Two fine points of FAR interpretation

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:50:06 -0700, "BTIZ"
wrote:

yes... actually that resurfacing would have been about that time..

I left ASH in 1982 and the new tower was not open then..
I was at NEAI/DWC from 1974-1977, earned my Private ASEL through NEAI in
1974

Well we overlapped a bit. I moved to the area in 1976 and left in 2000.
We still go back to visit from time to time, though.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Dave Russell wrote:

2. We all know about the minimum fuel requirement for take-off. If
one were to land with less fuel in the tanks than the required reserve
(and without a good reason for using part of the reserve), can the FAA
violate you for negligence?

The regulations require that you have sufficient fuel on takeoff. They do not require
that you have the required reserve when you land. If checked, you might be required
to demonstrate how you calculated the reserve. You might be violated if they think
you did not do a good job of that. I've never heard of such a case in non-commercial
flights, but it's certainly possible.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

Hi George,

2. We all know about the minimum fuel requirement for take-off. If
one were to land with less fuel in the tanks than the required
reserve (and without a good reason for using part of the reserve),
can the FAA violate you for negligence?

The regulations require that you have sufficient fuel on takeoff.
They do not require that you have the required reserve when you land.
If checked, you might be required to demonstrate how you calculated
the reserve. You might be violated if they think you did not do a
good job of that. I've never heard of such a case in non-commercial
flights, but it's certainly possible.

To my knowledge, airliner pilots quite regularly file flight plans to
closer airports than their real destinations in order to be allowed to
take of with less fuel than what would be required including reserve
for the full distance. At some point during the flight, they re-file a
new flight plan the the real destination, by which time the remaining
fuel is sufficient for the rest of the flight including required
reserve. consequently, they land with less fuel than what would have
been required reserve for the whole distance.

Can anyone confirm this practice?

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote

To my knowledge, airliner pilots quite regularly file flight plans to
closer airports than their real destinations in order to be allowed to
take of with less fuel than what would be required including reserve
for the full distance. At some point during the flight, they re-file a
new flight plan the the real destination, by which time the remaining
fuel is sufficient for the rest of the flight including required
reserve. consequently, they land with less fuel than what would have
been required reserve for the whole distance.

Can anyone confirm this practice?

This was common practice when I flew for PanAm. The procedure was
acceptable because of the 10% fuel factor for international flights.
The procedure was called "redispatch". The procedure was not applicable
to domestic flights because of the fixed 45 minute reserve fuel
requirement. International flights require 30 minutes of fuel plus
fuel for 10% of the total flight time, which for a 10 hour flight would
amount to one and one-half hours of reserve fuel while a domestic
flight arriving at the same time at the same airport would only require
45 minutes of reserve fuel. It was a paper-work and communications
drill which required the co-operation of the dispatcher with an updated
flight release and weather. However, the flight plan with ATC was filed
to the "real" destination, they never knew that you might have to land
short if the destination wx or enroute fuel burn didn't work-out as
desired.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

Dave... How's it going???

"Dave Russell" wrote in message
m...
A friend of mine is curious:

1. If a runway is closed by NOTAM at a non-towered airport, does that
mean that the adjacent *taxiway* can't be used to legally take-off and
land? (I know the insurance company would have an opinion about this,
also, but let's ignore that aspect for the moment.)

I routinely take off and land the L3 on the grass next to the runway...
Airport manager hasn't yelled at me... Nothing in my insurance
says I can't...


2. We all know about the minimum fuel requirement for take-off. If
one were to land with less fuel in the tanks than the required reserve
(and without a good reason for using part of the reserve), can the FAA
violate you for negligence?

Rule is have to have required reserves on takeoff...

John Price
CFII/AGI/IGI
http://home.att.net/~jm.price