"Peter R." wrote in message
...
| C J Campbell ) wrote:
|
| Easier said than done. When IMC, getting unexpected vectors and maybe a
| hold, you cannot simply cancel and land at the nearest VFR airport for
fuel.
| Stuff happens -- you miss your approach, etc.
|
| I was taught to use the phrase "minimum fuel" if it appeared that holds
| and/or additional vectors might make me concerned about remaining fuel,
| whether it be a set "bingo" reserve or some other amount.
|
| Wouldn't this be preferable to simply accepting the vectors and holds?
|

Even that is no guarantee that you will get priority handling. Other
aircraft emergencies, going missed and trying again, etc., will start to eat
into your fuel reserve. Turbulence can have unexpected consequences, too,
slowing your rate of progress and eating fuel as you change altitudes
looking for better conditions.

Some very popular aircraft, including twins, only hold about 1.5 hours
useable fuel when fully loaded with pax and bags. The Cessna 414 Chancellor
comes to mind. According to Aviation Consumer, that aircraft has the best
safety record (per 100,000 hours) of all piston twins, they are not exactly
falling out of the sky because of fuel exhaustion. It follows that if you
think the 414 is not safe enough because it does not hold enough fuel, then
all other piston twins are not safe enough for you, either, because their
accident rate is worse than that of the 414. Unless, of course, fuel is the
only safety issue that you are concerned about, in which case I wish you
well, but I will not fly with you.

One could avoid piston twins and float planes entirely. Some people do. But
then you have to ask yourself why you are avoiding those aircraft and not
those piston singles that have worse safety records than the 414. There are
plenty of those, including such stalwarts as the Navion, Mooney, and
Ercoupe. The only piston singles that have better safety records than the
414 are basically a handful of Cessnas and Pipers.