IFR Fuel Reserves?

[brokeflyer]

That's all good and well if you have a 30 gallon fuel tank and can land on the nearest road.

With fuel often limited by payload, one needs to plan carefully...but simply carrying all the fuel one can may be economically unfeasible, and may be operationally out of the ballpark, too.

Then you do a fuel stop.

 

[nismo611]

That's all good and well if you have a 30 gallon fuel tank and can land on the nearest road.

With fuel often limited by payload, one needs to plan carefully...but simply carrying all the fuel one can may be economically unfeasible, and may be operationally out of the ballpark, too.

Who the hell is this guy????? Who says things like this??? The only careful planning avbug does is what his dispatch sends to him or most likely the other guy who does have a handle on what is going on. One needs to plan carefully not to find themselves in an airplane with a jackoff like avbug......but simply trying may be not enough..........

 

[VW Pilot]

No can of worms needed. I think Avbug was just commenting on a broader scale. That's all. Basically all he said was what might work in general aviation won't or will not always work under commercial carrier ops under 135. Seems he was just being thourough...as always.....

 

[nismo611]

No can of worms needed. I think Avbug was just commenting on a broader scale. That's all. Basically all he said was what might work in general aviation won't or will not always work under commercial carrier ops under 135. Seems he was just being thourough...as always.....

If that was all he was trying to say why didn't he? You managed to. Thorough is one thing this guy is an ***********************************, it seems there is no topic that is above his expertise.

 

[VW Pilot]

Well he wasn't wrong....

 

[brokeflyer]

wait till he starts copy/pasting the regs in here.....then you'll really know what depression looks like.

 

[nismo611]

Well he wasn't wrong....

How do you know he was right? Maybe he did not read the question maybe he didn't care to and wanted to put his 2 worthless cents in with no common sense. at any rate he is a ass.

 

[bizjet800]

What he means is you have to plan to have that 45 minutes AFTER going to your alternate if you are flying in IMC conditions.

Its not if you're flying in IMC conditions, its the conditions at the airport that is the question here. The enroute weather means nothing in 91.167.

 

[brokeflyer]

Its not if you're flying in IMC conditions, its the conditions at the airport that is the question here. The enroute weather means nothing in 91.167.

yes i know thats what i said.

 

[avbug]

From the FAA Assistant Chief Legal Counsel, answering specific questions regarding 91.167 and reserve fuel:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...terpretations/data/interps/2005/gallagher.rtf

[FONT=&quot]2005[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Colonel Gallagher, USAF (Ret). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3206 Rosemont Drive Sacramento, CA 95826[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dear Colonel Gallagher,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This letter responds to your request for a legal interpretation dated December 7, 2003. You specifically ask for clarification on the alternate airport and fuel requirements codified in 14 C.F.R. § 91.167. We begin by reciting the information that you provided as background for your question, after which we will respond to your question.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In your letter you contend that "a careful reading of section 91.167 could lead a person to believe that they are only required to have sufficient fuel to land at the destination airport." You rely on the language of the regulation to reach this conclusion because it requires sufficient fuel to complete the flight to the destination airport, but only requires "sufficient fuel to fly to the alternate airport and have 45 minutes reserve at normal cruise." We do not agree with your analysis.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Question #1:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Does section 91.167 require a pilot operating an aircraft under instrument flight rules (IFR) to have sufficient fuel to attempt an approach at the destination airport and then fly on to the alternate airport, with 45 minutes of fuel remaining upon arrival at the alternate?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Answer #1:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Section 91.1671 requires the pilot to fuel his aircraft with enough fuel to "land" at the destination airport, then fly on to the alternate and operate for 45 additional minutes. The regulation does not specifically speak to an "attempt to land" or "attempt to approach" but it requires that the aircraft have enough fuel to complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing. See, 14 C.F.R. § 91.167 (a)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](1). Webster's dictionary defines the word "complete" to mean: "brought to an end or to a final or intended condition.”2 Thus, to "complete the flight", as used in this rule, means the aircraft has enough fuel to be flown to, and land at, the first airport of intended landing. Having fueled the aircraft with only enough fuel to "attempt an approach" would fall short of the regulatory requirement. A pilot whose aircraft suffers fuel exhaustion prior to reaching either the destination or alternate airport, or who must declare an emergency for an expedited landing (due to low fuel), can be found to have failed to exercise "good judgment," which could result in a violation of section 91.13, for the careless or reckless operation of the aircraft.3 See, Administrator v. Ostgrove, NTSB Order No. EA-4916 at 22 (2001).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Question #2:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When would it be legal to continue onto the destination when that means that the pilot would no longer be able to reach his alternate airport and land within 45 minutes?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Answer #2:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A pilot would be acting reasonably in deciding to land the aircraft at the destination airport if, before commencing the approach, he confirms that the reported weather continues to be above minimums. As such, the reported weather upon arrival but before commencing the approach would need to be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation and visibility of at least 3 statute miles, and no other factors, such as runway closures, interfere with a safe landing. The pilot-in-command is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. See, 14 C.F.R. § 91.3. Part of the pilot-in-command's duty is to properly preflight the aircraft in accordance with the provisions of section 91.103.4 A proper "preflight" requires that, before beginning an 1FR flight, the pilot-in-command becomes familiar with weather reports, forecasts, fuel requirements and alternatives available if the planned flight cannot be completed. Id. The pilot's failure to correctly interpret or translate weather information and aircraft performance data into the correct amount of fuel required for flying time can be a violation of section 91.13. Ostgrove, NTSB Order No. EA-4916 at 21. Therefore, under the circumstances (e.g., weather below minimums) it would be illegal to land at the destination airport and if the pilot nonetheless makes the attempt and thereby wastes the available fuel for landing at the alternate airport, the pilot could be charged with operating the aircraft in violation of the regulations.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Question #3:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Is there a gray area in the regulations that would allow a pilot to attempt to land at the destination airport if one extreme is when the destination airport conditions are such that an alternate is no longer required and the other extreme is that both airports have conditions that would allow the pilot to land? Answer #3:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The regulations are written to provide a standard by which pilots may operate their aircraft safely. Without a clear definition of what you mean by "gray area" we cannot give you a concrete answer.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We hope that this interpretation has been helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have additional questions.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Sincerely,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Rebecca MacPherson [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Assistant Chief Counsel [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Regulations Division, AGC-200[/FONT]

 

[brokeflyer]

wow....seems like everyone got that question right

 

[avbug]

The following legal interpretation from the FAA Chief Legal Counsel addresses a question specific to Part 121 operations. However, it also has applicability in addressing the question of fuel reserves and what components of a flight should be considered when planning reserves. The specific question it answers is not relevant to our thread here, but some aspects of the reply are. Most importantly from a legal aspect, is that this letter gives some insight into how the FAA will handle your own case in the event you fail to properly plan and carry enough fuel. Does the regulation state you need to carry fuel for a missed approach? No...not under Part 91. Will you be held accountable if encountering a difficulty that leads to an investigation and enforcement action? Yes, you may. Read on:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...nterpretations/data/interps/2005/szendrey.rtf

April 28, 2005
William Szendrey
Safety Representative
Transport Workers Union of America Local 542
1201 Airport Freeway, Suite 386 Euless, TX 76040-4171

Re: Interpretation of 14 CFR § 121.647 Dear Mr. Szendrey:
This letter responds to your December 15, 2004, request for interpretation of section 121.647 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. You ask the following questions:

1.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Whether § 121.647 mandates you consider a possible missed approach at the destination airport in your calculation of the fuel required for your aircraft. Specifically, you ask for the meaning of the word "consider" as used under § 121.647.
2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]If an aircraft is dispatched without an alternate airport, prior to takeoff, does one have to factor a possible missed approach at the destination airport in your calculations of the fuel required for your aircraft?

3.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]If an operator does not consider the fuel required for a possible missed approach at the destination airport, would use of reserve fuel, as required under § 121.639, result in a violation?
Section 121.647 states that "Each person computing fuel required for the purposes of this subpart shall consider the following . . . one instrument approach and possible missed approach at destination" (emphasis added). In statutes, regulations and other legal documents, "shall" has the force of "must."1 Thus, this rule by the explicit use of the word "shall" requires you consider all the factors listed under § 121.647 in your fuel calculations. Further, we do not believe that the ambiguity is created by the use of the term "consider" in this regulation. As used under this regulation, "shall consider" means you must take into account all the factors and circumstances listed.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]2[/FONT]
Section 121.639 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides that no person may dispatch or takeoff an airplane in domestic air carrier service unless that airplane has enough fuel to fly to its dispatch destination airport, fly to and land at the most distant dispatch alternate airport (if required), and thereafter, fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption. Section 121.639 must be read in conjunction with §121.647, which recites the factors that must be considered in computing the fuel required to comply with § 121.639. [FONT=&quot]See [/FONT]Letter to Joseph M. Schwind from Jonathan Howe, Deputy Chief Counsel (July 8, 1979). Under § 121.647, when computing the fuel supply required to comply with § 121.639, the dispatcher and the pilot-in-command must consider, among other things, how an instrument approach and possible missed approach at destination may delay landing of the aircraft thereby affecting its fuel supply. Regardless of whether you are dispatched without a designated alternate airport, you must consider a possible missed approach at the destination airport (note that the rule does not say missed approach at [FONT=&quot]alternate [/FONT]destination airport) in your required fuel calculations.

Finally, if you fail to consider the missed approach at the destination airport factor listed under § 121.647(c) in your fuel computations, you are in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations. On the other hand, there would be no illegality in using any or all of the 45-minute fuel supply required under § 121.639(c) provided that such use became necessary as a result of circumstances or events not reasonably foreseeable despite full compliance with §§ 121.639 and 121.647. [FONT=&quot]See [/FONT]Letter to Schwind (July 9, 1979).

We trust this letter responds to your inquiry. Should you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Komal K. Jain.

Sincerely,

Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200

 

[avbug]

Another letter of interpretation sent to Colonel Gallagher, a companion and earlier one to the letter previously copied here, and also relevant to the question at hand:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...ations/data/interps/2006/Gallagher-Interp.pdf

DEC 1 1 2006
Col. Michael R. Gallagher, USAF (Ret.)
RE: Fuel Requirements - 14 C.F.R. §91.167
Dear Colonel Gallagher;
800 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20591
This letter responds to your letter dated June 13, 2006, requesting further clarification of an FAA legal interpretation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.167 dated January 28,2004. The FAA interpretation was provided in response to your initial request dated December 7,2003.

Your question is "... for IFR flights where an alternate is required, must the pilot carry sufficient fuel to complete an approach and landing at both the destination airport and alternate airports." The answer is yes. Obviously, the plane will not land at both airports, but the missed approach fuel used in attempting to land at the destination airport equals, for the purposes of this rule, fuel to land the airplane.

Upon review of your letter and accompanying diagram, the FAA continues to disagree with your belief that "the wording of FAR 91.167 allows for the pilot to plan fuel for an approach and landing at either the destination or the alternate in addition to fuel required to arrive at the destination, fly to the alternate, and then hold for 45 minutes."

The rule at issue is:

PART 91-GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

Subpart B-Flight Rules

Sec. 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) ofthis section, 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.

As stated in the FAA's January 28, 2004 letter, sufficient fuel to complete the flight under (a)(1) includes fuel for approach and landing (or missed approach).

Your question appears to arise from the phrase in (a)(2) that states "fly from that airport to the alternate airport." The FAA has determined this phrase also includes fuel for approach and landing. To promote aviation safety, the FAA's rule assumes the pilot will attempt to land at the destination airport and then fly to the alternate for the ultimate conclusion of the safe flight. This reasonable scenario includes an approach at both the destination airport and at the flight's final landing at the alternate. The FAA believes marginal weather conditions change rapidly. A pilot may start an approach to the destination airport with adequate minimum weather, but the weather may change and force a missed approach. Accordingly, the FAA rules require fuel for approaches at both the destination and alternate airports.

This response was prepared by Bruce Glendening, Attorney, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, and has been coordinated with the Air Transportation Division of Flight Standards Service. If you have additional questions regarding this matter, please contact us at your convenience at (202) 267-3073.

Sincerely,

Rebecca MacPherson
Asst. Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (AGC-200)