BINGO Fuel

[r22butters]

I've heard the term "BINGO Fuel", to describe the 20min. fuel reserve with which we are required to takeoff,...but do we have to land with it as well?

 

I've always been under the impression, "NO", but I remember an instructor saying once that he got in trouble for not having enough fuel left when he returned from a cross country flight. Also, I recently read a question on the CFI Written, that implies that you do have to keep that reserve.

 

What do you think?

[lelebebbel]

Under the VFR, you are required to take off with enough fuel so that, based on the information available at the time of take off, at the end of the flight, you will have at least a 20min reserve. When operating under Pt91, you can legally cut into that reserve in flight if you have to, unless your company operations manual says that you have to actually LAND with a certain amount of fuel left.

 

the FAR fuel requirements are based on planning, not the actual amount in the tanks when you land. That interpretation is unambiguous under VFR conditions where FAR 91.151 says that no pilot can begin a flight unless consideration of wind and weather will allow the flight to reach the planned destination with enough fuel to cruise for 30 minutes at a normal power setting, or 45 minutes at night [ 20 min for helicopters ]. A literal reading of FAR 91.151 indicates that running out of gas is not against the rules so long as your preflight plan was complete and accurate based on the winds aloft forecast. If the wind or weather forecasts are wrong, there is apparently no legal obligation under that rule to land and buy more fuel. Of course, FAR 91.13 appears to forbid running out of fuel, because that rule bans all "careless or reckless operation."

http://www.flyingmag.com/rules-and-fuel

 

 

I remember an instructor saying once that he got in trouble for not having enough fuel left when he returned from a cross country flight

He may not have broken the law, but one could argue that if he went on a cross country flight, and returned with less than 20min of fuel, he was either cutting it pretty fine, or the flight planning was flawed.

Edited March 12, 2011 by lelebebbel

[rick1128]

First of all almost everyone operating under Part 91 does not have an operations manual, it is primarily a Part 135 and 121 document. All the Part 135 Ops Manuals I have worked under quote the required regulation as far as reserve fuel is concerned.

 

The term 'Bingo Fuel' comes from the military and is used to denote that the aircraft concerned has reached a fuel level that they have just enough fuel to return to their designated landing area plus reserve. The proper name for what is being discussed is 'Minimum Fuel'. ATC has procedures for dealing with minimum fuel aircraft. While the regs do not require the pilot to land at another airport when in this situation, if something happens, the Feds will definitely ask you why you did not. As for getting into trouble, I have had to declare minimum fuel a few times and have never heard from the

feds in any form, shape or manner. As for your friend getting into trouble, was it from the Feds or the school.

 

The short answer is that you are not required to have ALL your reserve when you land. It is called a reserve for a reason, and is used to cover all sorts of situations. Like having to hold, a missed approach, got a different altitude and so on.

[SBuzzkill]

It's a planning minimum.

Edited March 12, 2011 by SBuzzkill

[Azhigher]

It's a planning minimum.

 

Couldn't have said it better.

[C of G]

A little more food for thought...

 

What about IFR reserves? What is the difference with these?

[RagMan]

The same concept applies with IFR reserves, but with 30 minutes after your first point of intended landing. If you are filing an alternate airport, you need to be able to fly to your first point of intended landing, then to your alternate airport, and then thereafter for 30 minutes. The FARs do not state you NEED to have that amount of fuel on board upon landing. Like BuzzKill stated, it is a planning minimum for FLIGHT.

 

I think the main principle behind the 30 minute IFR reserve is just to provide a little more time to work around IFR conditions should the unexpected occur.

[C of G]

The same concept applies with IFR reserves, but with 30 minutes after your first point of intended landing. If you are filing an alternate airport, you need to be able to fly to your first point of intended landing, then to your alternate airport, and then thereafter for 30 minutes. The FARs do not state you NEED to have that amount of fuel on board upon landing. Like BuzzKill stated, it is a planning minimum for FLIGHT.

 

I think the main principle behind the 30 minute IFR reserve is just to provide a little more time to work around IFR conditions should the unexpected occur.

 

 

Anyone disagree?

[palmfish]

Anyone disagree?

 

You don't need a 30 minute reserve if your IFR flight does not require an alternate.

[SBuzzkill]

Sec. 91.167

 

Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.

 

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to--

(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.

(B ) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if:

(1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure to, or a special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator for, the first airport of intended landing; and

(2) Appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination of them, indicate the following:

(i) For aircraft other than helicopters. For at least 1 hour before and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation and the visibility will be at least 3 statute miles.

(ii) For helicopters. At the estimated time of arrival and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 1,000 feet above the airport elevation, or at least 400 feet above the lowest applicable approach minima, whichever is higher, and the visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.

 

Palmfish you still need a 30 minute reserve whether or not you require an alternate.

Edited March 13, 2011 by SBuzzkill

[palmfish]

Palmfish you still need a 30 minute reserve whether or not you require an alternate.

 

Yup, you're right. (a)(1) and (3) always apply. Shows how much IFR flying I do these days!

 

That's why I'm not a CFI...

[C of G]

I was wondering who would pick up on the verbiage difference:

 

91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

 

(B ) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft 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, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes.

 

Vs.

 

 

91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.

 

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to—

 

 

For IFR it is not just for planning. You need the reserves until you break out or cancel, IFR. It can be reasonably argued that you may break out within seconds of landing, therefore you do need land with your IFR fuel reserves.

Edited March 13, 2011 by C of G

[SBuzzkill]

What if you are on an IFR flight plan in VFR conditions?

[C of G]

What if you are on an IFR flight plan in VFR conditions?

 

That is a good question. I would think that it doesn't apply as the verbiage says "IFR conditions". That specific phrase has been debated for some time, but it has typically been recognized as IMC, rather than IFR. And of course you can deviate and land much easier whilst VMC, although I could see a stickler saying that IFR is IFR, even if VMC.

 

Directly related, do you need to maintain your VFR cloud clearnce and visibility requirements while doing your IFR cross country in a VFR limited ship? Furthering that, how can we conduct that flight IFR if the aircraft are not certified and limited via the RFM, POH and Type certificate? Speaking of the Robinson and Hughes varieties used to conduct the flight.

Edited March 13, 2011 by C of G

[Gomer Pylot]

For IFR, the minimum fuel is a planning amount, and you don't have to have it at landing, provided there were unforeseen conditions. You have to carry enough fuel to reach your destination, fly an approach, then go to your alternate with the required reserve there, given the forecasts. If no alternate is required, which is seldom in real life, you just have to have enough to reach your destination plus reserve. I've answered these questions innumerable times during checkride orals. The amount of reserve required may be what the FARs state or what the Part 135 ops specs state, depending on the situation, and the ops specs are usually more conservative than the FARs. The entire reason for having a reserve is to keep from running out of fuel in the event of unforecast winds and weather, ATC delays such as holding, etc, and whatever else might come up, like an engine failure requiring flying single-engine at slower speeds than planned. You don't have to land with the required takeoff minimums under either IFR or VFR, they are takeoff requirements, not landing requirements. Of course, if you land with less than minimum fuel, and the authorities find out, you may be asked to explain it, but that should be easy enough to do if you actually had the required reserve at takeoff.

 

Also note that the filed alternate is not where you are required to go if you can't land at your destination. It's a planning factor only, and ATC doesn't even know what alternate you filed, nor do they care. Prudent planning would be to file an alternate that you are certain of reaching, and a good distance from the destination, so that you have plenty of fuel on board at departure, allowing you to go to a closer airport in the event you have to miss at your alternate. In helicopters it's hard to do, though, being usually severely range-limited. Often you just can't carry enough fuel to file anything but the closest legal alternate. In the GOM it's common to use an offshore alternate, because you can't carry enough fuel to get back to an airport. You have to be pretty sure of the weather to do this, though.

[C of G]

For IFR, the minimum fuel is a planning amount, and you don't have to have it at landing, provided there were unforeseen conditions. You have to carry enough fuel to reach your destination, fly an approach, then go to your alternate with the required reserve there, given the forecasts. If no alternate is required, which is seldom in real life, you just have to have enough to reach your destination plus reserve. I've answered these questions innumerable times during checkride orals. The amount of reserve required may be what the FARs state or what the Part 135 ops specs state, depending on the situation, and the ops specs are usually more conservative than the FARs. The entire reason for having a reserve is to keep from running out of fuel in the event of unforecast winds and weather, ATC delays such as holding, etc, and whatever else might come up, like an engine failure requiring flying single-engine at slower speeds than planned. You don't have to land with the required takeoff minimums under either IFR or VFR, they are takeoff requirements, not landing requirements. Of course, if you land with less than minimum fuel, and the authorities find out, you may be asked to explain it, but that should be easy enough to do if you actually had the required reserve at takeoff.

 

Also note that the filed alternate is not where you are required to go if you can't land at your destination. It's a planning factor only, and ATC doesn't even know what alternate you filed, nor do they care. Prudent planning would be to file an alternate that you are certain of reaching, and a good distance from the destination, so that you have plenty of fuel on board at departure, allowing you to go to a closer airport in the event you have to miss at your alternate. In helicopters it's hard to do, though, being usually severely range-limited. Often you just can't carry enough fuel to file anything but the closest legal alternate. In the GOM it's common to use an offshore alternate, because you can't carry enough fuel to get back to an airport. You have to be pretty sure of the weather to do this, though.

 

If that were the case, why the verbiage difference?

[rick1128]

If that were the case, why the verbiage difference?

 

Because the last people in the FAA to look and adjust the regs is FAA Legal. The FIRST thing all law students learn in Shyster Lawyer 101 is that if you write laws or regulations, you need to write these laws and regulations in a manner that ensures future work for your brother and sister shyster lawyers.

[Goldy]

Since we're off topic- I always thought the extra fuel requirements was due to the amount of fuel that leaks out of the 206 drain when you check the sump! Have you ever seen those things leak?

 

Took us half an hour once to get the bleeding to stop so we could take off!

[C of G]

Because the last people in the FAA to look and adjust the regs is FAA Legal. The FIRST thing all law students learn in Shyster Lawyer 101 is that if you write laws or regulations, you need to write these laws and regulations in a manner that ensures future work for your brother and sister shyster lawyers.

 

Agreed. The FAA tends to be very deliberate in their language. "to operate" and "to begin" are two drastically different terms coming from the same FAA legal, yet they remain. Those two terms come up often in the FARs and I would stand by their meanings.

Edited March 14, 2011 by C of G

[SBuzzkill]

Since we're off topic- I always thought the extra fuel requirements was due to the amount of fuel that leaks out of the 206 drain when you check the sump! Have you ever seen those things leak?

 

Took us half an hour once to get the bleeding to stop so we could take off!

 

Every day haha! We weren't allowed to fix it ourselves so we'd have to call MX over to poke at the drain and close it up.

[C of G]

Since we're off topic- I always thought the extra fuel requirements was due to the amount of fuel that leaks out of the 206 drain when you check the sump! Have you ever seen those things leak?

 

Took us half an hour once to get the bleeding to stop so we could take off!

 

Been a little bit since I flew a 206, but I fly an Agusta that I assume has the same electric sump drain, being an Agusta and all. The first thing we do is remove it because of the leak issues. Why make it easy with a mechanical drain?!?!

[iChris]

If that were the case, why the verbiage difference?

 

FAR 91.167 refers the flight planning as outlined in FAA documentation. An aircraft landing with less than the minimum doesn't automatically warrant a violation. Fuel requirements "considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions" are planning issues.

 

FAR 1.1: Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise)

 

Therefore, to "Begin a flight " under VFR or "Operate" in IFR conditions as used in 91.151 and 91.167 are consistent terms (in context) with respect to the use of the aircraft in air navigation under VFR or In IFR Condition.

 

 

Edited March 14, 2011 by iChris

[Gomer Pylot]

Since we're off topic- I always thought the extra fuel requirements was due to the amount of fuel that leaks out of the 206 drain when you check the sump! Have you ever seen those things leak?

 

Took us half an hour once to get the bleeding to stop so we could take off!

That's why you should never touch them. An aircraft flown regularly won't have a problem anyway, and futzing with the drains every day will wear them out. Leave them alone, and they work properly when actually needed, which isn't that often.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Gomer Pylot

[C of G]

iChris,

 

Thanks for the reply. I still feel the phrasing of the reg is odd, being that others are worded similarly, (91.155 (a) Except as provided in paragraph ( of this section and §91.157, no person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is less...

 

or 91.209 Aircraft lights. No person may:

 

(a) During the period from sunset to sunrise ....

 

(1) Operate an aircraft unless it has lighted position lights;)

 

Can we "begin" a flight 500' from a cloud but continue to operate when we get closer due to changing conditions, or begin with our position lights on and turn them off as we continue? Of course I know the answer is no to those, and the other instances of the same phrase. I'm just playing devil's advocate (being that he and I are on a first name basis).

 

I also think it is odd that the question "Is it legal to use the 45 min reserve..." was answered by stating that "You do not need to declare an emergency when you do..." Adding strongly to rick1128's notion of Shyster Lawyer 101. We do not need to delcare an emergency every time a regulation has been broken.

 

Having said all that, I also understand that having less then the required fuel on board does not miraculously open a hole in the clouds and allow you to land.

 

 

 

 

P.S. i Chris, how do you do a search for the General Counsel letters on various subjects? I have a few in my documents folder, but only very few. Thanks....

[iChris]

 

P.S. i Chris, how do you do a search for the General Counsel letters on various subjects? I have a few in my documents folder, but only very few. Thanks....

 

The FAA site below has most, but not all, opinions. You can contact their D.C. office for any opinions not on their site:

 

LINK: Legal Interpretations & Chief Counsel's Opinions

 

 

 

The following hardbound volume set has all chief counsel opinions from 1979 – present, including civil penalty decisions. You can access these volumes in some local libraries and law libraries. Your aviation insurance companies with legal staff may also have a set. If you’re an AOPA member, check they may have a set. It’s an expensive set to own if you’re not doing legal work.

 

LINK: Chief Counsel Interpretations Civil Penalty Decisions