30 minute reserve

[Chris W]

Isn't this 30 *minute* reserve rule for day VFR flight a bit odd? Here
are 2 examples to illustrate why I say that. In a J3 Cub you are going
to go just over 35 miles in those 30 minutes. In an RV-7, you can go
100 miles with that same 30 minutes reserve. If there is a head wind
the difference is going be even greater. Both airplanes need about the
same length runway, yes I know the cub can land in less space, but both
need less than 1000 feet. Wouldn't a reserve rule that stated the
minimum distance you could fly in calm air be a better rule?

--
Chris W

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
http://thewishzone.com

[STEVEN SIMPSON]

Now that is a good question.I think that the pilot needs to know his
aircraft and plan his rout according to the range and speed of his aircraft.
I asked the same question after my "little" close call.That is what my
instructor explained.
"Chris W" > wrote in message
news:Uyrre.28604$rb6.27678@lakeread07...
> Isn't this 30 *minute* reserve rule for day VFR flight a bit odd? Here
> are 2 examples to illustrate why I say that. In a J3 Cub you are going to
> go just over 35 miles in those 30 minutes. In an RV-7, you can go 100
> miles with that same 30 minutes reserve. If there is a head wind the
> difference is going be even greater. Both airplanes need about the same
> length runway, yes I know the cub can land in less space, but both need
> less than 1000 feet. Wouldn't a reserve rule that stated the minimum
> distance you could fly in calm air be a better rule?
> --
> Chris W
>
> Gift Giving Made Easy
> Get the gifts you want & give the gifts they want
> http://thewishzone.com

[Jose]

> Isn't this 30 *minute* reserve rule for day VFR flight a bit odd?
> Wouldn't a reserve rule that stated the minimum distance you could fly in calm air be a better rule?

Probably. But I don't see the (FAA) rules as being "the best idea",
just "a minimum standard". The pilot is (rightly) called upon to apply
intellegent decision making, rather than simply following rules and
expecting roses.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain."
(chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[tony roberts]

It's a minimum - not a modus operandi.
As such, it isn't supposed to get you to a perfect runway -
it's supposed to provide you the opportunity to find somewhere safe to
land.

Safety conscious pilots would not, as a matter of routine, consistently
plan to land after a cross country with 30 minutes of fuel.

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

In article <Uyrre.28604$rb6.27678@lakeread07>,
Chris W > wrote:

> Isn't this 30 *minute* reserve rule for day VFR flight a bit odd? Here
> are 2 examples to illustrate why I say that. In a J3 Cub you are going
> to go just over 35 miles in those 30 minutes. In an RV-7, you can go
> 100 miles with that same 30 minutes reserve. If there is a head wind
> the difference is going be even greater. Both airplanes need about the
> same length runway, yes I know the cub can land in less space, but both
> need less than 1000 feet. Wouldn't a reserve rule that stated the
> minimum distance you could fly in calm air be a better rule?




--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Cub Driver]

My personal minimum in the Cub is 4 gallons or 1 hour's flying time.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Cub Driver wrote:
> My personal minimum in the Cub is 4 gallons or 1 hour's flying time.


If I'm worried about fuel, I haven't got enough.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:
> > Isn't this 30 *minute* reserve rule for day VFR flight a bit odd?
> > Wouldn't a reserve rule that stated the minimum distance you could fly in calm air be a better rule?
>
> Probably. But I don't see the (FAA) rules as being "the best idea",
> just "a minimum standard". The pilot is (rightly) called upon to apply
> intellegent decision making, rather than simply following rules and
> expecting roses.

As my ground school instructor keeps saying "Legal is not the same as
safe!" Words to live by. We looked at an example last night in class of
taking off in class G airspace (1 mile vis), staying under the 700 ft.
class E floor, flying out to the edge and climbing up to the 1200 ft.
class E floor (east of the Mississippi) droping back down to the 700
ft. class E floor on approach to another airport and calling for SVFR
clearance into the class E space. All legal, but definitly not smart or
safe. There are 600 + ft radio towers along the route.

John
22 hour student, soloed.

[Peter R.]

Chris wrote:

> If there is a head wind the difference is going be even greater.

A truly proficient pilot will plan fuel consumption based on forecasted
winds aloft for that day, any diversions needed, and then add 30
minutes (or whatever his/her personal minimums) for regulation
requirements.

A pilot who fuel plans with the assumption that the reserve will cover
winds aloft, unexpected vectoring, and diversions around weather is a
pilot who *will* experience a fuel emergency sometime during an
upcoming flight.

--
Peter

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 02:54:28 GMT, "STEVEN SIMPSON"
> wrote in <EFrre.3671$1q5.2293@trnddc02>::

>I think that the pilot needs to know his aircraft and plan his rout
>according to the range and speed of his aircraft.

Right. With full tanks, it's more about distance planning.

>I asked the same question after my "little" close call.

I can see that the FAA may want to force pilots to carry some fuel
reserve to compensate for their possible certification inaccuracies
and the vagaries of government metrological forecasting, not to
mention possible pilot flight planning errors. If there were no fuel
reserve requirements at all, there would doubtless be many more fuel
exhaustion incidents occurring.

But the OP was referring to the dispirit airspeeds of aircraft
resulting in widely varying distance capabilities as a result of the
30 minute VFR fuel reserve requirement. Perhaps the arbitrary 30
minutes doesn't concern distance to a safe landing site as much as
guaranteeing 30 minutes search time for a place to set down or better
weather. If the VFR fuel reserve requirement were about distance
instead of time, there would be an alternate destination airport
requirement as there is with IFR flight planning.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-06-14, Chris W > wrote:
> Isn't this 30 *minute* reserve rule for day VFR flight a bit odd? Here
> are 2 examples to illustrate why I say that. In a J3 Cub you are going
> to go just over 35 miles in those 30 minutes. In an RV-7, you can go
> 100 miles with that same 30 minutes reserve.
[snip]
> need less than 1000 feet. Wouldn't a reserve rule that stated the
> minimum distance you could fly in calm air be a better rule?

No, because it doesn't make sense. The fuel consumption in a plane
is not even strongly tied to distance, it's entirely tied to time in
the air. Since (as you point out) there are massive differences
between different aircraft, if you set out a reasonable minimum
fuel (based on calm air distance) for a Cub, it'd be entirely
unreasonable for a Piper Meridien or perhaps a Learjet (yes, they are
sometimes flown VFR, not often but it happens). If you set a distance
that's reasonable for a Piper Meridien, it'd be completely unreasonable
(and possibly out of the full fuel range) of a Pietenpol Aircamper. Or
in a strong wind (imagine the winds aloft are 40 knots, and you are
flying something like an Evans VP-1 which does about 55 knots on a good
day, you could plan a 100NM flight, run out of of fuel 20 miles from
your departure point, and based on a distance based reserve you were
entirely legal all along).

Basing the VFR minimum on *time* is far better, because then you get to
decide whether you meet minimum reserve based on actual conditions -
i.e. the plane you are flying and the wind conditions. Basing it on
distance would be silly.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-06-14, Peter R. > wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> If there is a head wind the difference is going be even greater.
>
> A truly proficient pilot will plan fuel consumption based on forecasted
> winds aloft for that day, any diversions needed, and then add 30
> minutes (or whatever his/her personal minimums) for regulation
> requirements.

And actually watch the fuel gauges. Instructors teaching that the fuel
gauges are useless (an oft-repeated canard) are teaching dangerous
rubbish. If a fuel gauge is useless it's broken and needs to be fixed.

With aircraft I regularly fly, one of the things I try to do is get a
handle on how the fuel gauges behave. I don't want to depend solely on
time for 'how much fuel do I have left' - I want the gauges to work, or
how do I tell when there's abnormal fuel consumption, or that the plane
has less than the expected fuel level? The fuel gauges should be an
important cross-check (along with knowing how much time is in the
tanks). If the fuel gauges ever show less fuel than you expect there
should be in the tank, find somewhere to land now and check it out.
Don't dismiss them.

I've already saved myself great embarrasment by having the fuel gauges
in my cross-check (I've related the story here before) - but in brief,
the gauges showed less than expected, so I landed significantly short of
my intended destination to check it out. Sure enough - the fuel gauges
were right - I had less fuel than I expected. Had I not been checking,
I'd have landed at my intended destination on fumes, probably with about
enough fuel to make a single go-around and pattern.

Now I fly across water, I'm even more paranoid about it. Most ditchings
happen because there was too much air in the fuel tanks!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Guillermo]

"Chris W" > wrote in message
news:Uyrre.28604$rb6.27678@lakeread07...
> Isn't this 30 *minute* reserve rule for day VFR flight a bit odd? Here
> are 2 examples to illustrate why I say that. In a J3 Cub you are going
> to go just over 35 miles in those 30 minutes. In an RV-7, you can go
> 100 miles with that same 30 minutes reserve. If there is a head wind
> the difference is going be even greater. Both airplanes need about the
> same length runway, yes I know the cub can land in less space, but both
> need less than 1000 feet. Wouldn't a reserve rule that stated the
> minimum distance you could fly in calm air be a better rule?


I use an hour to an hour and a half reserve as a personal minimum. Wouldn't
feel comfortable with the minimums stated in the FAR anyways...

[Robert M. Gary]

For IFR that is what you do, you have to make it to your alternate.
However, please understand that these are minumum regulations. It is
not (and should not) be the case that if you follow every reg you will
never die. Be thankful, very thankful that the FAA allows us enough
decision making room to make our own decisions and does not regulate us
down to nothing. There are times when I've takin my plane around the
pattern to warm up the oil and not had much more than 30 minutes of
fuel, that's ok, the FAA says I can make that decision.
Don't get pulled into the "there ought to be a law" type thinking. In
reality "there ought to be a PIC" and keep the gov't at bay.

-Robert, CFI
Screw the village, it takes a parent to raise a child.

[nrp]

About 43 years ago I had a fuel exhaustion forced landing in an Aeronca
Sedan (15AC) on floats. It had simple plexiglas sight glass gages that
went directly into the two wing tanks - and me thinking what could be
more reliable?

What I didn't know is that it had nylon fuel cells rather than rigid
tanks. It also had leaky fuel caps and a partially plugged vent system
that allowed the fuel cell to collapse in the air. The sight glass
gages showed a comfortable half full until about 5 minutes before
complete fuel exhaustion. I landed in a swamp, drifted to shore, found
the farmer etc...... He was surprised.

In my 172M, I stick it with a Fuelhawk and never let planned landing
fuel get below 1 hour. But, I still don't really know if that hour is
really there or not except that it has never taken more than 33 (of 39
useable) gallons.

[Skylune]

Some glider training can definitely help. You can get good at finding
updrafts so that low fuel problems need not be a concern.

[George Patterson]

Chris W wrote:
> Wouldn't a reserve rule that stated the
> minimum distance you could fly in calm air be a better rule?

I don't think so. You're supposed to use that 30 minutes a bit earlier in the
flight to realize that you might not make it on time and divert for fuel.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Michael]

The regulation requiring this reserve on takeoff exists to make you
think about whether you actually have enough reserve fuel for your
flight. You've done this, so mission accomplished.

The rule is quite minimalist - only under the best of circumstances is
a 30 minute reserve sufficient. This is a good thing - it allows you
to go with that minimum when there is an advantage to doing so and the
circumstances allow it. It also means that the minimum isn't always
enough, maybe because you encounter unexpected headwinds or weather you
have to divert around. No big deal if airports are 5 minutes apart
where you are, but a much bigger deal if you are out over the Gulf of
Mexico. My personal minimum for overwater flights is 2 hours fuel when
I reach land, day or night, VFR or IFR. On the other hand, I consider
a reserve of 30 minutes at 45% cruise power just fine if I'm making a
day-VFR hop in good weather to an airport with multiple runways and
multiple airports within 15 minutes flying time. I'm glad the rule is
minimal enough to allow me to make my own decisions.

Air carriers have much more complex rules about fuel reserves. It's a
form of micromanagement, in a way - the rules are far more complex, far
more restrictive - and in spite of accurate fuel gauges and fuel
totalizers, lots of experience, better training, etc - airliners still
manage to run out of fuel.

Michael

[gregg]

Michael wrote:

> I'm glad the rule is
> minimal enough to allow me to make my own decisions.

> Michael


A very astute and key point.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Darrell S]

Chris W wrote:
> Isn't this 30 *minute* reserve rule for day VFR flight a bit odd? Here are
> 2 examples to illustrate why I say that. In a J3 Cub you
> are going to go just over 35 miles in those 30 minutes. In an RV-7,
> you can go 100 miles with that same 30 minutes reserve. If there is
> a head wind the difference is going be even greater. Both airplanes
> need about the same length runway, yes I know the cub can land in
> less space, but both need less than 1000 feet. Wouldn't a reserve
> rule that stated the minimum distance you could fly in calm air be a
> better rule?

It wouldn't be practical to require an aircraft to be able to fly a given
distance with the fuel reserve. Too many variables and they'd have to
publish distance requirements for each type aircraft. Wind, aircraft speed,
etc. A ridiculous (I know) extreme example would be to require an SR-71 to
have reserve fuel to fly a 30 minute distance at mach 3. That would be
about 900 miles.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

[Peter Duniho]

"Darrell S" > wrote in message
news:07Zre.462$wV5.435@fed1read06...
> It wouldn't be practical to require an aircraft to be able to fly a given
> distance with the fuel reserve. Too many variables and they'd have to
> publish distance requirements for each type aircraft. Wind, aircraft
> speed, etc. A ridiculous (I know) extreme example would be to require an
> SR-71 to have reserve fuel to fly a 30 minute distance at mach 3. That
> would be about 900 miles.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The current regulation essentially
requires just that. It requires enough fuel to fly for 30 minutes at cruise
speed, which for any given aircraft translates into a specific calm air
distance. Each aircraft is basically given its own regulatory distance
requirement.

Under the existing regulations, the SR-71 *does* require a 900 mile fuel
reserve, if flown under Part 91 of the FARs (since it's always being
operated by the government, those rules don't actually apply...but if Part
91 was being applied, it would be applied in just the way you say is
ridiculous).

Are you trying to say that the current regulation is ridiculous? If so,
you'd appear to be in agreement with the original poster. If not, why are
you saying that the current regulation is ridiculous?

I believe that the original poster is not suggesting that each aircraft get
its own distance requirement (as is basically the case now). I believe he's
suggesting that each aircraft should share the exact same distance
requirement with every other aircraft, regardless of cruise speed.

As far as that question goes: it's my opinion that the time-based
requirement more appropriately compensates for the relevant variables. It
certainly doesn't do it perfectly, but it takes into account likely reasons
for needing the reserve, such as being off-course (thus the greater
requirement for night than for day) as well as the fact that slower aircraft
can generally use a wider range of airports, and thus won't have to fly as
great a distance to get to a suitable one.

Sure, there are clear extremes that seem to indicate some flaw in the
concept. But those are just that: extremes. The regulations couldn't
possibly address each and every situation individually and perfectly. They
simply set some guidelines -- and quite liberal in this case -- for
operation of the aircraft, and it's up to the pilot to take appropriate
steps to follow those guidelines to the letter, as well as to the spirit.

Pete