45 Minutes, or What's Your Reserve For?

[Cardinal]

We all realize that we must depart IFR with enough fuel to fly our destination, then our alternate, if applicable, and still have 45 minutes fuel at normal crusing speed. My question to the professional and not-so professional aviators on the board is: Once the flight begins and things start to go awry, what do you feel you can do with your reserve fuel? The 3-engine BA 744 declared a Mayday on their arrival in Manchester, despite landing with the JAA reserve requirement. In some of the slogging on another board, one 74 driver asserted that one MUST land with legal reserves. The implication being that once the fuel dips below 45 mintes, one secures the cabin and lands their jet in the nearest farmers field.

If enroute calculations show that you'll land at your destination with 40 minutes, are you going to divert? Do you feel it is a regulatory requirement to land with 45 mintues in the tanks, period? If you'll land with less than 45 are you going to declare Min Fuel? Declare an Emergency? Will you use your reserve to overfly suitable airports to make it to a company station?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Like I said in the other thread, ASA recommends declaring "minimum fuel" if you're going to arrive at the destination or alternate with less than forty-five minutes of fuel. Other's may feel this is overly conservative, but I think it's a good rule of thumb. Besides, you'd be amazed how rapidly good fuel planning can go out the window on a lousy weather day at a major hub airport.

Remember, "minimum fuel" is not the same as "emergency."

You're right though: reserve fuel is required for planning. If the engines flame out as you clear the runway at your destination (or alternate), you've met the FAA's requirements.

 

[Immelman]

As a spam can driver my 2 cents: I plan a 1-hour reserve. Always.... at least in the airplanes I fly.. if i were a Lear 20-series or Grumman AA-1 driver maybe my planning would have to be modified! That is my personal style. IFR I would say yes, if it got to where I was going to have a shortfall from my original plan more than a few minutes... be that 40 or 45, yes, I'd divert, if possible.

 

[CDVdriver]

To me this is not reserve fuel.
I treat it as if after the flight tied down on the ramp they (FAA)
drain my tanks and calculate I could still have flown 45 min assuming normal cruising speed & consumption by the book figures.
Anytime I would have to use some of this fuel I would declare an emergency.
Only in an emergency can you break the rules (supposedly)
In your averagre GA airplane the needles are already bouncing off the zero-peg with your 45 min left.
Not a very reassuring sight.....

 

[RipCurl]

reserve fuel is required for planning. If the engines flame out as you clear the runway at your destination (or alternate), you've met the FAA's requirements.

This is correct.

(a) 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...

The FAA regs say nothing about landing with a specific amount of fuel, just planning for it. The operation I fly with specifies a 45 minute reserve upon shutdown, and it is enforced. If you're gonna be short, you divert and pick up some gas. I think it's a good policy to keep prople from trying to stretch it on fumes.

 

[CDVdriver]

Sorry RipCurl,

(1) Complete the flight.. that's what it says, now depending on how many hairs you want to split, a completion of the flight means, on the runway/taxiway or tied down on the ramp after engine shutdown.
There have been rulings on this issue and tickets pulled.
Avbug help me out with a docket # or something

 

[leardrivr]

The only requirment for reserve fuel is planning. So if your flight plan is correct and it shows you have the legal required fuel taking into consideration all available information. your are covered no matter how much you block in with. On the boeing I like to land with at least 45 min. On the Lear 20's I'm happy if we get on the ground before we run out.

 

[Lead Sled]

The only requirment for reserve fuel is planning. So if your flight plan is correct and it shows you have the legal required fuel taking into consideration all available information. your are covered no matter how much you block in with.

Leardrivr hit the nail on the head. I subscribe to the theory that the only time you can have too much fuel on board is if you are on fire. I'm one of those guys that plan to land with a minimum of 1 hour's fuel - even more if I need to be serious about alternate fuel. We're also very conservative when it comes to alternate fuel. In addition to the "weather forecast triggers" we also plan on it if we happen to be flying to an airport that only has one runway suitable for our aircraft.

With jets, you typically fuel for the trip and we don't fly with the tanks topped off all that often. We will frequently tanker fuel when we're at an FBO that will give us a good deal. Like I said, it's not a contest to see who can land with the least amount of fuel. All that being said, there are some aircraft and operations where you don't have that luxury - it costs money to carry extra fuel. Fortunately, in the stuff we fly, the penalty is very slight.

'Sled

 

[fly4free]

Sorry RipCurl,

(1) Complete the flight.. that's what it says, now depending on how many hairs you want to split, a completion of the flight means, on the runway/taxiway or tied down on the ramp after engine shutdown.
There have been rulings on this issue and tickets pulled.
Avbug help me out with a docket # or something

Sorry CDV,

Plan and takeoff with 45 minutes...land with 1 minute at the destination or alternate.

No tickets have been pulled if planned this way.

In your senario...youre at 30 west, west bound for Fro Bay. Goose is your alternate 400 miles away and you have exactly 45 minutes beyond that...youre flying along and you realize that you now only have 40 minutes past your alternate...you're really not going to divert to Sondrestrom or Keflavic are you?

Hope not.

Fly

 

[rcbullock]

Case specific. If the weather's good and lots of close alternates, continue with 'min fuel'. Least I've landed with is 20-30 mins. Not a big deal in a 182, since you can land at any little field and there were lots of them VFR. OTOH, Late at night, IFR, weather marginal, divert and get some gas.

 

[prpjt]

Seems like the common thinking is plan to get there with enough gas but it doesn't matter what you land with. Here are some quotes....

"Plan and takeoff with 45 minutes...land with 1 minute at the destination or alternate"

"The only requirment for reserve fuel is planning"

"The FAA regs say nothing about landing with a specific amount of fuel, just planning for it"

My question is where are you reading this?

The only place where the regs state that you must plan to have enough fuel is for flight in VFR conditions. For flight in IFR conditions it specifically states that "no person may operate an aircraft unless" certain conditions are met. It makes no mention of "planning" or departing with enough fuel. It doesn't say you have to comply only before departure. It's looks pretty specific. And as an aside, it also makes no mention of what type of flight plan you're on.

So I think the scenario of being on the ILS, IMC, with 15 minutes 'til flameout is not in accordance with the reg.


§ 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.



§ 91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.

(a) 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) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and

(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed

 

[Lead Sled]

§ 91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.

(a) 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) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and

(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed

Prpjt...
Reread the quote. You do your planning based upon "the weather reports and forecasts and weather conditons". The problem is, Mother Nature doesn't always bother to read the forecasts. In a perfect world, if you ever had to divert to your alternate you would have 45 minutes in your tanks when you finally landed - if everything was as forecast. When was the last time that ever happened? It's sorta like needing 600/2 or 800/2 when planning for an alternate, however once you divert the published minimums apply.
'Sled

 

[prpjt]

Not trying to be argumentative, but to me, the reg states that any time during the flight, considering weather reports and forcasts, and weather conditions (ie. current winds and weather) you must meet the fuel requirement.

It doesn't say 'considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions' that you looked at before departure.

It seems to state that the minute you look at the FMS and figure you can't meet the requirement you either have to
A. Get out of instrument conditions, or
B. Come up with a plan B.

Not looking for a pissing match, just some enlightenment. How am I reading this wrong?

It looks like between 91.151 and 91.167 they are making a pretty clear distinction with their wording.

 

[Lead Sled]

Not trying to be argumentative, but to me, the reg states that any time during the flight, considering weather reports and forcasts, and weather conditions (ie. current winds and weather) you must meet the fuel requirement.

I'm not taking it that way at all. That's what I like about these forums - you have the opportunity to discuss things like this with people from a wide variety of backgrounds and experience.

FWIW, I'll refer you to the Jeppesen book "Federal Aviation Regulations Explained" by Kent Jackson. His explaination of 91.167(a) is that the fuel requirements are based on the forecast weather for the flight. Then he cites Administrator v. Wiekand & Perry, EA-4190 (1994) to back up his position.

Actually, discussions like this are hopefully academic for most of us. Like I said in a previous post, the only time you can have too much fuel is if you're on fire.

'Sled

 

[prpjt]

Thanks for the link....but....

I read the transcript of the case, and the crew was violated for 91.167. I have no idea where Kent Jackson came to the conclusion that 'the fuel requirements are based on the forecast weather for the flight' from that case. Good conversation. And nice to be able to dig around and try to learn something.

Here's a cut and paste from the transcript of their appeal.

The alleged violations of sections 91.183(c) and




121.557(c) are dismissed.

We will, however, affirm the violations of sections

91.13(a), 121.535(f), 91.167(a), and 121.639, and (against

respondent Wieland only) section 91.103.

Here's a link to a copy of the transcript.
http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4190.PDF



​

 

[Snoopy58]

For what it's worth, in the airline world, the Feds look at fuel planning and the 45 minutes & so forth as PLANNING factors, not as "you'd better land with this much left or else." Your reserves may be used if necessary & prudent.

Airlines tend to provide considerably more fuel than FAR minimums, since a divert tends to be more costly than a LOT of extra fuel carried, but once you're in flight, you use it for what you need to. There is absolutely nothing magical about that last 45 minutes that gets you in trouble if you dip into it. There may be discussions between the captain & dispatch & maybe a chief pilot or dispatch supervisor about "how'd this end up happening" if you land with not very much gas, and if you make stupid decisions the Feds can ALWAYS go after you for "careless & reckless," BUT there is absolutely no word that says that you're automatically in trouble if you dip into that 45 minutes for good reason.

For instance, one of the two runways goes down at your destination (IFR weather, but nothing particularly low) so you hold for 20 minutes. As the guy ahead of you is leaving the hold, you realize that by the time you depart the stack in 5 minutes, you'll only have 40 minutes left after your divert should you miss. Now, is it better to fly to your destination 10 minutes away & land, or divert now to your alternate much farther away, simply so you'll get there with 45 minutes gas instead of 40? No way! While the wx can change in the 15 minutes between now & landing at your destination, the alternate wx can change more during the longer time that it'll takes you to get there! If guys are getting in to the primary field, that's where 99% of everybody is going to go, 40 minutes reserve or not. (Now, if you're #10 in the holding stack and the weather is dropping, that's a different situation.)

Airlines have their operations scrutinized by lots of FAA types, and if they were doing things grossly wrong on a regular basis, it would be noticed & would be addressed. Not quoting chapter & verse, but that is how things operate in the -121 world. There's nothing special about landing with 46 minutes in the tanks vs 44.

 

[Lead Sled]

Not quoting chapter & verse, but that is how things operate in the -121 world. There's nothing special about landing with 46 minutes in the tanks vs 44.

Snoopy, that's the way I was taught and that's the way we've done it for 30 years. But hey, we could be wrong. What say you JAFI?

'Sled

 

[minitour]

I don't think it makes much practical sense to use it for actual flight...more sense for planning purposes.

Suppose you are on an approach and are told to go around (missed) because of someone still on the runway...then you come back around and can't find it, so you try again and find it...well if you use 15 mins per approach (again...for planning), that just used up 30 extra minutes of fuel. Do you still have enough fuel to go to your alternate and then for 45 minutes? Maybe, maybe not. If you don't...it isn't really your fault...I mean, I suppose you could tell ATC "minimum fuel" after the first missed approach and that'd be well and dandy but you still missed the second time because you couldn't find the place...so either way you're down 15 minutes of fuel.

At least thats how I see it...

Plus (and you'll have to help me out, its been a while since I've studied it)...you have to figure out a takeoff alternate based on one engine in still air (for planning purposes)...you have to plan t/o (or maybe landing) distance based on a percentage of headwind or tailwind component...for planning purposes.

Seems like its all for planning purposes. IMO

-mini

 

[prpjt]

Mini, a good example. Let's alter it just a bit using some of the others anologies.

Let's say you're on one of these perfectly legal ILS's at your alternate with 20 minutes fuel in your tank. You have 20 minutes left because halfway along a 2000 mile trip, due to strong headwinds, you see you're only going to have 15 mins on landing at your alternate.

You miss at destination and go to alternate. Now, as you stated there's a plane on the runway and you're sent around. But you won't get another chance at an approach because you're out of fuel. If the crew lives, I think they'd be violated.

I'm not saying people don't get into reserve fuel. I just think that looking at the reg, face value, if you elect to get into that reserve 2 hours out, and you have options, you've exposed yourself to a lot of liability.

 

[cheater1239]

international reserve is different(10%of cruise,plus 15 min at 1500') and that can be minimized by using re-release procedures, which most airlines have in ops specs. many airlines also have an emergency fuel value, if at any time the flight is predicted to land with less than emergency fuel, diversion is required.

 

[Le Pilote]

I think some people here are going to fly the plane straight into the ground with the AIM/FAR in hand. I'd like to see that B747 Captain explain his decision to land at a questionable off-line airport with 45 minutes of fuel when a suitable on-line station was 10 minutes farther away.

A plus,

Le Pilote

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

You miss at destination and go to alternate. Now, as you stated there's a plane on the runway and you're sent around. But you won't get another chance at an approach because you're out of fuel. If the crew lives, I think they'd be violated.

You are 100% wrong. They would in NO way be violated. The regs are very clear. The only time the crew would be in question is if they had information that would reasonably be used to add to the PLANNED fuel. You must have enough fuel to fly to your destination, alternate, plus :45, plus any ANTICIPATED delays or holding.

Ace

 

[FN FAL]

I'm not taking it that way at all. That's what I like about these forums - you have the opportunity to discuss things like this with people from a wide variety of backgrounds and experience.

FWIW, I'll refer you to the Jeppesen book "Federal Aviation Regulations Explained" by Kent Jackson. His explaination of 91.167(a) is that the fuel requirements are based on the forecast weather for the flight. Then he cites Administrator v. Wiekand & Perry, EA-4190 (1994) to back up his position.

Actually, discussions like this are hopefully academic for most of us. Like I said in a previous post, the only time you can have too much fuel is if you're on fire.

'Sled

that case does not relate to this conversation because the pilots did not take off with the fuel required to take the trip. You're mixing apples and oranges.

If you plan a trip and it takes 1,800 lbs of fuel to go to destination and alternate and 45 minutes, and you don't put the fuel in the plane...that's a whole different subject.

 

[prpjt]

The regs are very clear.

Explain it to me. Seriously, please. I'm not talking about how we operate, or ops specs. Just look at the wording of the reg and explain where you get 'Planned'

It looks like an open door like careless and reckless. Think lawyer and read that reg.

 

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by 91.167 (abbreviated):
(a) 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...

A hypothetical to ponder, taking prpjt's position to be true for the moment. We release the brakes for takeoff with exactly 91.167 fuel and not a pound more. Burn + Alternate + 45 Minutes. A direct route to our alternate will take us over our destination, and our alternate is the only legal alternate for hundreds of miles. The weather thus far is exactly as forecast. We're 3/4's of the way to our destination, staring at the FMS generated wind vector, when suddenly it shows a headwind component 1 knot higher than forecast and planned for. We'll arrive at our alternate with 43 minutes of fuel remaining. We've just unwittingly broke the reg, since we are clearly "operating a civil aircraft" without the fuel to "complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing; fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and fly after that for 45 minutes." There is no longer any way to accomplish that, so one must conlude that we're illegal.

That all seems faulty to me, which is why I'd assert that the 45 minutes is for planning purposes, and cannot be held to in flight, due to the variation of conditions. It's wise to land with 45, but cannot be ensured.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

A hypothetical to ponder, taking prpjt's position to be true for the moment. We release the brakes for takeoff with exactly 91.167 fuel and not a pound more. Burn + Alternate + 45 Minutes. A direct route to our alternate will take us over our destination, and our alternate is the only legal alternate for hundreds of miles. The weather thus far is exactly as forecast. We're 3/4's of the way to our destination, staring at the FMS generated wind vector, when suddenly it shows a headwind component 1 knot higher than forecast and planned for. We'll arrive at our alternate with 43 minutes of fuel remaining. We've just unwittingly broke the reg, since we are clearly "operating a civil aircraft" without the fuel to "complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing; fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and fly after that for 45 minutes." There is no longer any way to accomplish that, so one must conlude that we're illegal.

That all seems faulty to me, which is why I'd assert that the 45 minutes is for planning purposes, and cannot be held to in flight, due to the variation of conditions. It's wise to land with 45, but cannot be ensured.

All FARs are poorly written. Notice it says "unless it carries enogh fuel", does that mean you don't actually need to have that much on board when you depart, the aircraft justs needs to carry (read: be able to carry) that quant.

Better to look at the FARs Explained or the other Legal interpretations. That is where my company gets its information from. We are not lawyers and we should seek advice from the FAAs legal counsil.

Ace

 

[fly4free]

I'm not saying people don't get into reserve fuel. I just think that looking at the reg, face value, if you elect to get into that reserve 2 hours out, and you have options, you've exposed yourself to a lot of liability.

nobody wants to run out of fuel...in order to make efficient use of modern technology, good pilots no how to PLAN their flights within the design limits of the aircrafts fuel supply.

if it's liability you're worried about...don't get into an aircraft...especially as a pilot!!

Lets face it...no one person on the face of the earth could possibly conduct a flight (91 or revenue) without bending rules, braking rules, or unknowingly operating outside the letter of the law. If (when) the Feds want to get you, they will.

PLAN your fuel properly.

Fly

 

[soarby007]

Planning is what it's all about. The case that prpjt says he read is about the crew NOT planning, and lying to the controller. Case closed.

If you couldn't use the fuel reserves, then the manufacturer should have sealed a tank of fuel in the aircraft as part of the original equipment.

As an additional item to stir the pot, which an FAA inspector researched for me years ago...91.167-IFR fuel reserves, says the flight cannot be started in IFR Conditions.. i.e. IMC. The actual technicality is that if you take off on an IFR flight plan in VFR conditions, then no reserve is required. You are on an IFR flight plan and not under VFR rules so the 30 minute rule does not apply. I'm not kidding, the FAA inspector got an opinion from the legal folks and that's what they said.

As Lead Sled stated, this is stuff for a forum, not a practical or sensible operation and if you take off with no reserves, you might get cited for being reckless, maybe.

 

[soarby007]

Woops, should have read the regs again since I got the info from the FAA. I forgot they changed the VFR to add conditions to it. Used to be that the word conditions was not there. Sorry.

 

[sardaddy]

My two cents, and what we teach as IFR instructors in the Coast Guard.

You MUST plan and be prepared to land with 45 minutes (or 20 minutes rotary) of fuel in your tanks. If you require an alternate for your destination then 45 minutes after getting there.

First scenario, your vigilant weather planning shows that you don't need an alternate at your destination so you plan to get there with exactly 45 minutes of fuel on board. Despite your best planning some unexpected weather rolls in. You complete your approach but you don't break out. Now you are in a dilema. Do you find an airfield that is close and known to be above approach mins or do you hold hoping the weather clears. Either way, you now have a buffer of 45 minutes to figure it out and land.

Second scenario, your vigilant weather planning shows you do need an alternate. So you plan your flight to land at your alternate with exactly 45 minutes of fuel. You arrive at your destination and the weather as predicted is below mins and you don't break out. What do you do? The only thing you planned to do, complete the missed and fly to your alternate. Do not try the approach again. You didn't plan for that. There is a reason you filed for an alternate. The weather was not forcast to get better for at least hour, remember. Assume the worst.

So you fly to your alternate. Why do you need to plan to have 45 minutes of fuel when you land there? In case unforcast weather arrives there. Then you are back to the first scenario.

That is what the 45 minutes of fuel are for. There is no reason to crash into a field just so you can land with 45 minutes in your tanks.

That being said, that fuel is not for in flight what ifs, it is for the oh crap I didn't break out scenario. Your flight planning had better take into consideration all of the other what ifs, wind, holding over a destination, etc.

If your calculations are so tight that you cannot compensate for a few knots of unforseen wind on a leg, or a turn or two in holding perhaps you should plan a fuel stop enroute or plan to a closer airport.