IFR to airport without approach - Alternate

[TMetzinger]

If one interprets the term "Operate" in the context of 91.167 to mean continuously meet the requirement as apposed to a planning requirement, then there is a logical inconsistency.

For the sake of illustration, assume that the flight to the airport of first intended landing takes two hours, that the flight to the alternate takes one hour and that the initial fuel required is 3 hours and 45 minutes. If one had taken off with the minimum required fuel and arrived at the airport of first intended landing, then diverted to the alternate and landed at the alternate with 45 minutes of fuel on board, they would be in violation of a literal interpretation of operate. For illustration, when the aircraft is half way to its alternate, the fuel on board would be one hour and 15 minutes remaining. From that point, it could no longer:

(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and

(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.

Um - you completed (1) before your diverted, and are working on 2 and 3.

The issue is whether, (as I was taught), the reg is moot once you're airborne, provided you can show your planning complied with the reg before you took off.

 

[poadeleted20]

In Administrator v. Eden, the NTSB said:

[T]he law judge's conclusion that he began the Grand Junction, Colorado--Newnan, Georgia flight without the quantity of fuel aboard required for an IFR operation is flawed because it is based on the amount of fuel the flight actually consumed, rather than on the amount of fuel the flight was predicted to consume. We find merit in the contention.
...
Inasmuch as the Administrator did not establish that respondent's planned flight time was invalid or unreasonable, it is of no consequence, for purposes of determining whether respondent began the flight with the fuel reserves required by FAR section 91.167, that the flight took longer than was anticipated and, as a result, the aircraft landed with less fuel than had been estimated.

Thus, while the IFR reg says "operate" in comparison with the VFR reg's "begin a flight," the case law suggests that you are not in violation of 91.167 if unforeseen circumstances cause you to eat into your 45 minute fuel reserve after takeoff.

However, they revoked Eden's ticket anyway because of other violations.

 

[John Collins]

Um - you completed (1) before your diverted, and are working on 2 and 3.

The issue is whether, (as I was taught), the reg is moot once you're airborne, provided you can show your planning complied with the reg before you took off.

Yes, you completed 1 and are working on 2 and 3, but if you take the regulation literally (which I don't) with a dictionary definition of operate rather than the FAA definition of the term, then 1, 2 and 3 are required to be continuously met, which obviously doesn't make sense. I only point this out to show the inconsistency of a literal interpretation verses a planning requirement interpretation.

I fully agree with your second comment as you were taught.

 

[TMetzinger]

Thank you, Ron. I agree with Steven that an interpretation could be made his way, but at least there's a precedent that says "no".

 

[gismo]

In Administrator v. Eden, the NTSB said:

Thus, while the IFR reg says "operate" in comparison with the VFR reg's "begin a flight," the case law suggests that you are not in violation of 91.167 if unforeseen circumstances cause you to eat into your 45 minute fuel reserve after takeoff.

However, they revoked Eden's ticket anyway because of other violations.

"Other violations" indeed. The (upheld) allegations against the pilot in question were so vast it's hard to believe his ticket wasn't pulled sooner.

I found particular interest in the statement by the NTSB which basically said that since the pilot had deliberately turned his Mode C off during a significant altitude deviation from ATC instructions, the NTSB didn't find him very credible regarding his attempts at establishing his piloting competence. I know I've been tempted to temporarily shut down the transponder when I've blundered into special airspace, the NTSB's words on that matter lead me to believe that this would be a very bad idea from an enforcement perspective (not to mention that it could be unsafe).

 

[poadeleted20]

"Other violations" indeed. The (upheld) allegations against the pilot in question were so vast it's hard to believe his ticket wasn't pulled sooner.

Actually, it was -- revoked in 1993 for lying to controllers about his fuel state in order to gain preferential routing. But as is permitted under the rules, he reapplied after a year and got a new ticket. I suspect, however, that after the second revocation, the FAA let him know that if he applied again, the Administrator would invoke 61.13(a)(2)(ii).