Minimum fuel

[Denny]

Just a comment... Last weekend I had to move a full load, five seats
and baggage, across three states with multiple stops... This required
a light fuel load to make the W&B work out...

For those who have not seen my postings on fuel before, I am a fanatic
about not ever going into the last hour of fuel, for any reason... I
have even, in the distant past, landed 20 minutes from home for gas to
avoid busting my own one hour minimum rule... Given that the current
bird holds six hours of fuel and my bladder range is four hours, it has
been many years since I had less than two hours in the tanks...

Anyway, this time the significant other was breathing down my neck
about completing the flights on a fixed schedule... After beating up
on my whiz wheel for 20 minutes it became clear I would have to suspend
the fuel rule for the first time in decades, and go 15 minutes into the
fuel reserve because there 'aint no' gas station in the middle of Lake
Erie... I measure fuel by the clock and use the fuel gauges only as a
'how goes it' indicator, though I know from experience the gauge on the
main tank is on the money... So, there we are going across Lake Erie
on a gorgeous sunny day as the needle just touches the 1/4 mark which
means exactly 60 minutes of fuel left.. The count down timer I normally
use for approaches agrees with the gauge...

What didn't agree was my pucker factor... Amazing what your nervous
system can do when it wants your attention... In spite of my
intellectual knowledge that I had 15 minutes until landing with 60
minutes of fuel on board, my parasympathetic nervous system threw a
tantrum... I got a hollow in the pit of my stomach.. My palms got
sweaty... I had that, 'something bad is going to happen' sensation...
OTOH, the engines continued to do the Lycoming four banger, shake,
rattle, and roll... They weren't nervous... And the flight ended with
the usual squeak of tires on the concrete at Port Clinton...

So what is the point of this post? Well not much, except rules can be
broken ( NASA just did) if done carefully, but it still feels bad...
It will be a long time before I break the 1 hour rule again,
significant other not withstanding...

denny

[Roy Smith]

Denny > wrote:
>For those who have not seen my postings on fuel before, I am a fanatic
>about not ever going into the last hour of fuel, for any reason...

Not a bad rule. You won't get every bit of utility out of your
airplane, but you're also not likely to ever run out of fuel. I think
that's a perfectly reasonable way to fly.

>Anyway, this time the significant other was breathing down my neck
>about completing the flights on a fixed schedule...

Don't let your SO talk you into breaking rules. Lie if you have to.
Fudge your calculations to make it look like going non-stop will mean
landing with 15 minutes reserve instead of 45. Or zero. Or halfway
through the flight tell her you must be hitting unexpected headwinds
because you keep hitting checkpoints further and further behind your
flight planned estimates. Or that you've *really* got to take a leak
NOW and you're not going to make it to your destination without
wetting your pants. Once you're on the ground, you might as well take
on another 10 gallons.

If you really are committed to breaking a rule, I'd rather take on an
extra 30 minutes of fuel and take off overgross. You didn't say what
you're flying, but a "4-banger" is probably burning no more than 10
gph in cruise; 30 minutes is 30 pounds of fuel. Nobody ever died
taking off 30 pounds overweight, but people have died being 3 pounds
of fuel short of making the runway.

Did you try planning different power settings? Cruising at 55%
vs. 75% power can make a huge difference in range (especially with a
tailwind).

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

Boy Denny, I hear ya!
I also never go into the last hour's worth of fuel and the only time I've
actually gotten below that was a non stop trip from Atlanta back to
Wisconsin into some pretty heavy head winds. We were in the air for 5
hours.

I normally plan our fuel burn at 25gph by my watch, start up to shut down.
I stopped 20 minutes from home and pumped 120 gallons into the Aztec, 24gph,
but it only left 6 gallons in each of the four tanks, 24 total, only 20 of
which was usable. Just under 50 minutes of fuel in a perfect world. My
hands were still sweating and my knees were weak as I climbed back in the
plane. I think the last 30 minutes of that flight took a larger toll on me
than the first 4 and 1/2 hours.

Jim

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Just a comment... Last weekend I had to move a full load, five seats
> and baggage, across three states with multiple stops... This required
> a light fuel load to make the W&B work out...
>
> For those who have not seen my postings on fuel before, I am a fanatic
> about not ever going into the last hour of fuel, for any reason... I
> have even, in the distant past, landed 20 minutes from home for gas to
> avoid busting my own one hour minimum rule... Given that the current
> bird holds six hours of fuel and my bladder range is four hours, it has
> been many years since I had less than two hours in the tanks...
>
> Anyway, this time the significant other was breathing down my neck
> about completing the flights on a fixed schedule... After beating up
> on my whiz wheel for 20 minutes it became clear I would have to suspend
> the fuel rule for the first time in decades, and go 15 minutes into the
> fuel reserve because there 'aint no' gas station in the middle of Lake
> Erie... I measure fuel by the clock and use the fuel gauges only as a
> 'how goes it' indicator, though I know from experience the gauge on the
> main tank is on the money... So, there we are going across Lake Erie
> on a gorgeous sunny day as the needle just touches the 1/4 mark which
> means exactly 60 minutes of fuel left.. The count down timer I normally
> use for approaches agrees with the gauge...
>
> What didn't agree was my pucker factor... Amazing what your nervous
> system can do when it wants your attention... In spite of my
> intellectual knowledge that I had 15 minutes until landing with 60
> minutes of fuel on board, my parasympathetic nervous system threw a
> tantrum... I got a hollow in the pit of my stomach.. My palms got
> sweaty... I had that, 'something bad is going to happen' sensation...
> OTOH, the engines continued to do the Lycoming four banger, shake,
> rattle, and roll... They weren't nervous... And the flight ended with
> the usual squeak of tires on the concrete at Port Clinton...
>
> So what is the point of this post? Well not much, except rules can be
> broken ( NASA just did) if done carefully, but it still feels bad...
> It will be a long time before I break the 1 hour rule again,
> significant other not withstanding...
>
> denny
>

[john smith]

In article . com>,
"Denny" > wrote:

> In spite of my
> intellectual knowledge that I had 15 minutes until landing with 60
> minutes of fuel on board, my parasympathetic nervous system threw a
> tantrum... I got a hollow in the pit of my stomach.. My palms got
> sweaty... I had that, 'something bad is going to happen' sensation...
> OTOH, the engines continued to do the Lycoming four banger, shake,
> rattle, and roll...

Not nearly as bad as getting distracted looking for traffic, being
vectored by ATC, missing the normal tank change point in the checklist
and hearing the engine surge at 2500 AGL three miles from the threshhold
with an hours worth of fuel in another tank!

[Larry Dighera]

On 5 Jul 2006 07:38:28 -0700, "Denny" > wrote in
. com>::

>It will be a long time before I break the 1 hour rule again,
>significant other not withstanding...

Your 1 hour fuel rule is admirable.

I have found it takes enormous courage to resist the influence of
social pressure when making prudent flight decisions, but rest
assured, your passengers are counting on you to do exactly that
despite their protestations. (Too bad JFK Jr. hadn't learned that.)

What's the water temperature in Lake Erie this time of year? :-(

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 15:54:35 +0000 (UTC), (Roy Smith)
wrote in >::

>Don't let your SO talk you into breaking rules. Lie if you have to.

There's no need to lie. Just assume your authority as PIC, and do
what's right.

Than not withstanding, thanks for your insightful comments.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 5 Jul 2006 07:38:28 -0700, "Denny" > wrote in
<...>
> What's the water temperature in Lake Erie this time of year? :-(
>

Surface temperature is about 70 degrees F...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>Don't let your SO talk you into breaking rules. Lie if you have to.
>
> There's no need to lie. Just assume your authority as PIC, and do
> what's right.

That ignores the larger picture.

Personally, I'd be incredibly disappointed if I found that I had to lie to
my spouse in order to get her to be comfortable with my decisions with
respect to maintaining the safety of a flight. However, from many
discussions with other people, including many close friends, I recognize
that, unfortunately, my situation is uncommon. Many people are in
relationships, and quite happily so, where they rely on deception at times
in order to keep things going smoothly.

When you write "there's no need to lie", you are no longer talking about
aviation. You are making a statement about the person's relationship with
his SO, one that may or may not be true depending on the actual nature of
the relationship (an aspect of the issue that I doubt you have personal
knowledge of, unless you are their couple's counselor, or a very close
friend, or something like that).

I would say that your statement is more accurate when talking about
passengers generally. There is less risk in simply making an outright "no"
statement when not dealing with an intimate relationship. But when dealing
with a spouse or similar, things are more complicated and lying may be the
only way to ensure the safety of the flight *and* the integrity (such as it
may be in such situations) of the relationship.

All that said, I would also say that there is generally no need to educate
one's passengers, spouse or otherwise, on the finer details of the
regulations or of the flight planning details. If they don't know that 30
minutes during the daytime is the legal minimum, or if they don't know the
precise fuel load and fuel burn, it's easy enough to truthfully say, simply,
"we can't make this distance safely without stopping for fuel along the
way".

How often this will work obviously depends on the individual passenger, how
much interest they take in the flight planning and execution, and how
willing they are to accept the pilot's definition of "safely". I have also
found that, even if the passenger does wind up taking an interest and
looking into the details later, it still allows me to execute the flight as
I see fit, delaying arguments until such time when they are rendered moot.
After the fact, if there are still questions, I am more easily able to
address them without getting bogged down in "but I really want to make this
flight!" emotional issues.

Using this method, I have yet to have a single passenger get upset with me
regarding any decision I've made with respect to flying. Or at least, as
far as I know. And that includes flights that were simply cancelled, as
well as having to leave one person on the ground while I took two others
sightseeing, due to balance considerations (granted, in that case, the guy
was an unexpected tag-along, invited by my passengers and not me). All of
my passengers have recognized my authority as pilot in command and while
they may ask questions regarding why I make decisions the way I do, they
have never complained about my right to make those decisions, or about the
outcome of such decisions.

Perhaps most of my passengers would be just as cooperative if I filled them
in on all the little details, but some of them may not have been. I've
found it's simpler, and easier to stick to my standards, when the passengers
are volunteered information only on a "need to know" basis. I encourage
interest, and do answer questions truthfully when asked, but I don't go out
of my way to explain every little detail, and that includes not going out of
my way to differentiate between issues that are regulatory in nature and
issues that are my own personal safety requirements. (Of course, with the
responsibility to ensure the safety of the flight, the pilot's own personal
standards could be considered regulatory as well, I suppose :) ).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
news:JOGdneSVwODlZTbZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
>> What's the water temperature in Lake Erie this time of year? :-(
>
> Surface temperature is about 70 degrees F...

Wow. When I read that I was skeptical. But, not only are you correct
(duh), you were even being a bit conservative:

http://www.wbuf.noaa.gov/laketemps/laketemps.htm

Even 30 feet below the surface, the measured temperature is 73F. On the
surface, it may be quite a bit warmer than that.

Looking here (the minimum temperatures over the last 80 years):
http://www.wbuf.noaa.gov/laketemps/COLD_LE.htm

I am amazed at the variation in temperature of the lake during the year, and
just how warm the *lowest* temperatures on record are during the summer.
I'm so used to our snow-melt-fed lakes here in the Puget Sound area that I
forgot many inland lakes can get quite warm during the summer (for example,
at that same depth of 30 feet, Lake Sammamish varies only within a range of
about 15F throughout the year, peaking about about 60-65F...even at the very
surface, it rarely gets as high as 70F, and even then only briefly right
near the end of the summer).

The water at the Lake Erie beaches must feel like bathwater! (in the
summer, I mean)

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 13:35:51 -0400, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On 5 Jul 2006 07:38:28 -0700, "Denny" > wrote in
><...>
>> What's the water temperature in Lake Erie this time of year? :-(
>>
>
>Surface temperature is about 70 degrees F...

While they're reporting 73 degrees F at 30 foot depth here:
http://www.wbuf.noaa.gov/laketemps/laketemps.htm

It would appear that the lowest surface temperature is 39 degrees F as
reported here: http://www.coas****ch.msu.edu/erie/e.html

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_1_]]

Denny wrote:
> So what is the point of this post? Well not much, except rules can be
> broken ( NASA just did) if done carefully, but it still feels bad...
> It will be a long time before I break the 1 hour rule again,
> significant other not withstanding...


I don't have a formal one hour rule. I learned and live this one: "If you're
worried about fuel, you don't have enough." I'll fly overgrossed before I'll
fly light.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 10:57:02 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>When you write "there's no need to lie", you are no longer talking about
>aviation. You are making a statement about the person's relationship with
>his SO, one that may or may not be true depending on the actual nature of
>the relationship.

Well, perhaps it's just me, but if I have to lie to my SO to assert my
command authority as PIC, I would be looking for another SO pronto.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I am a fanatic about not ever going into the
> last hour of fuel, for any reason...

This will usually keep you out of trouble, but I can see where it might
get you =into= trouble. If, for example, weather is deteriorating, an
unnecessary fuel stop will have you flying in worse weather than if you
had simply continued on. Which is to be preferred depends of course on
how much worse, and how much further on. There are many variables, and
while it's usually safer to just be on the ground, that defeats the
purpose of flying in the first place. Using five minutes of a one hour
reserve to save half an hour in which ceilings would be lowering from a
smooth 3000 to a ragged 1500 with the sun going down is an exchange I
would make. Using forty-five minutes of that same reserve to avoid a
3000 foot scattered layer in the middle of the day is not.

Setting conservative personal minima may be a good thing, but knowing
they are conservative should give you leeway to extending them in some
circumstances, and accepting the additional risk in exchange for
additional benefit, or for lowering a different additional risk. One
must always be careful not to let the creeping "just-a-little-mores" get
you, but that is what aeronautical decision making is about. Personal
minima not to be exceeded "for any reason" is not really decision
making, it is decision avoiding. Sometimes that's a good thing. But
not always. I see nothing wrong with your decision.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gene Seibel]

I was the same way for many years after I exhausted my fuel. However,
after years of carefully calculating and avoiding getting into that
last hour of fuel, I have regained the confidence to use some of it
when it works to my advantage. I believe that rules need to be reviewed
from time to time. Experiences, confidence/skill levels, and other
factors may warrant a change in the rules, in either the more liberal
or the more conservative direction. I've changed rules in both
directions. One just needs to be sure that changes in the rules are
well thought out, and based on the facts, not outside pressures. Yes,
my nervous system still is quite aware when I get into that last hour.
;)
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.




Denny wrote:
> Just a comment... Last weekend I had to move a full load, five seats
> and baggage, across three states with multiple stops... This required
> a light fuel load to make the W&B work out...
>
> For those who have not seen my postings on fuel before, I am a fanatic
> about not ever going into the last hour of fuel, for any reason... I
> have even, in the distant past, landed 20 minutes from home for gas to
> avoid busting my own one hour minimum rule... Given that the current
> bird holds six hours of fuel and my bladder range is four hours, it has
> been many years since I had less than two hours in the tanks...
>
> Anyway, this time the significant other was breathing down my neck
> about completing the flights on a fixed schedule... After beating up
> on my whiz wheel for 20 minutes it became clear I would have to suspend
> the fuel rule for the first time in decades, and go 15 minutes into the
> fuel reserve because there 'aint no' gas station in the middle of Lake
> Erie... I measure fuel by the clock and use the fuel gauges only as a
> 'how goes it' indicator, though I know from experience the gauge on the
> main tank is on the money... So, there we are going across Lake Erie
> on a gorgeous sunny day as the needle just touches the 1/4 mark which
> means exactly 60 minutes of fuel left.. The count down timer I normally
> use for approaches agrees with the gauge...
>
> What didn't agree was my pucker factor... Amazing what your nervous
> system can do when it wants your attention... In spite of my
> intellectual knowledge that I had 15 minutes until landing with 60
> minutes of fuel on board, my parasympathetic nervous system threw a
> tantrum... I got a hollow in the pit of my stomach.. My palms got
> sweaty... I had that, 'something bad is going to happen' sensation...
> OTOH, the engines continued to do the Lycoming four banger, shake,
> rattle, and roll... They weren't nervous... And the flight ended with
> the usual squeak of tires on the concrete at Port Clinton...
>
> So what is the point of this post? Well not much, except rules can be
> broken ( NASA just did) if done carefully, but it still feels bad...
> It will be a long time before I break the 1 hour rule again,
> significant other not withstanding...
>
> denny

[Dan Luke]

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
> http://www.wbuf.noaa.gov/laketemps/COLD_LE.htm


> The water at the Lake Erie beaches must feel like bathwater! (in the
> summer, I mean)

Surfers wear wetsuits in 70 deg. water. It's cold enough to produce
hypothermia in 6-12 hours of exposure.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Morgans[_1_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" wrote:
> > http://www.wbuf.noaa.gov/laketemps/COLD_LE.htm
>
>
>> The water at the Lake Erie beaches must feel like bathwater! (in the
>> summer, I mean)
>
> Surfers wear wetsuits in 70 deg. water. It's cold enough to produce
> hypothermia in 6-12 hours of exposure.

Something has gotten lost in the translation, I think.

The water temp of 70 degrees is at 30 feet of depth. At the surface, it is
much warmer. It does indeed get very warm at the surface, at the beaches.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Well, perhaps it's just me, but if I have to lie to my SO to assert my
> command authority as PIC, I would be looking for another SO pronto.

Me too. But like I said, that's not an aviation issue, and since you don't
know the specifics of the relationship in question, you can't make a blanket
statement about what "works" for them.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 13:35:51 -0400, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
> Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
> >::
>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 5 Jul 2006 07:38:28 -0700, "Denny" > wrote in
>><...>
>>> What's the water temperature in Lake Erie this time of year? :-(
>>>
>>
>>Surface temperature is about 70 degrees F...
>
> While they're reporting 73 degrees F at 30 foot depth here:
> http://www.wbuf.noaa.gov/laketemps/laketemps.htm
>
> It would appear that the lowest surface temperature is 39 degrees F as
> reported here: http://www.coas****ch.msu.edu/erie/e.html

The temperature in the shaded areas (like where you see the 39 F) is not
reliable due to clouds. 70ish is prety good for most of the lake. The upper
lakes are a lot colder, but Erie runs on the warm side...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[john smith]

In article >,
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:

> The temperature in the shaded areas (like where you see the 39 F) is not
> reliable due to clouds. 70ish is prety good for most of the lake. The upper
> lakes are a lot colder, but Erie runs on the warm side...

Only at the western half, which is shallow. The central and Eastern half
are quite deep. When the wind is blowing strong out of the east, it is
not unusual for the depth at the west side to increase by several feet.

[john smith]

Lake Erie depth charts

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakeerie_cdrom/html/e_gmorph.htm#
a789

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_1_]]

Morgans wrote:
>> Surfers wear wetsuits in 70 deg. water. It's cold enough to produce
>> hypothermia in 6-12 hours of exposure.
>
> Something has gotten lost in the translation, I think.
>
> The water temp of 70 degrees is at 30 feet of depth. At the surface, it is
> much warmer. It does indeed get very warm at the surface, at the beaches.


Surface water is probably much warmer but any water less than body temperature
will eventually draw off heat. Back in my young and stupid days, I used to
scuba dive in rock quarries. The surface temp would typically be about 80-85
degrees in the summer, quite comfortable in just a swimsuit. Once you dropped
below the thermocline, the water temperature would drop a good 35 degrees in the
span of just a couple of feet's worth of depth. 45 degree water is damned cold
even in a wetsuit with full hood and gloves. 85 degrees is damned hot in a
wetsuit with full hood and gloves.

Thermoclines in those quarries were usually in the 15-25 foot range in the
summertime. Of course in the winter, there is no thermocline... it's cold from
top to bottom.

Water temps in the ocean off the NC coast are similar at the surface but they
don't have a thermocline until maybe 80 feet or so. Even then the temp doesn't
drop more than maybe 10 degrees or so.

70 degree water is rather bracing but feels good when the air is hot and humid.
However, you can't handle it for more than an hour or so without getting
chilled.

Now, how far were they going to have to swim in Lake Erie?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Peter Duniho]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
m...
> [...]
> Now, how far were they going to have to swim in Lake Erie?

Depends on where they crash. But even if they swam 30 feet below the
surface, in the 70 degree water, according to Dan they'd have 6-12 hours to
get wherever they were going.

I don't know about you, but *I* can't hold my breath that long.

[Roy Smith]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> Surface water is probably much warmer but any water less than body
> temperature will eventually draw off heat.

The rule I learned was 50/50/50 -- 50 minutes in 50 degree water means a
50% chance of survival.

[Jack Allison[_1_]]

Interesting post Denny. I'm with you and always want to land with an
hour's gas in my tanks. If that keeps me on the ground such that I've
missed an open window getting somewhere before weather moves in, I
really don't care.


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane
Arrow N2104T

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[[email protected]]

Denny wrote:
> What didn't agree was my pucker factor... Amazing what your nervous
> system can do when it wants your attention... In spite of my
> intellectual knowledge that I had 15 minutes until landing with 60
> minutes of fuel on board, my parasympathetic nervous system threw a
> tantrum...

Excellent post.... thanks. Funny thing about how one's mind works,
isn't it?

For years I used to routinely take off with a *maximum* of one hour of
fuel (1/4 tanks) for aerobatic practice. While this might sound like a
bad idea, actually it's much safer for the airframe, I'd be up high,
only a mile or two from the field, and 20-30 minutes was usually all my
inner ear could take. This didn't bother my internal 'fuel alarm' at
all.

There were times in that same airplane, however, when I'd be goin'
someplace and launch with full fuel. If I let the fuel gauges get down
to 1/4 tanks while cross country, I'd start getting very, very anxious
and that not-so-much-fun-anymore feeling would really grab hold. I too
have landed 15 minutes out for gas when I knew that there were still 60
minutes in the tanks.

Go figure.

-Dave Russell

[Thomas Borchert]

Roy,

> If you really are committed to breaking a rule, I'd rather take on an
> extra 30 minutes of fuel and take off overgross.
>

Good advice, IMHO. However, don't make it much more than that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jose[_1_]]

> If you really are committed to breaking a rule, I'd rather take on an
> extra 30 minutes of fuel and take off overgross.

Those are different kinds of rules. Breaking a personal minimum should
be treated differently from breaking an FAR.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > If you really are committed to breaking a rule, I'd rather take on an
> > extra 30 minutes of fuel and take off overgross.
>
> Those are different kinds of rules. Breaking a personal minimum should
> be treated differently from breaking an FAR.
>
> Jose

Would you rather be legal and dangerous or illegal and safe? Your choice.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Would you rather be legal and dangerous or illegal and safe? Your choice.

I see your point. However, the question is whether setting a
conservative (fuel) minimum and then deciding for this flight to exceed
it, remaining within FAA rules, does not make one unsafe. Becoming a
test pilot by exceeding aircraft (weight) limitations is more likely to,
IMHO. But each case is different. One can make personal minima as
stringent as one wants (two hour fuel reserve, for example), but the FAA
and the aircraft manufacturers probably do not (the manufacturers want
to market the aircraft's capability, after all)

Not all that is illegal is safe, and not all that is legal is unsafe.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
>
>>>If you really are committed to breaking a rule, I'd rather take on an
>>>extra 30 minutes of fuel and take off overgross.
>>
>>Those are different kinds of rules. Breaking a personal minimum should
>>be treated differently from breaking an FAR.
>>
>>Jose
>
>
> Would you rather be legal and dangerous or illegal and safe? Your choice.

What is wrong with legal and safe?

Matt

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
> > > If you really are committed to breaking a rule, I'd rather take on an
> > > extra 30 minutes of fuel and take off overgross.
> >
> > Those are different kinds of rules. Breaking a personal minimum should
> > be treated differently from breaking an FAR.
> >
> > Jose
>
> Would you rather be legal and dangerous or illegal and safe? Your choice.

Now wot kinda question is that? :) If yer overweight, are you safe?
(Guess you're saying, "yes").

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article >, says...
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Jose > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>If you really are committed to breaking a rule, I'd rather take on an
> >>>extra 30 minutes of fuel and take off overgross.
> >>
> >>Those are different kinds of rules. Breaking a personal minimum should
> >>be treated differently from breaking an FAR.
> >>
> >>Jose
> >
> >
> > Would you rather be legal and dangerous or illegal and safe? Your choice.
>
> What is wrong with legal and safe?

Which he was right? He landed w' about 45 mins of fuel left IIRC (15
mins into *his* 1 hour safety fuel margin). And within (or right on)
the legal fuel reserve.

I'd have done exactly what he did.

--
Duncan