FAA fuel waivers

[[email protected]]

Can anyone back up this claim? It sounds convincing, but I want to
have a second opinion:


----Start quote-----
Apparently, the FAA (the same FAA who was going against our contract
and has cut out budget, cut trainees to replace all the people
retiring, and is attempting to speed up training by rushing through
important steps) is giving airlines a waver on gas. This waver states
that they don't have to fill up the plane all the way so they can save
on fuel costs. This means, they have exactly the amount of fuel they
need to get to their destination +45 minutes. Anything under that +45
minutes means an emergency. So that means these aircraft were getting
close to that emergency point. It's dangerous for the pilot, the
controller, and the passengers espicially.
-----End quote-----

I would appreciate any information anyone has about this. At least if
it's true or not.

Thanks!

[John T]

> wrote in message
ups.com
>
> Can anyone back up this claim? It sounds convincing, but I want to
> have a second opinion:

FAA regulations are on the web. Check it out and let us know.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[[email protected]]

§ 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) of this 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.
--
so i guess this kind of fueling behavior is normal based on these
regulations. this is probably what airlines have been doing all along.
i'm just a little confused about this said "waiver" (which, i noticed
was spelled wrong in the quote which i think hinders its credibility)





John T wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
> >
> > Can anyone back up this claim? It sounds convincing, but I want to
> > have a second opinion:
>
> FAA regulations are on the web. Check it out and let us know.
>
> --
> John T
> http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
> Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
> ____________________

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> § 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) of this 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.
> --
> so i guess this kind of fueling behavior is normal based on these
> regulations. this is probably what airlines have been doing all along.
> i'm just a little confused about this said "waiver" (which, i noticed
> was spelled wrong in the quote which i think hinders its credibility)

Yes, eight year-olds often have trouble with words like waiver. :-)


Matt

[Doug]

It's not a waiver, its a rule and it's nothing new. An airliner has to
carry enough fuel to get to it's destination, divert to it's alternate
plus 45 minutes. You can't have a rule that "you have to fill up".
Filling up might not be ENOUGH fuel. Don't worry about THIS one, almost
all captains, being cautious, add a little extra fuel over the required
fuel so they have some cushion. Fuel exhaustion with airliners is very
rare, it has happened, but it's not likely. They watch their fuel very
carefully.

[Casey Wilson]

Who are you?!?!
Are you any kin to > ?


===== did someone leave the Troll Gate open??==========

[[email protected]]

Hmm... I don't /think/ I know that person. Maybe. Where do they live?


Casey Wilson wrote:
> Who are you?!?!
> Are you any kin to > ?
>
>
> ===== did someone leave the Troll Gate open??==========

[Jose]

> This waver states
> that they don't have to fill up the plane all the way so they can save
> on fuel costs.

"Filling up" the plane is not a requirment. "Having enough gas" is
(where "enough" is defined in the regs and includes reserves). You
don't have to have "more than enough", otherwise that amount would be
what "enough" would be, and we're back where we started.

Now, "enough" means "enough to get to your destination, fly the
approach, go to the alternate, fly the approach, and fly 45 minutes at
full cruise". Depending on what you pick for an alternate, you may need
more or less gas. Depending on what you pick for a destination, the
same is true.

The "destination" doesn't have to be "where you want to go". What I
have heard some pilots do is to make the place they want to go the
alternate, and pick a "destination" that is short of that. This
requires less gas. If they manage to get a better tailwind, then by the
time they get to their destination (not where they wanted to go), they
may still have enough gas to get to the alternate (which is where they
wanted to go), AND fly to another legal alternate, AND still fly for 45
minutes. IF this happens, they re-file with the new plan and keep
flying. The risk is that if this does NOT happen, they will need to
land short of where they wanted to go.

It sounds like cheating, but safety is NOT compromised, because they
always have a place to land in the plan, and sufficient reserves.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RK Henry]

On 9 Jun 2006 19:03:34 -0700, "Doug" >
wrote:

>It's not a waiver, its a rule and it's nothing new. An airliner has to
>carry enough fuel to get to it's destination, divert to it's alternate
>plus 45 minutes. You can't have a rule that "you have to fill up".
>Filling up might not be ENOUGH fuel.

And filling up might also mean TOO MUCH fuel. The airplane must be
loaded less than its maximum takeoff weight. Satisfying that
requirement may entail leaving the tanks partially empty. For a short
trip, an airplane taking off with full tanks could still have so much
fuel aboard on arrival that it would above its maximum landing weight.
In that case, the aircraft must depart with less fuel.

Operating with reduced fuel loads has always been a part of safe and
legal operation of the aircraft. Filling the tanks completely could be
illegal and unsafe in some circumstances.

RK Henry

[Robert M. Gary]

One well known author for Flying magazine and pilot with U.S. Airways
once asked the flight department to research if any pilot had ever
asked for a 767 to be topped off in the history of the airline. He
found only one case. It costs a lot of money to take fuel, carry it up
to 33,000 feet and then carry it home unused. Airlines have never (to
my knowledge) carried such an arbitrary amount of fuel. Worst case, the
plane doesn't have enough fuel to wait for the weather at your
destination to improve and they just take you to another airport.

-Robert


wrote:
> Can anyone back up this claim? It sounds convincing, but I want to
> have a second opinion:
>
>
> ----Start quote-----
> Apparently, the FAA (the same FAA who was going against our contract
> and has cut out budget, cut trainees to replace all the people
> retiring, and is attempting to speed up training by rushing through
> important steps) is giving airlines a waver on gas. This waver states
> that they don't have to fill up the plane all the way so they can save
> on fuel costs. This means, they have exactly the amount of fuel they
> need to get to their destination +45 minutes. Anything under that +45
> minutes means an emergency. So that means these aircraft were getting
> close to that emergency point. It's dangerous for the pilot, the
> controller, and the passengers espicially.
> -----End quote-----
>
> I would appreciate any information anyone has about this. At least if
> it's true or not.
>
> Thanks!

[150flivver]

I would think that with the high price of fuel, if an airline services
an airport where fuel prices are very high, they may take on full fuel
at an airport where the fuel prices are low. I'm betting the
dispatcher does a careful calculation of the cost of hauling extra fuel
over the price of fuel at every location.

[[email protected]]

This is another FAA controller that is worried about his job. I hope he
can separate planes on his screen better then he can spell "waver". I
am sure he has no problem cashing his government checks that we all pay
for.


wrote:
> Can anyone back up this claim? It sounds convincing, but I want to
> have a second opinion:
>
>
> ----Start quote-----
> Apparently, the FAA (the same FAA who was going against our contract
> and has cut out budget, cut trainees to replace all the people
> retiring, and is attempting to speed up training by rushing through
> important steps) is giving airlines a waver on gas. This waver states
> that they don't have to fill up the plane all the way so they can save
> on fuel costs. This means, they have exactly the amount of fuel they
> need to get to their destination +45 minutes. Anything under that +45
> minutes means an emergency. So that means these aircraft were getting
> close to that emergency point. It's dangerous for the pilot, the
> controller, and the passengers espicially.
> -----End quote-----
>
> I would appreciate any information anyone has about this. At least if
> it's true or not.
>
> Thanks!

[Robert M. Gary]

I know Southwest has a look up table they use to determine the price of
hauling around fuel vs. the price difference at different destinations.
Everyone always avoids buying fuel at Sacramento International because
it's one of the most expensive in the nation. The airport requires all
fuel guys to be active and certified fire fighters.

-Robert


150flivver wrote:
> I would think that with the high price of fuel, if an airline services
> an airport where fuel prices are very high, they may take on full fuel
> at an airport where the fuel prices are low. I'm betting the
> dispatcher does a careful calculation of the cost of hauling extra fuel
> over the price of fuel at every location.

[Mike]

>> This means, they have exactly the amount of fuel they
>> need to get to their destination +45 minutes. Anything under that +45
>> minutes means an emergency. So that means these aircraft were getting
>> close to that emergency point. It's dangerous for the pilot, the
>> controller, and the passengers espicially.


One item that is missing is alternate fuel. Aircraft always take into
consideration fuel needed to get to an alternate airport in case of
warranting conditions. The 45-minutes reserve is contingency fuel to
account for unexpected holding, weather, and other delays at the
destination. It's not necessarily an emergency.


--
Mike

[Big John]

Jose

I'll use your posting to add my 2 cents worth to thread.

My Mark 20C Mooney had a built in fuselage tank (bird had about 7
hours with all tanks full).

If I needed the range and loaded the fuselage tank, it made the bird
into a two seater due to max weight limits. Normal flights only
carried slosh fuel in tank and could use all four seats. This is not
to say we didn't push the max gross on occasions.

I never loaded fuselage tank for a leg, unless needed for range and
any expected holding.

Configuration gave lots of options of range vs cabin loading.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````


On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:45:00 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> This waver states
>> that they don't have to fill up the plane all the way so they can save
>> on fuel costs.
>
>"Filling up" the plane is not a requirment. "Having enough gas" is
>(where "enough" is defined in the regs and includes reserves). You
>don't have to have "more than enough", otherwise that amount would be
>what "enough" would be, and we're back where we started.
>
>Now, "enough" means "enough to get to your destination, fly the
>approach, go to the alternate, fly the approach, and fly 45 minutes at
>full cruise". Depending on what you pick for an alternate, you may need
>more or less gas. Depending on what you pick for a destination, the
>same is true.
>
>The "destination" doesn't have to be "where you want to go". What I
>have heard some pilots do is to make the place they want to go the
>alternate, and pick a "destination" that is short of that. This
>requires less gas. If they manage to get a better tailwind, then by the
>time they get to their destination (not where they wanted to go), they
>may still have enough gas to get to the alternate (which is where they
>wanted to go), AND fly to another legal alternate, AND still fly for 45
>minutes. IF this happens, they re-file with the new plan and keep
>flying. The risk is that if this does NOT happen, they will need to
>land short of where they wanted to go.
>
>It sounds like cheating, but safety is NOT compromised, because they
>always have a place to land in the plan, and sufficient reserves.
>
>Jose