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]