If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Some glider training can definitely help. You can get good at finding
updrafts so that low fuel problems need not be a concern. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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/ - |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
gps to measure feet? | brucrx | Piloting | 19 | November 13th 04 03:33 AM |
Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve Command To Benefit From New . | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 20th 04 12:32 AM |
the complete minute by minute timeline on 911 | Krztalizer | Military Aviation | 27 | January 27th 04 04:35 PM |
Feet Per Minute Conversion Question | Steve B | Soaring | 49 | August 31st 03 04:40 AM |
Reserve Haters (Was... Privatizing Red Air Gaining Momentum) | FastMover114 | Naval Aviation | 13 | August 10th 03 02:32 PM |