AOPA Turbine Pilot Magazine - November 2013 - 24

PILOT COUNSEL

Running on empty

BY JOHN S. YODICE

VFR fuel requirements

JOHN S. YODICE

owns a Cessna 310
based at Frederick,
Maryland (FDK).

THE FUEL REQUIREMENT for flight in VFR conditions is
an important rule that we don’t have much occasion to
look at in detail. So, here goes. FAR 91.151(a) says that:
“No person may begin a flight in an airplane under
VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast
weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the
first point of intended landing and, assuming normal
cruising speed (1) During the day, to fly after that for at
least 30 minutes; or (2) At night, to fly after that for at
least 45 minutes.”
There is not much question of interpretation about
how to account for wind and weather in estimating
flight time and fuel requirements. Pilots are trained
to do it, and they do it all the time in practice. But one
phrase that does raise an interesting question is, what is
normal cruising speed? We know that there are a whole
range of fuel consumption figures for various cruise
configurations of an airplane. Would it be legal to select
the most fuel-efficient cruise configuration in figuring
the required reserve? After all, you could always go to
that configuration in flight if fuel becomes a problem.
The most likely answer from the FAA is no, unless
you are using that same cruise configuration in planning
for the flight itself. It is based on an old FAA interpretation dealing with a similar airline requirement. In that
interpretation, the FAA told the airline that it should
calculate the required fuel reserve using “the cruising
power most often used.” We take from this interpretation that the FAA would not consider it “normal” to use
a different cruising speed for computing the fuel reserve
than that used for the flight itself. Or stated in another
way, the FAA would consider it “normal,” and in compliance with the rule, to use the same cruise speed (and
hence the same cruise configuration) for computing the
required fuel reserve as you use for the flight itself.
What about landing with less than 30 (or 45) minutes of fuel in your tanks? Is that an automatic violation
of the regulation? No. The regulation, by its terms,
imposes its requirement at the beginning of a flight.
While landing with a short supply of fuel could be some
evidence that you began the flight with insufficient fuel,
it is not conclusive. It could be explained by unexpected
conditions that extended the time of the flight—which is
the reason you are required to have a reserve.
How does a potential violation come to the attention of the FAA? The FAA does not typically ramp check
general aviation aircraft after they land. The most usual

24 | AOPA PILOT November 2013

way the FAA finds out about a potential violation is if
the agency is called to investigate an off-airport landing
and discovers empty fuel tanks. Or, as in the following
case, an FAA inspector just happened to notice something unusual.
According to the FAA inspector, he was on an airport
investigating an unrelated matter when he happened to
notice a Cessna 180 being towed by automobile from the
runway area of the airport to the apron in front of a skydiving operation. He decided to check. He approached
the pilot of the aircraft, who was part owner of the skydiving operation, and asked her if she had a problem.
She said yes, she had an oil pressure light come on during flight, so she had shut down the engine and landed.
The inspector looked the airplane over and questioned
whether the problem could have been fuel exhaustion.
The pilot insisted that could not have been the problem. They got a ladder and dipped the fuel tanks in the
wings of the high-wing aircraft. The operator said she
found fuel. The inspector dipped the tanks himself, and
said he found the right tank completely dry and only a
few drops of fuel in the left tank.
The ultimate result was an FAA order suspending
the operator’s ATP certificate for 90 days, charging that
she had begun a flight with insufficient fuel. The FAA
also charged her with operating an unairworthy aircraft
in violation of FAR 91.7(a)—to blunt her defense that she
had a subsequently discovered leak because of a faulty
fuel strainer. And, lastly, a charge that the FAA always
throws in: being “careless or reckless” in violation of
FAR 91.13(a). The operator appealed the suspension to
the National Transportation Safety Board.
On appeal, she offered evidence that she had begun
the flights with sufficient fuel and reserve. She testified
to the flight times and altitudes of the parachute hops,
the fueling of the aircraft, the fuel consumption of the
Cessna 180, and her contemporaneous logging of these
details. She was corroborated by her partner who personally fueled the aircraft, and checked the fuel. She
offered evidence of the discovery the next day of a leak
from a defective fuel strainer plunger, which was then
repaired—all to no avail. The board determined that
there had been a violation of FAR 91.151(a). The board
did dismiss the FAR 91.7(a) charge and reduced the
sanction from a 90-day suspension to 30 days. AOPA
WEB

www.aopa.org/yodiceassociates

http://www.aopa.org/yodiceassociates

AOPA Turbine Pilot Magazine - November 2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of AOPA Turbine Pilot Magazine - November 2013