Rattler71
order out of chaos
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Posts
- 117
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
FAR fuel requirements
- Thread starter Rattler71
- Start date
- Watchers 4
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
satpak77
Marriott Platinum Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2003
- Posts
- 3,015
The fuel requirements of Part 91 have nothing to do with the actual fuel you have on board at the time you reach your destination, and don't set any requirement that you actually reach your destination. The fuel requirements are strictly given for flight planning purposes.
14 CFR 91.151 sets the requirements for fuel under VFR, as follows:
Note that the language of the regulation stipulates that no person may begin a flight...it says nothing about completing the flight. In other words, you must have enough fue to complete the flight under the conditions that exist when you plan it, when you launch. If you use more fuel enroute due to weather and wind, changes to the aircraft, air traffic delays, etc, then you're not in violation if you arrive at your destination with less than the specified reserve. You're not in good shape and not necessarily safe arriving with that little fuel...but the regulation doesn't apply to what you actually have on board when you arrive, only to the fact that you can't depart unless you have enough fuel to complete the flight under the planned circumstances. The regulation applies to planning, rather than what you actually wind up with in actual operation.
14 CFR 91.167 sets the requirements for flight under IFR. The language differs slightly from 91.151. 91.151 states that you must have enough fuel to fly to the first airport of intended landing, and then fly thereafter for a given period of time. 91.167, however, states that you must carry enough fuel to completethe flight to the first airport of intended landing, then go to the alternate if required, and so on.
The intent of the regulation is the same, however. This doesn't stipulate the ammount of fuel you must have on arrival...but the ammount of fuel you must have to depart. If you are delayed due to unforecast winds, ATC and traffic delays, etc, then you are not in violation when you arrive with less fuel than specified in either 91.151 or 91.167. Both these regulation speak to planning purposes, not to arrival. Neither one means that you must go to the destination, either. In both cases, you might divert, land short, return for landing, or do anything else, and you are not in violation merely because you didn't go to the planned destination. However...
The big catch is that you may be held liable for your fuel status for the new destination. Imagine you're headed to airport X, and your passenger tells you that he misses his mother at B, and wants to go there. When you took off, you fully planned out your flight, and determined that you had adequate fuel to fly to X, go missed, fly to Y, and still fly for 45 minutes after that. You were legal with respect to 91.167. Now, you need to determine that you have fuel to go to B, complete the approach there, go missed, and if necessary to your new alternate C, and still fly 45 minutes after that. You needn't actually have that fuel when you arrive...but at the time you decide to divert, you need to know and show that you have the planned ammount. It's still a planning rule, not an operational rule.
Another important clue to the fact that this is a planning rule has been italicized in the quote above, namely that you must consider weather reports and forecasts for the route you intend to fly. In other words, as you plan the flight, do you have the fuel on board to complete your operation based on the prevailing circumstances? After takeoff these circumstances may change. You may be assigned a lower altitude and have a higher fuel burn. You may encounter higher winds. Who knows? You may well arrive with less fuel than anticipated. That's okay, with respect to the regulation quoted above...which deals on only with planning the flight.
In the event things do change to the point you're past your minimum fuel levels, if you believe it presents an undue hazard, you have the option of chaning your flight to land short or divert to a closer destination, declare an emergency in a worst-case scenario, or declare minimum fuel...which means that you don't have an emergency yet, but that you can't accept delays and that a fuel emergency might occur with any undue delays.
I mention this to illustrate the point of this regulation. Declaring minimum fuel doesn't mean that you've failed to adhere to or comply with the regulation. You may very well have been in compliance with the regulation on departure, and had enough fuel aboard. By declaring minimum fuel, or an emergency, you aren't showing yourself as being in violation of the flight planning regulations, as you're past the flight planning stages. What you planned on having may have been adequate, but in the real world, things have changed, and now you're operational, and dealing with the situation operationally. You aren't making an admission to violating the regulation, only that things have now changed, and you're not able to take more delays, or that you need to be on the ground ASAP.
The distinction between VFR and IFR, with respect to completing the flight, doesn't address a need to reach the destination, but more accurately covers the fact that the instrument flight may require an arrival and landing proceedure. You must account for more than just enough fuel to descend and land...you may have to plan on a descent and hold, approach, etc...and you need to plan not just on barely enough fuel to get there under IFR, but on completing the approach and landing too. Often with a diversion to an alternate, we don't find out for certain that we're not going to make it at our destination until arriving at the MAP and having to go missed. We need to plan on having adequate fuel to do this, and that's the point of the language used in the regulation.
14 CFR 91.151 sets the requirements for fuel under VFR, as follows:
Note that the language of the regulation stipulates that no person may begin a flight...it says nothing about completing the flight. In other words, you must have enough fue to complete the flight under the conditions that exist when you plan it, when you launch. If you use more fuel enroute due to weather and wind, changes to the aircraft, air traffic delays, etc, then you're not in violation if you arrive at your destination with less than the specified reserve. You're not in good shape and not necessarily safe arriving with that little fuel...but the regulation doesn't apply to what you actually have on board when you arrive, only to the fact that you can't depart unless you have enough fuel to complete the flight under the planned circumstances. The regulation applies to planning, rather than what you actually wind up with in actual operation.
14 CFR 91.167 sets the requirements for flight under IFR. The language differs slightly from 91.151. 91.151 states that you must have enough fuel to fly to the first airport of intended landing, and then fly thereafter for a given period of time. 91.167, however, states that you must carry enough fuel to completethe flight to the first airport of intended landing, then go to the alternate if required, and so on.
The intent of the regulation is the same, however. This doesn't stipulate the ammount of fuel you must have on arrival...but the ammount of fuel you must have to depart. If you are delayed due to unforecast winds, ATC and traffic delays, etc, then you are not in violation when you arrive with less fuel than specified in either 91.151 or 91.167. Both these regulation speak to planning purposes, not to arrival. Neither one means that you must go to the destination, either. In both cases, you might divert, land short, return for landing, or do anything else, and you are not in violation merely because you didn't go to the planned destination. However...
The big catch is that you may be held liable for your fuel status for the new destination. Imagine you're headed to airport X, and your passenger tells you that he misses his mother at B, and wants to go there. When you took off, you fully planned out your flight, and determined that you had adequate fuel to fly to X, go missed, fly to Y, and still fly for 45 minutes after that. You were legal with respect to 91.167. Now, you need to determine that you have fuel to go to B, complete the approach there, go missed, and if necessary to your new alternate C, and still fly 45 minutes after that. You needn't actually have that fuel when you arrive...but at the time you decide to divert, you need to know and show that you have the planned ammount. It's still a planning rule, not an operational rule.
Another important clue to the fact that this is a planning rule has been italicized in the quote above, namely that you must consider weather reports and forecasts for the route you intend to fly. In other words, as you plan the flight, do you have the fuel on board to complete your operation based on the prevailing circumstances? After takeoff these circumstances may change. You may be assigned a lower altitude and have a higher fuel burn. You may encounter higher winds. Who knows? You may well arrive with less fuel than anticipated. That's okay, with respect to the regulation quoted above...which deals on only with planning the flight.
In the event things do change to the point you're past your minimum fuel levels, if you believe it presents an undue hazard, you have the option of chaning your flight to land short or divert to a closer destination, declare an emergency in a worst-case scenario, or declare minimum fuel...which means that you don't have an emergency yet, but that you can't accept delays and that a fuel emergency might occur with any undue delays.
I mention this to illustrate the point of this regulation. Declaring minimum fuel doesn't mean that you've failed to adhere to or comply with the regulation. You may very well have been in compliance with the regulation on departure, and had enough fuel aboard. By declaring minimum fuel, or an emergency, you aren't showing yourself as being in violation of the flight planning regulations, as you're past the flight planning stages. What you planned on having may have been adequate, but in the real world, things have changed, and now you're operational, and dealing with the situation operationally. You aren't making an admission to violating the regulation, only that things have now changed, and you're not able to take more delays, or that you need to be on the ground ASAP.
The distinction between VFR and IFR, with respect to completing the flight, doesn't address a need to reach the destination, but more accurately covers the fact that the instrument flight may require an arrival and landing proceedure. You must account for more than just enough fuel to descend and land...you may have to plan on a descent and hold, approach, etc...and you need to plan not just on barely enough fuel to get there under IFR, but on completing the approach and landing too. Often with a diversion to an alternate, we don't find out for certain that we're not going to make it at our destination until arriving at the MAP and having to go missed. We need to plan on having adequate fuel to do this, and that's the point of the language used in the regulation.
I personally have trouble translating these two things as saying the same thing.
(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 -
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;
By using VERY different wording, they seem to be trying to make a clear distinction. Let’s pick it apart.
(a) No person may begin a flight vs. (b) No person may operate a civil aircraft
2. (a) (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) vs. (b) (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions)
The (a)’s clearly relate to planning. The (b)’s don’t seem to.
In Avbugs post he wrote, “Another important clue to the fact that this is a planning rule has been italicized in the quote above, namely that you must consider weather reports and forecasts for the route you intend to fly.”
But what about the ‘and weather conditions’ in (b) (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) It doesn’t make the distinction of ‘forecast weather conditions’ as in the VFR reg. While you’re doing your planning, what bearing do current weather conditions at destination have on a transcontinental flight? Seems to me that the reg says if you are operational, hence the term ‘operate’, and you are in weather conditions that would preclude you from complying with the reg, you need to do something else. Those weather conditions could be high winds. And before the airline guys jump in, your 121.639 IS a dispatch reg, I’m talking 91.
My opinion is that the VFR reg was intended to be a planning reg, and the IFR reg was to be an operating reg. Avbug and the NTSB both disagree. I read the IFR part, and I still can’t see how it is meant to be for planning purposes, even though I’m wrong. Below is a clip from the NTSB transcript where a Lear driver was cleared of violating 91.167, because he did plan on having enough fuel.
SERVED: September 19, 1997
NTSB Order No. EA-4595
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Adopted by the NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
at its office in Washington, D.C.
on the 19th day of September, 1997
……………
The law judge determined, essentially, that if the aircraft
had only about 700 pounds of fuel remaining after a three-hour flight, then it could not have started off with the required 45- minute reserve, since the aircraft, using the fuel consumption rates in respondent's calculations, would have burned some 5,300 of its initial quantity, with full tanks, of 6,020 pounds of fuel (2,000 pounds the first hour, 1,800 the second hour, and 1,500 pounds the third hour).5
However, if the respondent correctly estimated a flight time of two hours and forty minutes for the trip, and the flight had only taken that much time then the aircraft would have consumed only 4,790 pounds of fuel and landed with roughly 1,230 pounds of fuel, more than enough to satisfy the requirement for a 45-minute reserve (3/4 hour times 1,500 pounds equals 1,125 pounds).6
Inasmuch as the Administrator did not establish that respondent's planned flight time was invalid or unreasonable, it is of no consequence, for purposes of
determining whether respondent began the flight with the fuel reserves required by FAR section 91.167, that the flight took longer than was anticipated and, as a result, the aircraft landed with less fuel than had been estimated.7
(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 -
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;
By using VERY different wording, they seem to be trying to make a clear distinction. Let’s pick it apart.
(a) No person may begin a flight vs. (b) No person may operate a civil aircraft
2. (a) (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) vs. (b) (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions)
The (a)’s clearly relate to planning. The (b)’s don’t seem to.
In Avbugs post he wrote, “Another important clue to the fact that this is a planning rule has been italicized in the quote above, namely that you must consider weather reports and forecasts for the route you intend to fly.”
But what about the ‘and weather conditions’ in (b) (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) It doesn’t make the distinction of ‘forecast weather conditions’ as in the VFR reg. While you’re doing your planning, what bearing do current weather conditions at destination have on a transcontinental flight? Seems to me that the reg says if you are operational, hence the term ‘operate’, and you are in weather conditions that would preclude you from complying with the reg, you need to do something else. Those weather conditions could be high winds. And before the airline guys jump in, your 121.639 IS a dispatch reg, I’m talking 91.
My opinion is that the VFR reg was intended to be a planning reg, and the IFR reg was to be an operating reg. Avbug and the NTSB both disagree. I read the IFR part, and I still can’t see how it is meant to be for planning purposes, even though I’m wrong. Below is a clip from the NTSB transcript where a Lear driver was cleared of violating 91.167, because he did plan on having enough fuel.
SERVED: September 19, 1997
NTSB Order No. EA-4595
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Adopted by the NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
at its office in Washington, D.C.
on the 19th day of September, 1997
……………
The law judge determined, essentially, that if the aircraft
had only about 700 pounds of fuel remaining after a three-hour flight, then it could not have started off with the required 45- minute reserve, since the aircraft, using the fuel consumption rates in respondent's calculations, would have burned some 5,300 of its initial quantity, with full tanks, of 6,020 pounds of fuel (2,000 pounds the first hour, 1,800 the second hour, and 1,500 pounds the third hour).5
However, if the respondent correctly estimated a flight time of two hours and forty minutes for the trip, and the flight had only taken that much time then the aircraft would have consumed only 4,790 pounds of fuel and landed with roughly 1,230 pounds of fuel, more than enough to satisfy the requirement for a 45-minute reserve (3/4 hour times 1,500 pounds equals 1,125 pounds).6
Inasmuch as the Administrator did not establish that respondent's planned flight time was invalid or unreasonable, it is of no consequence, for purposes of
determining whether respondent began the flight with the fuel reserves required by FAR section 91.167, that the flight took longer than was anticipated and, as a result, the aircraft landed with less fuel than had been estimated.7
FlyingBuckI
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Posts
- 67
Projt,
A lot of regulations are written this way. The FAA in enforcement action may be able to establish that you didn't have enough fuel on departure, and the standard is a preponderance of evidence. If the FAA can do this, then yes, enforcement action may be successful.
If the FAA can show that you lasted twenty minutes into a five hour flight and ran out of fuel, the preponderance of evidence weighs heavily on the side of the FAA. If instead you landed with less than your reserve minimums or declared minimum fuel after encountering unforecast headwinds, then the FAA will have a much harder time making enforcement action stick.
So long as you reasonably take precautions and can show that you made the necessary calculations, you're set.
Personally, I'm a bit of a fuel weenie. That is, I dont' go flying around with minimum fuel, use minimum runway distances, etc. I don't ever want anybody to have the slightest ability to question weather I departed with adequate fuel or reserves.
Yes, the FAA does use different wording, but then IFR and VFR are different animals. You have more options under VFR. Under IFR, you had better have the gas, and the Administrator spelled it out as showing that you need to be able to complete the flight to the destination and then go for the alternate plus reserve, where applicable. However, this is all a flight planning issue. If you actually arrive with less fuel, this is not addressed by the regulation, which speaks to launching the flight, not ending it.
A lot of regulations are written this way. The FAA in enforcement action may be able to establish that you didn't have enough fuel on departure, and the standard is a preponderance of evidence. If the FAA can do this, then yes, enforcement action may be successful.
If the FAA can show that you lasted twenty minutes into a five hour flight and ran out of fuel, the preponderance of evidence weighs heavily on the side of the FAA. If instead you landed with less than your reserve minimums or declared minimum fuel after encountering unforecast headwinds, then the FAA will have a much harder time making enforcement action stick.
So long as you reasonably take precautions and can show that you made the necessary calculations, you're set.
Personally, I'm a bit of a fuel weenie. That is, I dont' go flying around with minimum fuel, use minimum runway distances, etc. I don't ever want anybody to have the slightest ability to question weather I departed with adequate fuel or reserves.
Yes, the FAA does use different wording, but then IFR and VFR are different animals. You have more options under VFR. Under IFR, you had better have the gas, and the Administrator spelled it out as showing that you need to be able to complete the flight to the destination and then go for the alternate plus reserve, where applicable. However, this is all a flight planning issue. If you actually arrive with less fuel, this is not addressed by the regulation, which speaks to launching the flight, not ending it.
FlyingBuckI
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Posts
- 67
Understood. In that case, satpak has the right idea. By definition, you would need enough fuel to reach your intended destination, go missed, then normal cruise to an alternate and 45min reserve. If more than one alternate is filed, fuel must be calculated for the furthest alternate, blah blah... the 45min requirement should cover any incalculables like holding, shooting multiple approaches, etc.
The short of it is...whatever it takes to make a safe landing at an airport for which the vis is above minimums -- initial, alternate, or otherwise.
The short of it is...whatever it takes to make a safe landing at an airport for which the vis is above minimums -- initial, alternate, or otherwise.
nosehair
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Posts
- 1,238
prpjt said:
How about this? "No person may begin a flight under VFR..." and "No person may operate under IFR..." because you may take off VFR and later on change to IFR. If the wording was the same , "No person may begin a flight under VFR or IFR.." then you could begin your flight under VFR with VFR reserves, then change to IFR saying, "I didn't begin the flight under IFR, so I met the requirement at take-off, so I'm legal."
That would be, could be, might-a-been, a reason for the different wording....BUT..my perception is that the FAA, like any big government entity, makes regulatory changes which frequently are not in concert with other regulations which have an affect on the regulation being changed. The wording isn't specificly meant to make a difference, it is just inadvertant contradictory regulation wording.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
