IFR Fuel Reserves?

[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)