minutes of fuel left. Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
Andrew M. Sarangan replied:
> they would need your permission to remove your fuel caps. Just say no.
Andrew is correct, they would need your permission to inspect the inside
of your tanks. And even if they did, can *you* really tell the difference
between 30 and 60 minutes of fuel left in your tanks by looking into them?
But, more to the point, there is no rule which says you have to have 45
minutes of fuel when you land, just that you have to plan to have it.
Delays, unexpected headwinds, sub-optimal engine performance, diversions,
etc, all can eat into your reserve.
But, even more to the point, in a typical GA single, fuel usage is enough
of an unknown that I can't imagine planning a flight with a reserve margin
as close as 45 minutes. Perhaps if I had my own plane which I flew every
day so I knew its fuel burn exactly under a wide variety of conditions,
and/or had something like a fuel totalizer, I might consider planning to
the FAA mandated 45 minute reserves. But in a club where I fly different
planes on different days, and share them with a bunch of other pilots, I'm
a lot less sure of the performance. I get nervous when I get below
quarter tanks.
cbateman
Matthew S. Whiting wrote in message <3488AF...@epix.net>...
>Nice try. I make many flights over 3 hours in length as about half of
>snip<
>However, I stay on top of the impact
>of unexpected situations and, if it eats into my fuel reserve, I land
>and get some more gas. This isn't rocket science, Ron.
>
>My personal fuel minimum is to always land with at least one hour of
>fuel.
>snip<
Are you nuts?! Land with 1 hour fuel in a Lear24!?!? That would be
about 1000lbs. You would be making a $1000 mistake to land early
for a fuel stop when you will make your primary destination using even
15 min. of your 45 min. reserve. No jet pilot in his right mind will carry
an extra hour fuel; you've got to plan better than that, and be ready to
execute your plan (to the minute).
Matthew S. Whiting
I see you snipped the part where I said I fly a Skylane. Nice touch...
Steven P. McNicoll
That's not quite correct. Just because you haven't violated the FAR does
not mean that you won't be cited for violating the FAR.
rockman wrote in message <668d7k$2...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>...
>Absolutely NOT. You only must *depart* with enough fuel to reach
>destination, alternate
>if required, and then the reserve.
>
>MM
>
>
>Andrew M. Sarangan wrote in message <6689ad$36...@callisto.unm.edu>...
>>
>>Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR
>flight.
>>The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45
>minutes
>>of fuel left.
>>
>>Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
>>
>>--
>>Andrew Sarangan
>>PP-ASEL
>
>
TALLMAN
Marlon J. Zetty wrote:
>
> Andrew M. Sarangan <sara...@unm.edu> wrote in article
> <6689ad$36...@callisto.unm.edu>...
> >
> > Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR
> flight.
> > The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45
> minutes
> > of fuel left.
> >
> > Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
>
> guy has in his undies, and the overall circumstances. I have always been
> under the impression that fuel reserves are to be included in your
> preflight fuel load, but there's no requirement that all the reserve fuel
> is in your tanks when you land. You could end up using some reserve fuel
> if you encounter stronger headwinds than forecast, for instance. Just make
> sure that if you land with less than the required reserves, it is because
> of a legitimate reason, and not because you wanted to save $40 or $50 by
> not getting enough gas.
> --
> Marlon J. Zetty
> CFI-IA-ME AGI
> KingAir C90A
Cessna manuals for most late model C-172's require allowance of
about one gallon of fuel for start-up, taxi, and run-up. Who's to say
that you didn't get stuck on the way from the runway to the ramp while
waiting for other traffic on the ground? Or regaining composure after
a not-so-top-gun landing? Albeit, you probably won't be burning 7 gph
at idle.
Ron Workman
Matt -- I too fly conservatively. I fly a Cherokee Archer II with 48 gal
usable fuel . I flight plan for 10 GPH fuel burn and not more that 3.5 hour
legs (Thought not necessarily for fuel as much as comfort).
I have, however, run into unforcast headwinds that dropped my ground speed
to below 50 knots. This happens quite often in the mountains. If I was
between Hellena and Missoula or Miles City I wouldn't have the option of
landing for fuel there aren't many airports along that route with fuel.
I apologize for my attitude -- but it irritates me when someone says that a
pilot should be violated period and then sort out the facts later.
a. m. boardman
Mark Klebanoff <maxi...@os2bbs.com> wrote:
>Not necessarily. The regs say that you must _plan_ for a 45 minute
>reserve. they don't require you to land with 45 minutes of fuel in
>the tanks.
Uh-uh. Assuming we're talking about FAA regs, VFR flights only need to
begin a flight with reserves; you can more-or-less legally land on fumes.
*However*, IFR flights (actually, the wording specifies "IFR conditions")
require that you have the 45 minutes of reserve fuel throughout the
flight.
See 91.151 and 91.167.
andrew,
inveterate FAR reader...
Leonard Wojcik
Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
> Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
> >
> > The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45 minutes
> > of fuel left.
> >
> > Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
>
> of airplane accidents. This costs me a lot of money in insurance costs.
> I'd hope they'd throw the book at anyone who does this in other than a
> declared emergency situation.
>
> Matt
My aren't we sanctimonious today ! Do you think anyone is going to
intentionally land with less than 45 minutes fuel under real IFR
conditions? If I got into such a situation under hard IFR, I would
surely declare an emergency at about 30 minutes. So what's your point?
The guy has a problem, "lets dump on him and really show him how much
better we are". Lighten up a bit :-)
--
Leonard Wojcik Leonard.d...@wojciktech.com
Mark Rogers
cbateman <cbat...@plinet.com> wrote in article
<66a6n9$807$1...@usenet85.supernews.com>...
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote in message <3488AF...@epix.net>...
> > >
> >My personal fuel minimum is to always land with at least one hour of
> >fuel.
> >snip<
>
> Are you nuts?! Land with 1 hour fuel in a Lear24!?!? That would be
> about 1000lbs. You would be making a $1000 mistake to land early
> for a fuel stop when you will make your primary destination using even
> 15 min. of your 45 min. reserve. No jet pilot in his right mind will
carry
> an extra hour fuel; you've got to plan better than that, and be ready to
> execute your plan (to the minute).
>
Even though Matt once asked if I really was a pilot three times in one
post, I find myself defending him. :)
I fly a jet (a lot bigger than a Lear), and I don't know a single pilot
(myself included) who departs for destination without planning to have at
least one hour of fuel remaining at the alternate. The situation varies
tremendously, of course. If it's VFR at the destination, no inbound delays
are expected, no enroute deviation is likely, then we may burn into the one
hour figure - although not by much -(by increasing speed) to make up time
(make connections) if we are running late.
Do you fly a lear? [serious question, not flame] If so, let me ask you a
situation. You plan a flight to SFO planning to land with 45 minutes of
fuel (beautiful day on the west coast). Enroute ATC requires you to be at
a lower than filed altitude because of traffic. Over Utah you do some
deviating around thunderstorms. You now are planning to land at SFO with
30 minutes of fuel; no big deal, that's why you have a reserve.
As you check in with Oakland Center, they advise that because of strong
winds SFO is now landing and departing on the 28s. They tell you to expect
15 minutes of holding at Cedes. Do you divert immediately, or do you
accept the hold? If you immediately divert, how do you explain to your
non-pilot boss (either on the airplane or the ground) that you didn't have
enough fuel to make it to the destination on this "beautiful clear summer
day". Why is nobody else diverting?
If you accept the hold, you now have 15 minutes of fuel upon arrival at
SFO. Aircraft are lined up waiting for departure. ATC is doing it's best
to keep the flights flowing with half the normal runways. As you cross the
bridge, tower clears the Air France A340 for takeoff on 28L (your runway).
The aircraft slowly lumbers onto the runway, and the controller realizes
the separation will not be enough. He sends you around.
With heavy traffic at SFO, it will be at least 20 minutes before you get
back to the runway again. It either gets really quiet, or you declare a
fuel emergency and land with vapor in the tanks. Do you really think that
"no jet pilot in his right mind will carry an extra hour fuel"??
--Mark Rogers
Marlon J. Zetty
Andrew M. Sarangan <sara...@unm.edu> wrote in article
<6689ad$36...@callisto.unm.edu>...
>
> Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR
flight.
> The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45
minutes
> of fuel left.
>
> Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
Possibly. Maybe. Maybe not. I guess it depends on how big a knot the FAA
Keith Arnold
On 6 Dec 1997 01:48:15 GMT, "Marlon J. Zetty"
<mzetty@SPAM_SUX.lcc.net> wrote:
>
>
>Andrew M. Sarangan <sara...@unm.edu> wrote in article
><6689ad$36...@callisto.unm.edu>...
>
>Possibly. Maybe. Maybe not. I guess it depends on how big a knot the FAA
>guy has in his undies, and the overall circumstances. I have always been
>under the impression that fuel reserves are to be included in your
>preflight fuel load, but there's no requirement that all the reserve fuel
>is in your tanks when you land. You could end up using some reserve fuel
>if you encounter stronger headwinds than forecast, for instance. Just make
>sure that if you land with less than the required reserves, it is because
>of a legitimate reason, and not because you wanted to save $40 or $50 by
>not getting enough gas.
---------->
Makes sense to me. The purpose of the reserve is to make it to some
where else before it runs dry. No reserve when you finaly land.
Keith - N3431R - Chino, California
Matthew S. Whiting
I can appreciate that, but it irritates me every year when I pay a nice
sum for insurance and then read the AOPA stats on fuel exhaustion
accidents!
Matt
Larry Stone
I have planned flights to the limit of my fuel (meaning landing with 45
minutes) in my ex-Warrior. Of course (or perhaps not of course to some :-(
), I updated my plan as the flight progressed. I also set a time by which
we needed to reach a certain intermediate point or we'd divert for fuel
(better to set a time in advance and make it absolute than to say we'll
decide when we get to that intermediate point - less temptation to fudge).
As it happens, we beat the time by a couple of minutes (in VMC with lots
of alternates at the destination was a factor in the decision - great
weather is not enough if your destination is a single runway with no
nearby alternates if someone manages to close the runway). On landing, we
had 8 gallons which at 10 gph is 48 minutes.
That all said, my view is even if we had only 40 minutes left, we still
hadn't violated anything because the plan was to have more than 45
minutes. One of the reasons for a reserve is not only the things that you
didn't plan on that happen and you know it but things that you don't know
about like a fuel burn higher than expected.
--
-- Larry Stone --- lst...@wwa.com
http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/
Schaumburg, IL, USA
I work for United Airlines but never, never speak for them
John Lowry
Dear Matthew, Ron, and All:
Between Helena and Miles City, check out Doug Parrott's ranch, right on
the Musselshell about ten miles E of Lavina. He always has fuel in an
emergency and is a real nice fellow.
John
--
John T. Lowry, PhD
Flight Physics; Box 20919; Billings MT 59104
voice: 406-248-2606
Author, Computing Airplane Performance with
the Bootstrap Approach
Matthew S. Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote in article
<34897F...@epix.net>...
Matthew S. Whiting
John Lowry wrote:
>
> Dear Matthew, Ron, and All:
> Between Helena and Miles City, check out Doug Parrott's ranch, right on
> the Musselshell about ten miles E of Lavina. He always has fuel in an
> emergency and is a real nice fellow.
> John
Thanks, John, but I don't get out that way very often! I'm based in
southern NY. But looks like useful information for Ron who seemed to
think he had no options along that route.
Cheers,
Matt
Robert Scott
TALLMAN <tal...@nr.infi.net> wrote:
>Who's to say
>that you didn't get stuck on the way from the runway to the ramp while
>waiting for other traffic on the ground?
I would hope that if an exceptionally long taxi delay cut into
your 45 minute reserve you would decline to depart and go back
for more fuel, or change your flight plan, or something. As long
as you are still on the ground you do not _have to_ take off.
Bob Scott
Ann Arbor, Michigan
John R. Johnson
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Robert Scott wrote:
> I would hope that if an exceptionally long taxi delay cut into
> your 45 minute reserve you would decline to depart and go back
> for more fuel, or change your flight plan, or something. As long
> as you are still on the ground you do not _have to_ take off.
>
> Bob Scott
> Ann Arbor, Michigan
Right. I believe the old rule is "Takeoffs are optional. It is
LANDINGS that are mandatory!"
JOhn
cbateman
Mark Rogers wrote in message <01bd01e8$2abb4b80$23a36bc7@mmrogers>...
>Do you fly a lear? [serious question, not flame] If so, let me ask you a
>situation. You plan a flight to SFO planning to land with 45 minutes of
>fuel (beautiful day on the west coast). Enroute ATC requires you to be at
>a lower than filed altitude because of traffic. Over Utah you do some
>deviating around thunderstorms. You now are planning to land at SFO with
>30 minutes of fuel; no big deal, that's why you have a reserve.
No, I don't fly a Lear 24; I was using it since most people would be more
familiar with a Lear 24 than an 1121 Jet Commander, which I do fly. It
has similar characteristics (same CJ610 engines, but a slower climb).
I wouldn't fly into SFO for one thing! Why deal with that when there are
other/better airports that can avoid that ATC congestion? Also, if you
can't fly near 40 you will definitely have fuel problems (at least in the
1121).
By-the-way, what do you consider 1 hour fuel? Fuel at 10,000 diversion
or fuel to climb back to 30 or fuel to cruse at 40?
Matt Dossey
you guys made me look up this one too see the differences, and sure
enough, 91.167 says that no person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR
conditions unless it carries enough fuel to complete the flight to the
first airport....alternate...and 45 minutes at cruising speed
(airplanes).
that differs from the VFR reg, which specifically states "begin a
flight."
matt dossey
Matthew S. Whiting
I stand by my original comment that a pilot who completes an IFR flight
with less than the required reserve should be violated. Period. I'm
obviously, nearly alone in this opinion, but that's OK too! I'd rather
be right and alive than popular and dead.
Matt
Klein Gilhousen
Mark Klebanoff wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Dec 1997 07:09:01, sara...@unm.edu (Andrew M. Sarangan)
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR flight.
> > The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45 minutes
> > of fuel left.
> >
> > Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
> >
> the tanks. However, the monkey would probably be on your back to
> justify your planning to a Judge.
Ok, I'll take a stab at this. 91.151, Fuel Requirements for Flight in
VFR Conditions says, "No person may begin a flight....." This would
seem to apply to flight planning before the flight.
However, 91.167, Fuel Requirements for Flight in IFR Conditions says,
"......no person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless
it carries enough fuel to......." I think this means that if you're
flying in IMC (not just on an IFR plan in VFR conditions) as soon as you
can determine you no longer have enough fuel to satisfy the 45 minute
requirement you need to change your plan so that you will comply if at
all possible. Obviously, if you're over water and have no reasonable
diversion then you're ok (legally) but if you pass over a reasonable
airport and press on and end up with less than the 45 minutes of fuel
then you are in possible legal trouble.
I believe that 91.167 places a requirement on IFR pilots to continuously
replan their flights while they are in progress to insure that the
reserve requirements are met. Whether or not it's required, this is how
I fly. I regularly recheck my fuel consumption and check my progress to
my destination on the GPS (and calculations) and as soon as I determine
that I will not land with the required fuel reserve, I immediately
divert to the most suitable airport short of my destination, given the
existing weather conditions, etc. I include determination of a suitable
fuel alternate airport in my flight planning. And I've taken that
option many times. And I use a larger number than 45 minutes that
depends on the weather forecasts for the destination. The lousier
things are the more fuel reserve I require for myself.
I think that saying to the judge or the NTSB, "well, I had enough fuel
when I took off" would be a pretty lame excuse if your lack of fuel
reserve on an IFR flight came to the attention of the FAA, especially if
you fly past a reasonable alternative on the way to your destination.
Klein Gilhousen
Golden Eagle N421KG
Yak-54 N14026
Robert Scott
Matt Dossey <fly...@ibm.net> wrote:
>you guys made me look up this one too see the differences, and sure
>enough, 91.167 says that no person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR
>conditions unless it carries enough fuel to complete the flight to the
>first airport....alternate...and 45 minutes at cruising speed
>(airplanes).
>that differs from the VFR reg, which specifically states "begin a
>flight."
This must be an oversight in the VFR regs. I'm sure that if
a VFR flight is begun with legal reserves, and then the pilot
exercises his option to change plans in the air, and then runs
out of fuel, he certainly ought to be held accountable just
as if he had begun the flight without legal reserves.
Roger Halstead
Matthew S. Whiting wrote in message <348CD9...@epix.net>...
>Matt Dossey wrote:
>>
<deleted stuff>
>> matt dossey
>
>I stand by my original comment that a pilot who completes an IFR flight
>with less than the required reserve should be violated. Period. I'm
>obviously, nearly alone in this opinion, but that's OK too! I'd rather
>be right and alive than popular and dead.
The carry enough fuel to fly to the destination and then to a designated
alternate plus 45 minutes reserve is just that. Should a pilot fly to the
alternate and not be able to land he/she still has a reserve of 45 minutes
to find a safe place to land.
Hopefully either the destination or alternate airports are open and the
extra 45 minutes is not needed, but if it is, then the fuel gets used for
its intended purpose. It's not supposed to be a flight planning cushion to
either the destination or alternate.
IF either flight conditions dictate a course change or head winds cause the
flight to take additional time then the pilot is expected to plan/divert
accordingly. If my destination was beginning to sound iffy and I was
starting to eat into that required reserve then I'd be looking for a place
to land.
Course I'm a wee bit paranoid about gas. IF conditions are anything but
perfect I won't even go around the patch with out full tanks and on trips I
want the tip tanks full as well. (That's a little over two more hours).
I carry 5.5 hours for normal flight which would be 4:45 to the alternate
with 45 minutes fuel remaining. Then again I prefer to have an alternate
closer than the original destination.
Roger Halstead K8RI and EAA Chapter 1093 Historian
N833R World's oldest Debonair? S# CD-2
http://members.tm.net/rdhalste
>
>Matt
Bill Chivers
In article <3493bdf8...@news.jps.net>, Keith Arnold
<kar...@jps.net> writes
<snip>
>--------->
>Makes sense to me. The purpose of the reserve is to make it to some
>where else before it runs dry. No reserve when you finaly land.
>
>Keith - N3431R - Chino, California
Well, I don't know what the FARs say (being Europe based) Surely you
need to be carrying fuel for your planned diversion, plus 45 mins.
After all, 45 minutes of reserves isn't much use if your alternate is 46
minutes flight time away.
The fuel planning scheme used by our company includes enough fuel to:
1. Start up and taxy.
2. Fly the route (including approach).
3. Fly to the alternate (including go around).
4. 5% contingency of 1,2 & 3.
5. Hold for 45mins.
Additionally, if payload permits, we add the expected holding time at
our destination. In other words we don't ever plan on burning the fuel
in 3 & 5 unless we are already en route to our alternate.
Practically, since the 5% contingency is not generally required enroute,
and routing shortcuts are generally available from ATC, and we tend to
plan very conservatively for headwinds, we generally arrive in the hold
with some 'extra' spare anyway.
All I can say is that 45 minutes can disappear pretty rapidly
(subjectively!) when you are one of many aeroplanes in the hold and
everyone else decide they want to go to your alternate as well!
In answer to Andrews original question, I think it is unlikely, as
someone else pointed out - measuring 45 minutes of fuel (as opposed to
40 mins) in a typical light aircrafts tanks is not practical.
It is also important to remember with this kind of thing that
practicalities vary for different kinds of aeroplanes. When you fly
light aeroplanes, dubious fuel gauge quality and the relatively large
effect of changes in forecast wind versus your slow TAS tend to make
cautios pilots people very wary of having low fuel quantities. On the
other hand, bigger aeroplanes have more accurate gauges and higher
crusing speeds, coupled with the ability to make approaches into very
poor weather conditions, making the whole thing a bit more of an exact
science.
Something which may give some of you a chuckle, consider this: I learnt
to fly on an aeroplane called a Jet Provost (RAF primary trainer until
recently). This thing carries 2150 lbs of fuel, and burnt about 50 lbs a
minutes at full power (take off and climb / 300 knots low level) or a
more modest 20 lbs ish in a medium level cruise! So - practical reserve
fuels vary by aeroplane!
Finally:
1. Don't ask for fuel priority - you either have an emergency or
you don't.
2. If there is any doubt, you have an emergency, so declare it.
3. "It is far better to be down here wishing you were up there,
than to be up there wishing you were down here."
Bill Chivers
'my other signature file has something funny at the bottom of it'
Mark Klebanoff
On Tue, 9 Dec 1997 05:36:03, Klein Gilhousen <kle...@qualcomm.com>
wrote:
> Mark Klebanoff wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Dec 1997 07:09:01, sara...@unm.edu (Andrew M. Sarangan)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR flight.
> > > The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45 minutes
> > > of fuel left.
> > >
> > > Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
> > >
> > Not necessarily. The regs say that you must _plan_ for a 45 minute
> > reserve. they don't require you to land with 45 minutes of fuel in
> > the tanks. However, the monkey would probably be on your back to
> > justify your planning to a Judge.
>
> Ok, I'll take a stab at this. 91.151, Fuel Requirements for Flight in
> VFR Conditions says, "No person may begin a flight....." This would
> seem to apply to flight planning before the flight.
>
> However, 91.167, Fuel Requirements for Flight in IFR Conditions says,
> "......no person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless
> it carries enough fuel to......." I think this means that if you're
> flying in IMC (not just on an IFR plan in VFR conditions) as soon as you
> can determine you no longer have enough fuel to satisfy the 45 minute
> requirement you need to change your plan so that you will comply if at
> all possible.
You're right. You got me on that one.
Roger Halstead
--
Bill Chivers wrote in message ...
>In article <3493bdf8...@news.jps.net>, Keith Arnold
><kar...@jps.net> writes
>
><snip>
>
>>--------->
>>Makes sense to me. The purpose of the reserve is to make it to some
>>where else before it runs dry. No reserve when you finaly land.
I'd rephrase that last sentence to No reserve *required* when you finally
land.
Were I eating into the reserve however I'd be calling ATC in a hurry. I
doubt at this point that they would complain if you landed with five gallons
left. Just so long as the prop didn't quit turning at an inopportune time.
>>
>>Keith - N3431R - Chino, California
>
>Well, I don't know what the FARs say (being Europe based) Surely you
>need to be carrying fuel for your planned diversion, plus 45 mins.
Hmmm... I thought I was a little more clear on that, but the requirement is
to
fly to the destination, then the alternate and have 45 minutes remaining
*after* reaching the alternate.
IF you can not land at the destination and alternate for some reason you are
still expected to have 45 minutes on board to find "some place else"
. That, like the jet you mention below can make for very short distances
from origination to the planned destination to remain legal in some
aircraft. <G>
>
>Something which may give some of you a chuckle, consider this: I learnt
>to fly on an aeroplane called a Jet Provost (RAF primary trainer until
>recently). This thing carries 2150 lbs of fuel, and burnt about 50 lbs a
>minutes at full power (take off and climb / 300 knots low level) or a
>more modest 20 lbs ish in a medium level cruise! So - practical reserve
>fuels vary by aeroplane!
There isn't an exception listed, as far as I know, but a lot of warbirds
could declare an fuel emergency
on take off to be able to get to their destination with out having to wait
"up there".
>
>Finally:
>
>1. Don't ask for fuel priority - you either have an emergency or
>you don't.
A fuel priority would be any time conditions are such that you have
suficient fuel left to reach where ever you are going, but not enough to
tary. An example would be reaching the destination and getting put into a
hold. If the hold starts eating into the required reserve it's time to
declare a priority. If the fuel situation has reached the point where
reaching an alternate is beginning to worry you then it's time for the
emergency.
When to declare what is one of those controversial points where every one
does it differently, but I'd rather err on the safe side and declare an
emergency rather than find the prop windmilling half way down final after an
unexpected hold.
>
>2. If there is any doubt, you have an emergency, so declare it.
Agreed
>
>3. "It is far better to be down here wishing you were up there,
>than to be up there wishing you were down here."
>
Amen!
>
Roger Halstead K8RI and EAA Chapter 1093 Historian
N833R World's oldest Debonair? S# CD-2
http://members.tm.net/rdhalste
>
patterson,george r
In article <66inb0$j...@news.dx.net>, Roger Halstead <rdha...@tm.net> wrote:
>
>The carry enough fuel to fly to the destination and then to a designated
>alternate plus 45 minutes reserve is just that. Should a pilot fly to the
>alternate and not be able to land he/she still has a reserve of 45 minutes
>to find a safe place to land.
Right. Mac MacClellan (editor of _Flying_ magazine) once wrote on this.
He is based at White Plains, NY. He said he files LaGuardia as his
alternate. For those of you that don't know the area, that's only a few
miles from White Plains, and is likely to have worse weather at any given
time ('cause it's on the harbor). If he can't get into White Plains, Mac
is likely to need most of his reserve. As Mac and Roger said, that's what
it's for.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| All of us could take a lesson from the weather;
George Patterson - | it pays no attention to criticism.
| North DeKalb Kiwanis Club Beacon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Murray
Andrew M. Sarangan (sara...@unm.edu) wrote:
: Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR flight.
: The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45 minutes
: of fuel left.
: Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
I think the rules might be different for Part 135 or Part 121, but
I fly under Part 91. I don't believe any FAA folks are going to
be checking my fuel tanks on a ramp check. I would politely but
firmly deny such a request.
Nor would I let them check my pockets for portable electronic
devices or search my luggage for outdated sectionals. :-)
Walter Murray
Keith Arnold
I'm reminded that this thread is posted in several groups. Including
IFR and the two reserves shall never meet.
ô¿ô - Keith - N3431R - Chino, California
N33° 58.769' W117° 38.690'
Keith Arnold
>In article <3493bdf8...@news.jps.net>, Keith Arnold
><kar...@jps.net> writes
>
><snip>
>
>>--------->
>>Makes sense to me. The purpose of the reserve is to make it to some
>>where else before it runs dry. No reserve when you finaly land.
>>
>>Keith - N3431R - Chino, California
>
>Well, I don't know what the FARs say (being Europe based) Surely you
>need to be carrying fuel for your planned diversion, plus 45 mins.
>
>Something which may give some of you a chuckle, consider this: I learnt
>to fly on an aeroplane called a Jet Provost (RAF primary trainer until
>recently). This thing carries 2150 lbs of fuel, and burnt about 50 lbs a
>minutes at full power (take off and climb / 300 knots low level) or a
>more modest 20 lbs ish in a medium level cruise! So - practical reserve
>fuels vary by aeroplane!
>
>Finally:
>
>1. Don't ask for fuel priority - you either have an emergency or
>you don't.
>
>2. If there is any doubt, you have an emergency, so declare it.
>
>3. "It is far better to be down here wishing you were up there,
>than to be up there wishing you were down here."
>
>
>
>Bill Chivers
>'my other signature file has something funny at the bottom of it'
------------------>
This subject is cross posted to several groups. I'm reading this in
the STUDENT group where the 45 minute reserve doesn't apply. That
rule is IFR stuff. Granted one should plan for some reserve but the
above statement does not apply here.
Bob Gardner
I recently did a segment on this subject for the Pilot's Audio Update, recounting the
IFR flight of a Bonanza pilot who just happens to be a JAL 747 captain. He threatened
to declare an emergency when excessive vectoring into Hawthorne, CA was going to eat
into his 45 minute reserve. You can imagine how much ATC wanted an emergency in LAX
airspace at rush hour. Any pilot has the right and duty to consider the reserve fuel as
sacrosanct except in an emergency.
BTW, and I hope Andrew Sarangan reads this, the section of the FAA Operations
Inspector's Handbook that covers ramp checks makes it clear that no ops inspector will
ever stick anyone's fuel tanks without cause...like having to be towed in to the ramp.
They can't even touch the airplane without the owner/pilot's permission.
Bob Gardner
Klein Gilhousen wrote:
> Mark Klebanoff wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Dec 1997 07:09:01, sara...@unm.edu (Andrew M. Sarangan)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR flight.
> > > The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45 minutes
> > > of fuel left.
> > >
> > > Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
> > >
> > Not necessarily. The regs say that you must _plan_ for a 45 minute
> > reserve. they don't require you to land with 45 minutes of fuel in
> > the tanks. However, the monkey would probably be on your back to
> > justify your planning to a Judge.
>
> Ok, I'll take a stab at this. 91.151, Fuel Requirements for Flight in
> VFR Conditions says, "No person may begin a flight....." This would
> seem to apply to flight planning before the flight.
>
> However, 91.167, Fuel Requirements for Flight in IFR Conditions says,
> "......no person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless
> it carries enough fuel to......." I think this means that if you're
> flying in IMC (not just on an IFR plan in VFR conditions) as soon as you
> can determine you no longer have enough fuel to satisfy the 45 minute
> requirement you need to change your plan so that you will comply if at
Keith Arnold
On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 21:38:39 -0800, "Matthew S. Whiting"
<whi...@epix.net> wrote:
>Matt Dossey wrote:
>>
>> you guys made me look up this one too see the differences, and sure
>> enough, 91.167 says that no person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR
>> conditions unless it carries enough fuel to complete the flight to the
>> first airport....alternate...and 45 minutes at cruising speed
>> (airplanes).
>>
>> that differs from the VFR reg, which specifically states "begin a
>> flight."
>>
>> matt dossey
>
>I stand by my original comment that a pilot who completes an IFR flight
>with less than the required reserve should be violated. Period. I'm
>obviously, nearly alone in this opinion, but that's OK too! I'd rather
>be right and alive than popular and dead.
>
>Matt
--------------->
Okay. Stand by it but I'm reading this in the STUDENT group. Doesn't
apply, thank you.
Matthew S. Whiting
Roger Halstead wrote:
>
> I'd rephrase that last sentence to No reserve *required* when you finally
> land.
>
> Were I eating into the reserve however I'd be calling ATC in a hurry. I
> doubt at this point that they would complain if you landed with five gallons
> left. Just so long as the prop didn't quit turning at an inopportune time.
I think I have the attribution right here... :-)
I agree with you providing you flew to your destination, then your
alternate and THEN somewhere else. If you land at your flight planned
destination with five gallons of fuel left (unless your plane burns 2
gph!), then I believe you've not only violated the FARs, but you've been
stupid.
Matt
Matthew S. Whiting
Didn't say it did. The topic was IFR flights. I didn't notice that the
student group was on the list. However, some day you may decide you
want an instrument rating and this topic may be relevant to you. :-)
Matt
Andrew M. Sarangan
In article <348dd49d...@news.jps.net>,
Keith Arnold <kar...@jps.net> wrote:
>------------------>
>This subject is cross posted to several groups. I'm reading this in
>the STUDENT group where the 45 minute reserve doesn't apply. That
>rule is IFR stuff. Granted one should plan for some reserve but the
>above statement does not apply here.
>
Fuel reserve for VFR flight is 30 minutes at day time and 45 mins at night.
It is not much different than for IFR flight.
--
Andrew Sarangan
PP-ASEL
Roger Halstead
Keith Arnold wrote in message <348dfba4...@news.jps.net>...
>On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 18:22:55 -0800, "Matthew S. Whiting"
><whi...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>Keith Arnold wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 21:38:39 -0800, "Matthew S. Whiting"
>>> <whi...@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Matt Dossey wrote:
>>> >>
<deleted stuff>
>>> >
>>> >I stand by my original comment that a pilot who completes an IFR flight
>>> >with less than the required reserve should be violated. Period. I'm
>>> >obviously, nearly alone in this opinion, but that's OK too! I'd rather
>>> >be right and alive than popular and dead.
Thing is, it's not illegal to use that reserve. There is nothing (other
than common sense) that says you have to have 45 minutes fuel left when you
land.
The regs only state that you have enough to fly to the intended destination,
then to the designated alternate, and then 45 minutes worth of fuel at
cruise there after. They do not say you can't use it.
Both my instructor(s) and an FAA examiner made the same statement. It might
not be smart, but it is legal. It's there supposedly so that you can go
somewhere else if both the destination and alternate become unavailable.
I agree with you in principle and happen to be paranoid about fuel. I carry
5.5 hours and will add ten gallons to top off the tanks just to fly for half
an hour. I have had great weather go to pot in front of me only to discover
that it had done the same behind me when when I kept looking over my
shoulder. It took an extra 100 miles to get to decent weather.
Roger Halstead K8RI and EAA Chapter 1093 Historian
N833R World's oldest Debonair? S# CD-2
http://members.tm.net/rdhalste
>>> >
>>> >Matt
>>> --------------->
<more deleted stuff>
>>
>>Matt
>--------->
>Okay, Matt. I have had an instrument rating for 25+ years and flying
>for 42 years also am commercial for about the same time. All I was
>saying is that cross posting to the Student group makes it other than
>IFR, thank you. If I'm VFR in VMC and run REAL low on fuel I do have
>the option to land (under power). Even on a road that isn't available
>in IMC.
George R Patterson
Matt Dossey wrote:
>
> you guys made me look up this one too see the differences, and sure
> enough, 91.167 says that no person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR
> conditions unless it carries enough fuel to complete the flight to the
> first airport....alternate...and 45 minutes at cruising speed
The reg goes on to say that the reserve ceases to be required if the
destination airport has at least a 2,000' ceiling and 3 miles vis. for
at least an hour before and after your ETA.
George Patterson, N3162Q
Keith Arnold
>Keith Arnold wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 21:38:39 -0800, "Matthew S. Whiting"
>> <whi...@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Matt Dossey wrote:
>> >>
>> >> you guys made me look up this one too see the differences, and sure
>> >> enough, 91.167 says that no person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR
>> >> conditions unless it carries enough fuel to complete the flight to the
>> >> first airport....alternate...and 45 minutes at cruising speed
>> >> (airplanes).
>> >>
>> >> that differs from the VFR reg, which specifically states "begin a
>> >> flight."
>> >>
>> >> matt dossey
>> >
>> >I stand by my original comment that a pilot who completes an IFR flight
>> >with less than the required reserve should be violated. Period. I'm
>> >obviously, nearly alone in this opinion, but that's OK too! I'd rather
>> >be right and alive than popular and dead.
>> >
>> >Matt
>> --------------->
>> Okay. Stand by it but I'm reading this in the STUDENT group. Doesn't
>> apply, thank you.
>>
>> ô¿ô - Keith - N3431R - Chino, California
>> N33° 58.769' W117° 38.690'
>
>Didn't say it did. The topic was IFR flights. I didn't notice that the
>student group was on the list. However, some day you may decide you
>want an instrument rating and this topic may be relevant to you. :-)
>
John R. Johnson
On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
<snip>
>
> I agree with you providing you flew to your destination, then your
> alternate and THEN somewhere else. If you land at your flight planned
> destination with five gallons of fuel left (unless your plane burns 2
> gph!), then I believe you've not only violated the FARs, but you've been
> stupid.
>
> Matt
>
>
fuel left on landing! :-) Even IFR. Many aircraft could never take
off at all if that were the requirement! I have flown lots of aircraft
that could only carry two and a half hours of fuel.
Matt, If I have told you once, I've told you a million times, don't
exaggerate! :-)
John
Matthew S. Whiting
Roger Halstead wrote:
>
> Thing is, it's not illegal to use that reserve. There is nothing (other
> than common sense) that says you have to have 45 minutes fuel left when you
> land.
>
> The regs only state that you have enough to fly to the intended destination,
> then to the designated alternate, and then 45 minutes worth of fuel at
> cruise there after. They do not say you can't use it.
Maybe you missed my point. I think the regs say that at any time during
the flight you must have this condition met. IF you land at your
ORIGINAL destination with less than 45 minutes of fuel, then you most
certainly had a time during the latter part of the flight during which
you could not have flown on to your filed alternate and 45 minutes
thereafter. I don't disagree that you can legally use the reserve, but
I'd bet the FAA and NTSB would only buy this if you were using it for
what it is INTENDED for. The intent is to get you to the alternate and
then give you some margin beyond that. I don't think the intent is to
save you an unplanned fuel stop in the event of stronger than forecast
winds. Likewise, if you fly to your destination, miss the approach and
fly to your alternate and land with 45 minutes of fuel, then I say you
are still legal. If you land at the alternate with 30 minutes of fuel,
I say you're not. My opinion obviously, and everyone is entitled to
their own. I think mine is the most conservative approach and the least
likely to result in a fuel exhaustion accident.
> Both my instructor(s) and an FAA examiner made the same statement. It might
> not be smart, but it is legal. It's there supposedly so that you can go
> somewhere else if both the destination and alternate become unavailable.
I agree 100%! The intent is exactly what your last sentence says,
however, others were saying that the reserved was for any purpose you
see fit including avoiding a fuel stop due to higher winds than
forecast. I don't think the latter is the intent at all.
> I agree with you in principle and happen to be paranoid about fuel. I carry
> 5.5 hours and will add ten gallons to top off the tanks just to fly for half
> an hour. I have had great weather go to pot in front of me only to discover
> that it had done the same behind me when when I kept looking over my
> shoulder. It took an extra 100 miles to get to decent weather.
Me too. I only take off with less than full fuel if weigth dictates.
Luckily, in a Skylane this isn't often. I think it was Andy Grove(s)
that said "only the paranoid survive!"
Matt
George R Patterson
> Okay. Stand by it but I'm reading this in the STUDENT group. Doesn't
> apply, thank you.
No, it's obvious that you're NOT reading it at all. The original post
specified an IFR flight. If that doesn't interest you, don't look at
the thread.
Keith Arnold
On 5 Dec 1997 00:09:01 -0700, sara...@unm.edu (Andrew M. Sarangan)
wrote:
>
>Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR flight.
>The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45 minutes
>of fuel left.
>
>Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
=--------->
One thing's for sure; there is a lot of confusion regarding the
interpretation of FARs. Me thinks they (FAA) hasn't gone far enough
to clean them up for better understanding.
George R Patterson
Keith Arnold wrote:
> One thing's for sure; there is a lot of confusion regarding the
> interpretation of FARs. Me thinks they (FAA) hasn't gone far enough
> to clean them up for better understanding.
I don't agree with either sentence. I think most of the posters in this
thread have simply posted from their memory of the FARs without looking
the applicable ones up (mea culpa). They seem to be pretty clear when I
actually have the book open. That one is certainly crystal clear if you
read both it and the definitions found at the front of the text.
George Patterson, N3162Q
Matthew S. Whiting
I'm not sure I agree that it is crystal clear. What is your crystal
clear interpretation? :-)
Matt
Brett Rabe
George R Patterson wrote:
>
> Matt Dossey wrote:
> >
> > you guys made me look up this one too see the differences, and sure
> > enough, 91.167 says that no person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR
> > conditions unless it carries enough fuel to complete the flight to the
> > first airport....alternate...and 45 minutes at cruising speed
>
> destination airport has at least a 2,000' ceiling and 3 miles vis. for
It most certainly does *not* say that. What it says is that you
do not need to consider fuel requirements in calculations for *flying
to an alternate* if the 1/2/3 rule is passed. But for the trip overall,
you still need the 45 minute reserve.
That is.... if you require an alternate, you must have fuel to
fly to your destination, then to your alternate, and then 45
minutes at normal cruise.
If you do not require an alternate, you merely have to have enough
fuel to fly to your destination, and then 45 minutes at cruise.
Maybe this is what you meant to say.
Notice that 91.167(b) only says that "Paragraph (a)(2) of this
section does not apply if" ....
It does not relieve you from the requirements of Paragraphs (a)(1)
and (a)(3), which clearly require you to have the 45 minute reserve.
The entire section is:
Sec. 91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person
may
operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough
fuel
(considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions)
to--
(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;
(2) Fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and
(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for
helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.
(b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if--
(1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument
approach
procedure for the first airport of intended landing; and
(2) For at least 1 hour before and 1 hour after the estimated time
of
arrival at the airport, the weather reports or forecasts or any
combination
of them indicate--
(i) The ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport
elevation;
and
(ii) Visibility will be at least 3 statute miles.
Brett
--
Brett Rabe Email : br...@uswest.net
Systems Administrator - !nteract Services Phone : 612.664.3078
600 Stinson Blvd. Pager : 612.613.2549
Minneapolis, MN USA 55413 Fax : 612.664.4770
If you aren't the lead dog, the view is always the same.
Keith Arnold
=---------->
I _am_ reading it that's why I know it specified an IFR flight but I'm
still reading this in the student group which is not concerned with
IFR flight at this point. I am interested but I'd rather read it in
the IFR group, sir.
ôżô - Keith - N3431R - Chino, California
N33° 58.769' W117° 38.690'
Keith Arnold
>Keith Arnold wrote:
>
>> One thing's for sure; there is a lot of confusion regarding the
>> interpretation of FARs. Me thinks they (FAA) hasn't gone far enough
>> to clean them up for better understanding.
>
>I don't agree with either sentence. I think most of the posters in this
>thread have simply posted from their memory of the FARs without looking
>the applicable ones up (mea culpa). They seem to be pretty clear when I
>actually have the book open. That one is certainly crystal clear if you
>read both it and the definitions found at the front of the text.
>
>George Patterson, N3162Q
--------->
Gee, then why does on guy say one thing and another say no, that's not
right it's this way?
ô¿ô - Keith - N3431R - Chino, California
N33° 58.769' W117° 38.690'
Mike Schwartz
I rather DO agree with Ken Arnold. There aren't enough textbooks with
EXAMPLES showing exactly what the Fare's mean. Of course, the FAR/AIM
would be about 10 times as thick if examples and legal explanations
were included. :<)
I'm amazed by some of the discussions in this newsgroup, like this one
on the 45 minute reserve. I'm just working on my IFR rating now, but
none of my instructors or textbooks thus far has explained the 45
minute fuel rule like the people in this group did. Thank you all for
probably saving my hide someday. (If the 45 minute explaination
doesn't save my hide someday, I'm sure something else I learned here
will!)
George R Patterson wrote in message <34900C...@earthlink.net>...
>Keith Arnold wrote:
>
>> One thing's for sure; there is a lot of confusion regarding the
>> interpretation of FARs. Me thinks they (FAA) hasn't gone far
enough
>
>I don't agree with either sentence. I think most of the posters in
this
>
>George Patterson, N3162Q
Thomas Downing
Bill Chivers <Bi...@chivcons.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[a lot of stuff that made excellent sense!]
Seems to me that the original question what - what happens if you land
with less than reserves?
Even though the IFR FAR says "complete the flight" - that is still how
you must plan fuel load _before_ flight. I don't know of any light
aircraft that have in-flight refueling capability :-). If you run
into adverse conditions (winds, holds, etc.) It is possible to run
over your planned fuel burn. You are still legal. I most light
aircraft, I see no reason not to launch with as much fuel as you can -
either full tanks or max gross t/o weight. Further, I think it is
foolish to plan a max legal endurance flight when the destination is
IFR, unless: 1) you monitor weather conditions at the destination, and
2) are willing and able to make a stop enroute if conditions warrant
it.
This last point has been missing from this discussion: you can file
from ABC to TUV with XYZ as alternate, but there is nothing to stop
you from changing your mind enroute and landing at HIJ, you don't even
have to tell ATC why, just ask for the clearance, and do it.
rgds
td
Keith Arnold
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 17:43:10 -0600, Brett Rabe <br...@uswest.net>
wrote:
>George R Patterson wrote:
>>
>> Matt Dossey wrote:
>> >
>> > you guys made me look up this one too see the differences, and sure
>> > enough, 91.167 says that no person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR
>> > conditions unless it carries enough fuel to complete the flight to the
>> > first airport....alternate...and 45 minutes at cruising speed
>>
>> The reg goes on to say that the reserve ceases to be required if the
>> destination airport has at least a 2,000' ceiling and 3 miles vis. for
>> at least an hour before and after your ETA.
>
>It most certainly does *not* say that. What it says is that you
>do not need to consider fuel requirements in calculations for *flying
>to an alternate* if the 1/2/3 rule is passed. But for the trip overall,
>you still need the 45 minute reserve.
>
-------------->
Now maybe Mr. Patterson will understand what I meant about confusion
understanding the FARs. The end.
Tony Talarigo
>> Okay. Stand by it but I'm reading this in the STUDENT group. Doesn't
>> apply, thank you.
>
>No, it's obvious that you're NOT reading it at all. The original post
>specified an IFR flight. If that doesn't interest you, don't look at
>the thread.
Actually, Your both right.. it would seem that ALL posts in the 'ifr'
group and the 'pilots' group are being crossposted into the 'student'
section as well. I've been watching this development for the last two
weeks. Annoying to say the least.
Tony
George R Patterson
Keith Arnold wrote:
>
> >I don't agree with either sentence. I think most of the posters in this
> >the applicable ones up (mea culpa). They seem to be pretty clear when I
> >actually have the book open. That one is certainly crystal clear if you
> >read both it and the definitions found at the front of the text.
> >
> >George Patterson, N3162Q
> --------->
> Gee, then why does on guy say one thing and another say no, that's not
> right it's this way?
Re-read what I just said. The FAR itself is quite clear when you read
it. Only one posting I've seen quoted it, however, and that didn't
include all of the text. My postulation is that others are posting from
memory without looking at the FAR itself.
George Patterson, N3162Q
George R Patterson
Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
> George R Patterson wrote:
> >
> >
> > > One thing's for sure; there is a lot of confusion regarding the
> > > interpretation of FARs. Me thinks they (FAA) hasn't gone far enough
> >
> > thread have simply posted from their memory of the FARs without looking
> > the applicable ones up (mea culpa). They seem to be pretty clear when I
> > actually have the book open. That one is certainly crystal clear if you
> > read both it and the definitions found at the front of the text.
>
> clear interpretation? :-)
Ok. My interpretation is that I must start an IFR plan with enough fuel
to reach my destination and fly for 45 minutes after that at cruise. If
the ceiling at my destination is below 2,000' or visibility is below 3
miles, or these conditions are forecast to occur within an hour before
or after my ETA, then I must also carry enough additional fuel to fly
from my destination to my chosen alternate destination with a 45 minute
reserve.
If at any time during the flight I determine that I do not have enough
fuel to do this, I must change the destination or alternate to ones
which allow me to stay legal or cancel IFR.
George Patterson, N3162Q
George R Patterson
Brett Rabe wrote:
>
> George R Patterson wrote:
>
> do not need to consider fuel requirements in calculations for *flying
> to an alternate* if the 1/2/3 rule is passed. But for the trip overall,
> you still need the 45 minute reserve.
That's correct, Matt. I didn't phrase it properly.
George Patterson, N3162Q
Keith Arnold
>I rather DO agree with Ken Arnold. There aren't enough textbooks with
>EXAMPLES showing exactly what the Fare's mean. Of course, the FAR/AIM
>would be about 10 times as thick if examples and legal explanations
>were included. :<)
>
>I'm amazed by some of the discussions in this newsgroup, like this one
>on the 45 minute reserve. I'm just working on my IFR rating now, but
>none of my instructors or textbooks thus far has explained the 45
>minute fuel rule like the people in this group did. Thank you all for
>probably saving my hide someday. (If the 45 minute explaination
>doesn't save my hide someday, I'm sure something else I learned here
>will!)
>
=----------->]
Thanks, Mike. That lets us off the hook for anymore discussion about
this.
Andrew M. Sarangan
In article <34912f26....@199.190.65.4>,
Tony Talarigo <mer...@1usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>Actually, Your both right.. it would seem that ALL posts in the 'ifr'
>group and the 'pilots' group are being crossposted into the 'student'
>section as well. I've been watching this development for the last two
>weeks. Annoying to say the least.
>
I was the one who started this thread. Although the original question related
to IFR, the same rules are also relevant for VFR; hence my reason for
cross-posting to rec.aviation.student. Furthermore, student pilots tend to
be more up to date with current FARs, so I figured the cross-posting was
a good idea. I apologize if this has been an inconvenience to many.
--
Andrew Sarangan
PP-ASEL
Brett Rabe
Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
> I was the one who started this thread. Although the original question related
> to IFR, the same rules are also relevant for VFR; hence my reason for
> cross-posting to rec.aviation.student. Furthermore, student pilots tend to
> be more up to date with current FARs, so I figured the cross-posting was
> a good idea. I apologize if this has been an inconvenience to many.
I don't know why it's a big deal. I always assumed
(incorrectly, I guess), that ifr student question
were as on-topic in r.a.s as private student questions.
And anyway, VFR pilots in the U.S. *do* have a
45-mniute reserve requirement -- at night.
Michael Feher
Title check, anyone?
Matthew S. Whiting
George R Patterson wrote:
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure I agree that it is crystal clear. What is your crystal
> > clear interpretation? :-)
>
> Ok. My interpretation is that I must start an IFR plan with enough fuel
> to reach my destination and fly for 45 minutes after that at cruise. If
> the ceiling at my destination is below 2,000' or visibility is below 3
> miles, or these conditions are forecast to occur within an hour before
> or after my ETA, then I must also carry enough additional fuel to fly
> from my destination to my chosen alternate destination with a 45 minute
> reserve.
>
> If at any time during the flight I determine that I do not have enough
> fuel to do this, I must change the destination or alternate to ones
> which allow me to stay legal or cancel IFR.
FWIW, I read it the same as you, however, when I first suggested that a
pilot who didn't follow the above policy should be tagged by the FAA, I
was definitely in the minority. I'll stick by my interpretation as,
even if its wrong, it is the most conservative interpretation and thus
the most likely to keep me out of trouble fuel-wise.
Matt
Mark Rogers
cbateman <cbat...@plinet.com> wrote in article
<66i5sh$s1i$1...@usenet85.supernews.com>...
>
> No, I don't fly a Lear 24; I was using it since most people would be more
> familiar with a Lear 24 than an 1121 Jet Commander, which I do fly. It
> has similar characteristics (same CJ610 engines, but a slower climb).
>
> I wouldn't fly into SFO for one thing! Why deal with that when there are
> other/better airports that can avoid that ATC congestion? Also, if you
> can't fly near 40 you will definitely have fuel problems (at least in the
> 1121).
The reason I developed the SFO scenerio was because of your statement that
"no jet pilot in his right mind would carry around an extra hour of fuel".
I find quite the opposite to be true - if it is at all possible, any jet
pilot will carry extra fuel. Please note that I did not say "no jet pilot
will ever plan to land with less than an hour of fuel". If you are flying
an aircraft where you would bump payload to carry an hour's worth of fuel,
are flying into an uncongested airport that is relatively close, and it is
beautiful VFR, it probably wouldn't be a bad decision.
Most "jet pilots" don't have the luxury of not flying into congested
airports (that's why they're congested!) :) If you can carry an hour's
worth of reserve fuel, why not? It just gives you so much more
flexability. The small incremental cost of ferrying fuel is more than
compensated for by avoiding one unnecessary diversion.
Two days ago we landed with nearly 2 1/2 hours worth of fuel. Were we "out
of our right minds"? We needed an hour of that to get to our alternate.
We were also landing at O'Hare (congested!) in the middle of a
snowstorm....
> By-the-way, what do you consider 1 hour fuel? Fuel at 10,000 diversion
> or fuel to climb back to 30 or fuel to cruse at 40?
>
Good point. This figure is necessarily arbitrary, but the figure we use is
one hour of fuel cruising at 25,000.
--Mark Rogers
Ron Workman
I don't believe that the regs really eliminate the need for the reserve all
together -- it eliminates the need for the alternate and so the reserve
requirement changes to destination + 45 minutes. Is this what you mean to
say George?
Ron Workman out of TIW
George R Patterson wrote in message <348CD5...@earthlink.net>...
>The reg goes on to say that the reserve ceases to be required if the
>destination airport has at least a 2,000' ceiling and 3 miles vis. for
>at least an hour before and after your ETA.
>
>George Patterson, N3162Q
Matthew S. Whiting
Mark Rogers wrote:
>
> Matthew S. Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote in article
> <348CD9...@epix.net>...
> >
> > I stand by my original comment that a pilot who completes an IFR flight
> > with less than the required reserve should be violated. Period. I'm
> > obviously, nearly alone in this opinion, but that's OK too! I'd rather
> > be right and alive than popular and dead.
> >
> > Matt
> >
>
> period? I am very fuel cautious, and never plan to land with less than
> legal reserves (actually, I never plan to land at my alternate with less
> than 1 hour of fuel), but sometimes unexpected things happen.
>
> Let me give you a scenerio which happened to me. I will begin by stating
> this is flying a Boeing airliner in scheduled 121 operation, so there is no
> confusion.
>
> The flight is departing from the west coast with a destination of Denver
> (about a 2 hour flight). The flight is completely full, it's spring, and
> the weather is forcast to be beautiful VFR along the entire route. The
> flight plan calls for landing at Denver with 45 minutes of fuel (no
> alternate is required). There is no IFR within a few time zones, and no
> convective activity forcast. You are planning to land in Denver around
> noon.
>
> Because you are fuel cautious, you bump some mail and increase the fuel to
> an hour reserve at Denver. Enroute you can only climb to FL290 (instead of
> FL330) for traffic. Over Utah you do a little enroute deviating for a few
> buildups. You now have 45 minutes of reserve arriving in the Denver
> terminal area.
>
> The problem is that there are unforcast thunderstorms around DIA. I won't
> get into the very well defined limitations concerning windshear, but
> suffice it to say that you are taking the appropriate precautions. We
> landed with 45 minutes of fuel (not a lot of warm fuzzies).
>
> Now let's say you actually got some windshear on approach and went missed.
> DIA is now closed due to the thunderstorm overhead (remember, _nothing_ was
> forcast- not a chance, etc). You declare an emergency and head to the
> nearest suitable airport, which is Colorado Springs (please nobody argue
> with this, suitable is very well defined for each 121 carrier). Twenty
> minutes of fuel later, you land with 25 minutes of fuel. Should you be
> violated?
No, you used the 45 minutes for what it was intended for ... a margin in
case the unexpected happens. I've never said I disagreed with that. I
think I was fairly consistent in saying that I was talking about the
flight planned destination. If, in your scenario above, you instead
encountered unforecast winds and would end up arriving at DIA with say
20 minutes of fuel and failed to land and take on more ... where would
you be? You'd be landing at Colorado Springs on fumes. I'm not all all
against using the legally required reserves for their intended purpose.
I simply said I don't think the purpose of the reserve is to avoid a
fuel stop.
> There are countless situations like this. Let's say you're in a GA
> airplane, you've missed the approach at your destination and head to your
> alternate (planning to have 45 minutes of fuel upon arrival there). The
> airplane in front of you lands gear up on the only runway. You head to the
> next airport above minimums (say 15 minutes away). Should you be violated?
>
> It's a reserve, and should only be used as such. Not to prevent an enroute
> fuel stop because you planned poorly, and not to eat into while holding for
> your destination (primary or alternate).
I don't think I ever said otherwise.
> What would be gained by violating the pilots in the situaitons I described?
> What would they learn? I have never landed with less than 45 minutes of
> fuel, and I just described the only situation where I came close. As I
> have said before, I never want to be at my alternate with less than an
> hour's worth of fuel, but I can't say that absolutely anybody who ever ends
> up there with 30 minutes of fuel should be violated, period, either.
Mark, I think we may have to agree to disagree. If a person lands at
their flight planned destination with less than the legally required
fuel reserve because they were too lazy to land and take on more fuel, I
think they should be violated. No ifs, ands or buts. A 15-30 day
suspension should give them time to think about making that
precautionary fuel stop next time.
Matt
Mark Rogers
There are countless situations like this. Let's say you're in a GA
airplane, you've missed the approach at your destination and head to your
alternate (planning to have 45 minutes of fuel upon arrival there). The
airplane in front of you lands gear up on the only runway. You head to the
next airport above minimums (say 15 minutes away). Should you be violated?
It's a reserve, and should only be used as such. Not to prevent an enroute
fuel stop because you planned poorly, and not to eat into while holding for
your destination (primary or alternate).
What would be gained by violating the pilots in the situaitons I described?
What would they learn? I have never landed with less than 45 minutes of
fuel, and I just described the only situation where I came close. As I
have said before, I never want to be at my alternate with less than an
hour's worth of fuel, but I can't say that absolutely anybody who ever ends
up there with 30 minutes of fuel should be violated, period, either.
--Mark Rogers
Mark Rogers
Matthew S. Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote in article
<34920E...@epix.net>...
> Mark Rogers wrote:
> >
> > Matthew S. Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote in article
> > <348CD9...@epix.net>...
> > >
> > > I stand by my original comment that a pilot who completes an IFR
flight
> > > with less than the required reserve should be violated. Period. I'm
> > > obviously, nearly alone in this opinion, but that's OK too! I'd
rather
> > > be right and alive than popular and dead.
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
>
>
> No, you used the 45 minutes for what it was intended for ... a margin in
> case the unexpected happens. I've never said I disagreed with that. I
> think I was fairly consistent in saying that I was talking about the
> flight planned destination. If, in your scenario above, you instead
> encountered unforecast winds and would end up arriving at DIA with say
> 20 minutes of fuel and failed to land and take on more ... where would
> you be? You'd be landing at Colorado Springs on fumes. I'm not all all
> against using the legally required reserves for their intended purpose.
> I simply said I don't think the purpose of the reserve is to avoid a
> fuel stop.
>
I agree with you. My response was prompted by your statement, "... a pilot
who completes an IFR flight with less than the required reserve should be
violated. Period." (quoted in entirety above). If this statement was taken
out of context, or if you meant "flight planned destination" (as you
clarified above), we have no argument.
>
> > What would be gained by violating the pilots in the situaitons I
described?
> > What would they learn? I have never landed with less than 45 minutes
of
> > fuel, and I just described the only situation where I came close. As I
> > have said before, I never want to be at my alternate with less than an
> > hour's worth of fuel, but I can't say that absolutely anybody who ever
ends
> > up there with 30 minutes of fuel should be violated, period, either.
>
> Mark, I think we may have to agree to disagree. If a person lands at
> their flight planned destination with less than the legally required
> fuel reserve because they were too lazy to land and take on more fuel, I
> think they should be violated. No ifs, ands or buts. A 15-30 day
> suspension should give them time to think about making that
> precautionary fuel stop next time.
>
> Matt
Actually, I don't think we need to disagree. I don't have a problem with
somebody getting violated for poor fuel planning and judgement, especially
if they carry passengers. I just thought that there could be occasions
where someone would land with less than 45 minutes of fuel, and still have
used good fuel judgement (see my examples). In these cases, I don't
believe a violation is warranted. It's the unilateral blanket violation
for landing with less than 45 minutes reserve that I was reacting to.
--Mark Rogers
Matthew S. Whiting
> >
> > No, you used the 45 minutes for what it was intended for ... a margin in
> > case the unexpected happens. I've never said I disagreed with that. I
> > think I was fairly consistent in saying that I was talking about the
> > flight planned destination. If, in your scenario above, you instead
> > encountered unforecast winds and would end up arriving at DIA with say
> > 20 minutes of fuel and failed to land and take on more ... where would
> > you be? You'd be landing at Colorado Springs on fumes. I'm not all all
> > against using the legally required reserves for their intended purpose.
> > I simply said I don't think the purpose of the reserve is to avoid a
> > fuel stop.
> >
>
> I agree with you. My response was prompted by your statement, "... a pilot
> who completes an IFR flight with less than the required reserve should be
> violated. Period." (quoted in entirety above). If this statement was taken
> out of context, or if you meant "flight planned destination" (as you
> clarified above), we have no argument.
I didn't check DN for the old posts, but I think in at least one I
mentioned that I was talking about the flight planned destination. I
didn't repeat it in every message as I thought it was not necessary.
> Actually, I don't think we need to disagree. I don't have a problem with
> somebody getting violated for poor fuel planning and judgement, especially
> if they carry passengers. I just thought that there could be occasions
> where someone would land with less than 45 minutes of fuel, and still have
> used good fuel judgement (see my examples). In these cases, I don't
> believe a violation is warranted. It's the unilateral blanket violation
> for landing with less than 45 minutes reserve that I was reacting to.
It's long been lost in the noise, but I THINK the original question
posted was referring to completely a flight "normally" (i.e., to the
original destination with no diversions to alternates) with less than
the legally rquired reserves. That is what I was objecting to. Heck, I
think a pilot could potentially run the tanks dry and still be legal. I
mean if the weather really went bad quickly over a wide area (fog can
sometimes to that as you know), it could be possible to fly to your
destination, alternate and another 45 minutes and still be SOL insofar
as finding a place to land is concerned. If that really happened, then
the pilot has used the fuel as it was intended and simply had a REALLY
bad day!
Obviously, an alert pilot would be quite unlikely to get into doo-doo
this deep as continual enroute weather checks will catch a converging
temp/dewpoint spread, etc., so the FAA would probably still sting you
for "reckless and dangerous." :-(
Matt
Rich Hare
No...
Because the FAR doesn't say you can't END a flight with less than 45 min
of fuel; it says you can't BEGIN a flight planning to end with less than
45 min of fuel.
Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
>
> Lets say you get ramp checked as you park your airplane after an IFR flight.
> The FAA folks check your fuel tanks and find than there is less than 45 minutes
> of fuel left.
>
> Will you get cited for FAR violation ?
>
> --
> Andrew Sarangan
> PP-ASEL
Matthew S. Whiting
Rich Hare wrote:
>
> No...
> Because the FAR doesn't say you can't END a flight with less than 45 min
> of fuel; it says you can't BEGIN a flight planning to end with less than
> 45 min of fuel.
Rich,
Have you missed the last week's worth of posts on this topic? Where
below do you see if mention BEGIN? I don't find it. It says you can't
OPERATE in IFR conditions unless the following conditions are met. I
believe that operate covers all phases of flight from startup to
shutdown. If at any time during your OPERATION in IFR conditions (seems
that should be either IMC conditions or IFR flight rules) the following
conditions are no longer met, then you are in violation and need to land
for more fuel.
Matt
Sec. 91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel
Keith Arnold
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997 19:51:43 -0500, Rich Hare <rh...@mich.com> wrote:
>No...
>Because the FAR doesn't say you can't END a flight with less than 45 min
>of fuel; it says you can't BEGIN a flight planning to end with less than
>45 min of fuel.
>
=---------->
Remember, you're in the IFR news group. There *is* a difference.
Andy Davis
In article <zUxAdIAi...@chivcons.demon.co.uk>, Bi...@chivcons.demon.co.uk
says...
>
[snip]
>
>The fuel planning scheme used by our company includes enough fuel to:
>
>1. Start up and taxy.
>2. Fly the route (including approach).
>3. Fly to the alternate (including go around).
>4. 5% contingency of 1,2 & 3.
>5. Hold for 45mins.
>
>Additionally, if payload permits, we add the expected holding time at
>our destination.
As another UK operator, funnily enough, we do exactly the same. I am
intrigued that in the noise of the debate, none of the US contributors
has noticed that this is subtly (but importantly) different from what
the FAR's apparently say. That is, the extra 45 minutes is called "holding
fuel", not "contingency". Thus, I will fly my airplane to my original
destination (at which point I have spent items 1 & 2) and, if the weather
is temporarily bad (or the runway is blocked/congested/whatever), and
if the reported conditions at my alternate (and there are plenty of other
options) is OK, I will take up the hold at my destination in the hope
of getting in in a little while. Theoretically, I might hold for 45
minutes before I _must_ divert to my alternate, but prudence means that
I might only hold for half that before going elsewhere. Either way, I
obviously don't expect to get to the alternate with my 45 minutes fuel
intact.
The important difference is that the extra 45 minutes of fuel is not
regarded as a "last resort"; the captain has the discretion to "spend" it
at whatever point in the flight makes most operational sense. The very
literl FAR interpretation implies that you only make one attempt at the
approach at your destination - you can't go around and try again - you
immediately divert to the alternate, fail there, and _then_ start burning
your 45 minutes. The would look kinda stupid if you decided to go back for
another shot at the original destination, wouldn't it?
By the way, in case you think I like living on the edge, we very rarely
actually fly a sector like that - many times, like everyone else, we
tanker around HOURS more fuel than the plan says. But with max payload,
we plan items 1 through 5 listed above. And that's all.
Andy
Ron Workman
Matt -- a strange thought -- if the pilot was 15 minutes out of his
destination and hit the 45 minutes reserve point, then he would only have to
cancel IFR to be legal. (Daytime flight in VMC) Dumb loophole -no??
Ron Workman out of TIW
SNIP
Matthew S. Whiting
Andy,
The FAR's don't apparently say that at all. I've included the pertinent
FAR immediately following. It quite clearly, at least its clear to me,
states that the 45 minutes doesn't start until AFTER you've flown to
your alternate. I see no allowance for burning the 45 minutes shooting
multiple approaches at your destination. Certainly, if you have the
fuel to do that and still fly "alternate + 45", then have at it.
Sec. 91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel
(considering
weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to--
(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;
(2) Fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and
(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for
helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.
(b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if--
(1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach
procedure for the first airport of intended landing; and
(2) For at least 1 hour before and 1 hour after the estimated time of
arrival at the airport, the weather reports or forecasts or any
combination of them
indicate--
(i) The ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation;
and
(ii) Visibility will be at least 3 statute miles.
> The important difference is that the extra 45 minutes of fuel is not
> regarded as a "last resort"; the captain has the discretion to "spend" it
> at whatever point in the flight makes most operational sense. The very
> literl FAR interpretation implies that you only make one attempt at the
> approach at your destination - you can't go around and try again - you
> immediately divert to the alternate, fail there, and _then_ start burning
> your 45 minutes. The would look kinda stupid if you decided to go back for
> another shot at the original destination, wouldn't it?
From reading the above FAR section, I don't think the literal reading
says that you must make only one attempt at the destination airport. I
think it does say that no matter what you do at the flight planned
destination airport, you had better keep enough fuel in reserve to fly
to the alternate and then 45 minutes additional after that.
Matt
Matthew S. Whiting
Ron Workman wrote:
>
> Matt -- a strange thought -- if the pilot was 15 minutes out of his
> destination and hit the 45 minutes reserve point, then he would only have to
> cancel IFR to be legal. (Daytime flight in VMC) Dumb loophole -no??
>
> Ron Workman out of TIW
Ron,
I wouldn't call it a loophole. I think it is just good decision making
on the part of the pilot! In severe clear weather, the need for lots of
reserve fuel diminishes greatly, IMO, as you can land pretty much
whenever and wherever you want. On the other hand, in serious IMC
conditions, the number of airports that have suitable approaches (ILS if
the weather is really low) goes down dramatically so with fewer landing
options it makes a lot of sense to have more fuel in the tank! Well, it
makes sense to me anyway... :-)
I really don't see this any differently than cancelling IFR at your
destination when the weather is good to allow you to get into the
landing sequence more quickly due to the less stringent VFR separation
standards. Or cancelling IFR upon arrival at an uncontrolled airport to
allow an aircraft on the ground to get its IFR departure clearance more
quickly. I do this fairly often where I fly and often the controllers
will drop you a hint that cancelling IFR will expedite things.
Obviously, the decision is the prerogative of the PIC, but little things
like this help make the system more flexible and efficient with no
compromise in safety.
Matt
Mark Rogers
Andy Davis <an...@nb-info.co.uk> wrote in article
<EL73G...@nb-info.co.uk>...
>
> As another UK operator, funnily enough, we do exactly the same. I am
> intrigued that in the noise of the debate, none of the US contributors
> has noticed that this is subtly (but importantly) different from what
> the FAR's apparently say. That is, the extra 45 minutes is called
"holding
> fuel", not "contingency". Thus, I will fly my airplane to my original
> destination (at which point I have spent items 1 & 2) and, if the weather
> is temporarily bad (or the runway is blocked/congested/whatever), and
> if the reported conditions at my alternate (and there are plenty of other
> options) is OK, I will take up the hold at my destination in the hope
> of getting in in a little while. Theoretically, I might hold for 45
> minutes before I _must_ divert to my alternate, but prudence means that
> I might only hold for half that before going elsewhere. Either way, I
> obviously don't expect to get to the alternate with my 45 minutes fuel
> intact.
>
What equipment do you fly? This might make some difference as the
procedure you describe is definately not the way we operate in the U.S.
If upon arrival at your destination you must hold, you will only hold down
to the fuel that will allow you to arrive at your alternate with the
reserve intact (basically 45 minutes). I'm not sure why the U.K. is so
different, but it may be due to some of the fuel exhaustion accidents we've
had here, or perhaps because U.S. airspace is so congested.
We generally fly into very busy airports. If the weather (or other
factors) are such that significant holding is in progress, the diversion
airports will also quickly become saturated. If you burned 30 minutes of
your hold fuel at the primary destination, diverted, then your alternate
closed (accident, whatever), what do you you do? We consider the reserve
as something to deal with unforcast or unexpected circumstances basically
beyond our control. Holding for weather is not beyond our control. When
using our reserve, we would consider ourselves as having a fuel emergency
(depending on the circumstances). In any event, we have an urgency
situation.
> The important difference is that the extra 45 minutes of fuel is not
> regarded as a "last resort"; the captain has the discretion to "spend" it
> at whatever point in the flight makes most operational sense. The very
> literl FAR interpretation implies that you only make one attempt at the
> approach at your destination - you can't go around and try again - you
> immediately divert to the alternate, fail there, and _then_ start burning
> your 45 minutes. The would look kinda stupid if you decided to go back
for
> another shot at the original destination, wouldn't it?
Exactly. If we have minimum fuel on board (most of the time we have more,
as you described), upon going missed at our destination we would
immediately be going to our alternate. This would obviously depend on
circumstances; ie. if you went missed on a VFR day due to a tractor on the
runway at an out-station airport you would probably keep it in the pattern
and land. If you went missed at a hub (VFR or IFR), you would be going to
an alternate. Most of the time it would take at least 20 minutes to get
sequenced back into the arrival flow VFR.
As far as your second point, if you have gone missed at your destination
and alternate, you would not be going back to your original destination
(you already went missed there, remember). You would be going to the
closest airport with good weather. It's very rare not to be able to find a
suitable airport to land at within 45 minutes at 300+ knots when you can
autoland.
>
> By the way, in case you think I like living on the edge, we very rarely
> actually fly a sector like that - many times, like everyone else, we
> tanker around HOURS more fuel than the plan says. But with max payload,
> we plan items 1 through 5 listed above. And that's all.
>
> Andy
>
As do we - we only treat our reserve differently. Also, this applies only
to our domestic operation; international is something different again (the
policies I have described do apply at least to our very large operation,
something around 600 aircraft).
--Mark Rogers
>
Roger Halstead
Matthew S. Whiting wrote in message <34935C...@epix.net>...
>Rich Hare wrote:
>>
>> No...
>> Because the FAR doesn't say you can't END a flight with less than 45 min
>> of fuel; it says you can't BEGIN a flight planning to end with less than
>> 45 min of fuel.
>
>Rich,
>
>Have you missed the last week's worth of posts on this topic? Where
>below do you see if mention BEGIN? I don't find it. It says you can't
>OPERATE in IFR conditions unless the following conditions are met. I
>believe that operate covers all phases of flight from startup to
>shutdown. If at any time during your OPERATION in IFR conditions (seems
>that should be either IMC conditions or IFR flight rules) the following
>conditions are no longer met, then you are in violation and need to land
>for more fuel.
>
I'll admit that the English language is highly ambiguous and leaves what
many consider to be simple statements open to interpretation and this thread
has certainly proven that if nothing else.
Having read and reread 91.167 IFR Flight Plan: Fuel Requirements for
flight in IFR conditions.
91.167 FUEL Requirements for flight in IFR conditions.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
operate a cilil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel
(considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to-
(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing.
(2) Fly from that airport to the alternate airport and-
(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for
helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.
The rest refers to alternates:
To me the first sentence is saying that when you take off, the flight
planning should take into accound all current weather reports, forecasts,
and pireps and that plan should allow for the 45 minutes of reserve after
flying to the destination, and thence to the alternate.
It only says that when you start the flight according to all known
information you would be able to meet all that criteria, but it says nothing
about prohibiting the pilot from using that 45 minute reserve, nor does it
say that there has to be 45 minutes fuel remaining in the tanks upon
landing.
My flight instructor had pointed that out and it was one of the first
questions the FAA examiner asked on the check ride. In both cases they
asked do you have to have that 45 minutes fuel in the tanks when you land.
Both said no and that it is considered a reserve.
Roger Halstead K8RI and EAA Chapter 1093 Historian
N833R World's oldest Debonair? S# CD-2
http://members.tm.net/rdhalste
>Matt
Matthew S. Whiting
Roger,
Where in the above FAR do you see "start" or "begin"? I see the word
"operate."
Matt
Robert L Bass
In article <34946E...@epix.net>, whi...@epix.net says...
>
> Roger,
>
> Where in the above FAR do you see "start" or "begin"? I see the word
> "operate."
Matt,
Do you believe this requires you to "operate" all the way to the
destination airport with enough fuel for the entire trip? The FAR in
question doesn't say "begin" with enough for 1+2+3 and only "operate" (to
the landing point with enough for #3. It makes no distinction. Since it
would be ludicrous to suppose the entire (1+2+3) fuel requirements must
be met at the completion of the flight and further since there is no
distinction made between these 3 aspects of the fuel plane, it must
therefor be referring to the amount of fuel on board at the commencement
of the flight. No?
Robert -- Student Pilot
Matthew S. Whiting
Robert,
Yes, I believe it does mean to operate the entire trip such that you
continually meet the fuel reserve requirements. Let me use an example
to help illustrate: Suppose I plan a trip that should be 2 hours in
length to my destination. Let's suppose my alternate is 15 minutes from
the destination airport. I thus need to depart with at least 3 hours of
fuel (2 hrs + 15 min + 45 min). Halfway to my destination (1 hour into
the flight), in order to still meet the requirements I must have 2 hours
of fuel remaining - 1 hour to get to the destination and then the 15 +
45 minutes for alternate plus reserve. Assuming that the winds are
exactly as forecast, 1 hour into the flight should put me halfway to my
destination and all is well. Now, let's say the winds were much less
favorable than forecast and 1 hour of flight time only takes me 1/3 of
the way to my destination. This means I need 2 more hours of flight to
get there. At this point in time, I now know that I no longer am
OPERATING the flight in a condition that satisfies the alternate + 45
minute reserve
requirement. As a matter of fact, in this contrived example, I would
land 2 hours later with ZERO fuel. At this point, I believe that to
remain legal (and to be smart - which is even more important!), I MUST
land and take on enough fuel to once again be able to OPERATE with
enough fuel to make the destination, the alternate and then fly 45
minutes thereafter. Does that help at all?
I believe the VFR regulation uses the term "begin" intentionally and the
IFR regulation doesn't use "begin" intentionally! Others obviously
disagree, but that is their prerogative. If "begin" was appropriate for
IFR as well as for VFR, I believe the IFR FAR section would also use the
word explicitly.
Matt
Robert L Bass
In article <671p5k$i...@news.dx.net>, rdha...@tm.net says...
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote in message <34935C...@epix.net>...
> >Rich Hare wrote:
> >>
> >> No...
> >> Because the FAR doesn't say you can't END a flight with less than 45 min
> >> of fuel; it says you can't BEGIN a flight planning to end with less than
> >> 45 min of fuel.
> >
> >Rich,
> >
One can't quote "the last week's worth of posts" if you have to argue
one's case before the FAA on something. The fuel requirements are for
the commencement of the flight. Do you think one is also required to
land at the destination with sufficient fuel to fly from to the intended
airport + the route from there to the alternate + 45 minutes' reserve?
Where does it say "begin" or "end" with any of those quantities. Clearly
one must at least begin with this total fuel requirement on board.
> I'll admit that the English language is highly ambiguous and leaves what
> many consider to be simple statements open to interpretation and this thread
> has certainly proven that if nothing else.
>
> Having read and reread 91.167 IFR Flight Plan: Fuel Requirements for
> flight in IFR conditions.
>
> 91.167 FUEL Requirements for flight in IFR conditions.
> (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
> operate a cilil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel
> (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to-
> (1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing.
> (2) Fly from that airport to the alternate airport and-
> (3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for
> helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.
>
> The rest refers to alternates:
>
> To me the first sentence is saying that when you take off, the flight
> planning should take into accound all current weather reports, forecasts,
> and pireps and that plan should allow for the 45 minutes of reserve after
> flying to the destination, and thence to the alternate.
>
> It only says that when you start the flight according to all known
> information you would be able to meet all that criteria, but it says nothing
> about prohibiting the pilot from using that 45 minute reserve, nor does it
> say that there has to be 45 minutes fuel remaining in the tanks upon
> landing.
It would seem that the wording of the FAR agrees with what you are
saying. Conversely, if one takes the expression "no person may operate"
to mean operate for the duration of the flight then the implication would
be that the required fuel for (1), (2) and (3) must also be present for
the duration of the flight, since at no point does the paragraph in
question differentiate between these 3 requirements. Clearly this is not
the intended meaning of the expression "operate" or of this rule.
Robert (Student Pilot: 0.0 hours IFR but able to read FARs)
Matthew S. Whiting
Robert L Bass wrote:
>
> It would seem that the wording of the FAR agrees with what you are
> saying. Conversely, if one takes the expression "no person may operate"
> to mean operate for the duration of the flight then the implication would
> be that the required fuel for (1), (2) and (3) must also be present for
> the duration of the flight, since at no point does the paragraph in
> question differentiate between these 3 requirements. Clearly this is not
> the intended meaning of the expression "operate" or of this rule.
>
> Robert (Student Pilot: 0.0 hours IFR but able to read FARs)
I'm curious as to how you are sure of the meaning of operate in this FAR
section? Do you have a letter of interpretation from the FAA? If you
tell someone they can operate your car or your lawnmower or whatever, do
you mean that they can only start it but can't do anything beyond that?
Matt
Robert L Bass
In article <349492...@epix.net>, whi...@epix.net says...
Perhaps my wording was stronger than I meant it to be. Let me rephrase
that. I'm sure I know what I think it means. OTOH, the real deal is to
have enough fuel. And to that end, the more conservative fuel plan is at
the very least safer, whether it is or is not an accurate interpretation.
Except for situations where the airplane is close to or over max T-O
weight or where DA problems dictate otherwise, it's almost always better
to have a bit more fuel than a bit less.
Robert
Dave Mould
Just out of curiosity, how is the mandatory 45 minute reserve
calculated? Do you use the GPH burn rate at max. endurance power
setting, max. range power setting or normal cruise setting?
If diverting with low fuel, I would fly max. range, but if I was
delayed in an extended hold, then I would fly max. endurance.
==========
Dave Mould
==========
George R Patterson
Dave Mould wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity, how is the mandatory 45 minute reserve
> calculated? Do you use the GPH burn rate at max. endurance power
> setting, max. range power setting or normal cruise setting?
>
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Andrew M. Sarangan
In article <VA.0000020f.000223f6@airstrip>,
Dave Mould <da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, how is the mandatory 45 minute reserve
>calculated? Do you use the GPH burn rate at max. endurance power
>setting, max. range power setting or normal cruise setting?
>
>delayed in an extended hold, then I would fly max. endurance.
The FAR specifically says "normail cruise setting"
Sec. 91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.
(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless
(considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to
fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising
speed-- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or
(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.
--
Andrew Sarangan
PP-ASEL
Robert L Bass
In article <673mor$58...@musca.unm.edu>, sara...@unm.edu says...
: In article <VA.0000020f.000223f6@airstrip>,
: Dave Mould <da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:> Just out of curiosity, how is the mandatory 45 minute reserve
:> calculated? Do you use the GPH burn rate at max. endurance power
:> setting, max. range power setting or normal cruise setting?
Well, last night I said what I thought the FAR means. Today I talked
to my CFI while preparing for 2nd solo x-c (more on that later). I
asked him what the FAR in question means.
He said that for an IFR flight at night you are required to have
enough fuel to make the intended airport, fly thence to the alternate
AND have at least 45 minutes' fuel in the tanks when you land.
Robert Bass (Student Pilot), who can read the FARs clearly AND still
manage to be totally wrong. Oops... :)
Steve Peltz
In article <MPG.efe3a59f2d16e21989695@news>,
Robert L Bass <alar...@BassHome.com> wrote:
>It would seem that the wording of the FAR agrees with what you are
>saying. Conversely, if one takes the expression "no person may operate"
>to mean operate for the duration of the flight then the implication would
>be that the required fuel for (1), (2) and (3) must also be present for
>the duration of the flight, since at no point does the paragraph in
>question differentiate between these 3 requirements. Clearly this is not
>the intended meaning of the expression "operate" or of this rule.
Clearly, it is. The VFR rule talks about the beginning of the flight. The
IFR rule says "operate". That word CLEARLY applies throughout the flight.
Note that if conditions change enroute, your fuel requirement could go up
(if the weather forecast OR conditions change so that you either would
need or no longer need an alternate).
You'd always want to have more than 45 minutes reserve, so that if you
hit unexpected winds, you don't have to immediately change your flight
plan or cancel IFR.
Roger Halstead
Brett Rabe wrote in message <34917B27...@uswest.net>...
>Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
>> I was the one who started this thread. Although the original question
related
>> to IFR, the same rules are also relevant for VFR; hence my reason for
>> cross-posting to rec.aviation.student. Furthermore, student pilots tend
to
>> be more up to date with current FARs, so I figured the cross-posting was
>> a good idea. I apologize if this has been an inconvenience to many.
>
>I don't know why it's a big deal. I always assumed
>(incorrectly, I guess), that ifr student question
>were as on-topic in r.a.s as private student questions.
>
>And anyway, VFR pilots in the U.S. *do* have a
>45-mniute reserve requirement -- at night.
Hi Brett,
I called an FAA examiner today and asked the question you ask above and the
answer is one of those that kinda, sorta, almost , but not quite agrees with
what I've been told in the past.
The Question "If I land with less than 45 minutes of fuel at my alternate
after first flying to the designated destination and then to the alternate
would I get sighted on a ramp check.
Comes out... Maybe!
It is possible to end up at the destination with less than 45 minutes
legally, but you might/probably would need a good explanation.
The interpertation that I was given *today* (which is somewhat different
than I've been told in the past) was that you are expected to land at the
alternate (which is supposed to be VFR BTW -- That's the 1 hour before to 1
hour after with 2,000 foot ceilings and 3 mile visibility ) with 45 minutes
worth of fuel left in the tanks.
However should the alternate have gone to pot, which does happen it is not
illegal to use said fuel.
Another however pertains to judgement -- If you primary destination was well
below minimums and there was a large group of aircraft in holding patterns
would you plow on ahead anyway, or divert to the alternate right then and
there. That's something you migh be asked. The questions get a lot tougher
when a pilot screws up.
But, for all intensive purposes given a normal flight where you give it at
least one approach at the intended destination and then fly to the alternate
you are expected to *land* with 45 minutes left.
As to the question as to whether you would/could be sighted... That depends
on just how far you cut into the reserves.
After todays discussion I'd say if you landed with fumes in the tanks...
Probably. With 30 to 40 minutes left .. Probably not.
You probably noticed those realy decisive probablys.
I've had both instructors and examiners give me slightly different
interpertations in the past and as I said in an earlier post there is a lot
of ambuigity in our language. If I interpert the FAR "literaly" I don't
come up with the same meaning, not did those whos gave me the earlier
interpertations. However as this is a current interpertation I'd want to
have at least 45 minutes fuel left when I land, or a really good reason why
not. (One could/might be a lot of traffic at the alternate for the same
reason you're there.)
In the real world I don't think I'll have that problem as I'm paranoid about
fuel. When going any where I cary as much as I can get in the tanks and
that usually leaves me with a couple of hours reserve. I cary enough to
make Florida non stop from Michigan, but stop in Knoxville to top off the
tanks.
Roger Halstead K8RI and EAA Chapter 1093 Historian
N833R World's oldest Debonair? S# CD-2
http://members.tm.net/rdhalste
>--
>Brett Rabe Email : br...@uswest.net
>Systems Administrator - !nteract Services Phone : 612.664.3078
>600 Stinson Blvd. Pager : 612.613.2549
>Minneapolis, MN USA 55413 Fax : 612.664.4770
>
> If you aren't the lead dog, the view is always the same.
Matthew S. Whiting
Roger Halstead wrote:
>
> I called an FAA examiner today and asked the question you ask above and the
> answer is one of those that kinda, sorta, almost , but not quite agrees with
> what I've been told in the past.
>
> The Question "If I land with less than 45 minutes of fuel at my alternate
> after first flying to the designated destination and then to the alternate
> would I get sighted on a ramp check.
>
> Comes out... Maybe!
>
> It is possible to end up at the destination with less than 45 minutes
> legally, but you might/probably would need a good explanation.
>
> The interpertation that I was given *today* (which is somewhat different
> than I've been told in the past) was that you are expected to land at the
> alternate (which is supposed to be VFR BTW -- That's the 1 hour before to 1
> hour after with 2,000 foot ceilings and 3 mile visibility ) with 45 minutes
> worth of fuel left in the tanks.
> However should the alternate have gone to pot, which does happen it is not
> illegal to use said fuel.
Sorry, Roger, that's not right! Better call back the FAA examiner and
tell him to brush up on his regs! The 1-2-3 rule applies to the
destination airport and is the only condition under which you do NOT
need an alternate (assuming the destination also has a published
approach procedure). The weather requirements at the alternate must be
600-2 if it has a precision approach and 800-2 with a nonprecision
approach.
Reference:
Sec. 91.169 IFR flight plan: Information required.
(a) Information required. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each
person filing an IFR flight plan shall include in it the following
information:
(1) Information required under Sec. 91.153(a).
(2) An alternate airport, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) Exceptions to applicability of paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if part 97 of this
chapter prescribes a
standard instrument approach procedure for the first airport of intended
landing and, for at least 1 hour before and 1 hour after the estimated
time of arrival,
the weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate--
(1) The ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation;
and
(2) The visibility will be at least 3 statute miles.
(c) IFR alternate airport weather minimums. Unless otherwise authorized
by the Administrator, no person may include an alternate airport in an
IFR flight
plan unless current weather forecasts indicate that, at the estimated
time of arrival at the alternate airport, the ceiling and visibility at
that airport will be at or
above the following alternate airport weather minimums:
(1) If an instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of
this chapter for that airport, the alternate airport minimums specified
in that
procedure or, if none are so specified, the following minimums:
(i) Precision approach procedure: Ceiling 600 feet and visibility 2
statute miles.
(ii) Nonprecision approach procedure: Ceiling 800 feet and visibility 2
statute miles.
(2) If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of
this chapter for that airport, the ceiling and visibility minimums are
those allowing
descent from the MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR.
(d) Cancellation. When a flight plan has been activated, the pilot in
command, upon canceling or completing the flight under the flight plan,
shall notify an
FAA Flight Service Station or ATC facility.
Cheers,
Matt
Roy Smith
"Mark Rogers" <mmro...@tcsn.net> wrote:
> For Part 135 and 121 it's a little more complicated, but the weather can be
> forcast to be down to 400 and 1 and be legal for use as an alternate (two
> independent ILS runways).
What's the logic behind that? I've always assumed that the 600/2 rule was
to account for lack of precision in forecasts. If the forecast goes down
the tubes and it's below minimums at your alternate, what difference does
it make how many independant ILS's it's got? If it's 100 and a quarter on
the ILS-4, it's going to be 100 and a quarter on the ILS-13 too, no?
Another dumb thing about the rule as written (maybe it's different for
121/135 guys?) is that it doesn't (seem to) take into account which way
the wind is blowing. For example, Morristown, NJ has an ILS-23, with
alternate minimums of 700-2. Let's say there's a typical nor-easter
blowing through, with the terminals reading something like wind 060 @
15G25. No way in heck are you landing on 23 in that, yet I don't see
anything in the rule which explicitly says you can't use the 700-2
alternate minimums.
Actually, the whole idea of alternate minimums seems pretty strange.
Looking through my Jepps book, I can't make any sense out of why some
airports have non-standard alternate minimums and others don't.