FAR fuel requirements

[soarby007]

I hesitate to stick my foot in my mouth again, but AVBUG is correct. It would be very difficult to differentiate the "operating in IFR conditions", as you could file an IFR flight plan and be in VFR conditions or in and out of IFR conditions. The rule as far back as I can recall has always been related to planning. I didn't look up the NTSB case cited, but sounds like the one previouslly posted a few weeks ago. I think that was where the crew left with undermined fuel and lied to ATC about the fuel status when caught short. Since I didn't look up the case again, I stand to be corrected. Don't have time to dig it out again. The "operating in IFR conditions" is a little different than operating under IFR.

 

[soarby007]

I hesitate to stick my foot in my mouth again, but AVBUG is correct. It would be very difficult to differentiate the "operating in IFR conditions", as you could file an IFR flight plan and be in VFR conditions or in and out of IFR conditions. The rule as far back as I can recall has always been related to planning. I didn't look up the NTSB case cited, but sounds like the one previouslly posted a few weeks ago. I think that was where the crew left with undermined fuel and lied to ATC about the fuel status when caught short. Since I didn't look up the case again, I stand to be corrected. Don't have time to dig it out again. The "operating in IFR conditions" is a little different than operating under IFR.

Well I went ahead and looked up the NTSB case cited and I believe you have the wrong case. This case has to do with an altitude deviation by an airline crew in a Boeing. What is the real case?

 

[soarby007]

Sorry I posted twice. The NTSB cited is the wrong case evidently. The case cited has to do with altitude deviation by the airline crew in a Boeing. Please send the right on.

 

[prpjt]

soarby007, Google lied to you. The cited case has to do with a Lear driver that appealled a laundry list of violations. The only thing that was overturned was the 91.167 charge.

A google search of EA-4595 brings up the case you saw, which is EA4669. Don't know why it does that. Here's the link to the lear case: http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4595.PDF

 

[soarby007]

Prpjt you are correct. In fact the case I pulled up had the case number EA 4595 and the same date. Weird. Thanks for the link.