Standard practice is to check whether you are diverting to the alternate at top of descent, ideally the alternate not being downstream of destination, but on the way to the destination.
Now it is not unheard of that some operators in effect ‘planned’ to divert to an alternate downstream to make the fuel plan kosher. I think a KA200 might make Greece, or possibly Turkey, non stop with prevailing winds using this ruse.
Peter wrote:
IFR requires dest, alt, and then 45 mins.
You’re also required to take into account possibly extra fuel needed for possible reroutings and delays caused e.g. by traffic and weather – NCO.OP.125(b).
With an IAP+missed at dest, I think.
The ops rules are not specific on this point. They can be interpreted as not requiring IAP+missed fuel if, at the destination, you don’t even attempt one approach unless it is obvious that you will make it.
Practically speaking, the flight to the alternate is an immediate “mayday situation” unless you actually have enough fuel to go somewhere else.
This is not an emergency. It is a situation where you should announce “minimum fuel” to ATC. “Minimum fuel” means that you are committed to land at a specific airport and that any additional delays may force you to declare an emergency.
You are in an emergency and should announce “mayday fuel” to ATC if you find yourself in a situation where you are unable to land with the necessary final reserve (45 min) fuel remaining.
This is not nitpicking from my side but how you are expected to communicate with ATC to give them a correct understanding of your situation. Ref. SERA.11012.
Practically speaking, anybody doing this will have a Golze ADL and not get anywhere near this in the first place
True dat.
Peter wrote:
IFR requires dest, alt, and then 45 mins.With an IAP+missed at dest, I think.
Practically speaking, the flight to the alternate is an immediate “mayday situation” unless you actually have enough fuel to go somewhere else.
I always plan for a personal contingency as well. (which is 25L or 30 mins in the Comanche) on top of the 45mins (after landing in EASA land) – Basically you need 1.5hours of ’’extra’’ fuel minimum if you have an alternate which is close by and guaranteed to be in good conditions. That’s the minima. I believe the difference between FAA and EASA is that there is no minima required in FAA land to have 45 mins onboard after you have actually landed? (but I don’t have an FAA license so that is just my understanding)
IFR requires dest, alt, and then 45 mins.
With an IAP+missed at dest, I think.
Practically speaking, the flight to the alternate is an immediate “mayday situation” unless you actually have enough fuel to go somewhere else.
Practically speaking, anybody doing this will have a Golze ADL and not get anywhere near this in the first place 
Isn’t the 45mins the minimum fuel you must have on board when you land, otherwise you are Mayday fuel?
The thing is… 45 mins is nothing. It is 45 mins of the pilot sh**ting himself wondering if the next place will be fogged in also. It is ok in a 500kt airliner, especially with CAT3.
In European GA you need much more reserves. You need something like 2hrs’ fuel when arriving at the primary destination, unless the wx is assured and there is a “crash alternate” (to be used when a crash has closed the primary airport) nearby.
So a plane with say 500nm to empty tanks (e.g. a PA28-161) is good for perhaps 300nm max. And without a fuel totaliser, more like 200nm max, because nobody really knows what is in the tanks and what the fuel flow is.
Range is the best speed mod
skydriller wrote:
I keep hearing about aeroplanes with 4, 6 or 8 hrs endurance – but how many people actually want to fly for that long in a small GA SEP?
As some of us on here prove quite regularly (Peter’s exploit last week to be one notable one) I think there are many of us. You do save a lot of time, hassle and money when using the plane for more than just the ’’flying’’ aspect I find when you have 8.5 hours of endurance. Flying IFR, there are the 45 mins required, the fuel for the alternate(s) etc to take into account. I can (and do) quite regularly fly from LFHN to LEMH etc without having to worry about having to take on fuel (at 3.5 EUR vs 1.60 in LFHN) and without having to worry about leaving LEMH on time to be back home before dark. (no light in LFHN) on a nice weekend. You may not necessarily fly the 6 or 8 hours every time in 1 go, but you can fly 6.5 going and back and still have 2 hours of fuel in the tank and a risk averse attitude about fuel…
skydriller wrote:
I keep hearing about aeroplanes with 4, 6 or 8 hrs endurance – but how many people actually want to fly for that long in a small GA SEP?
When all my flying was in the TB10 (5 hours endurance) I thought similar because my ‘enjoyment endurance’, especially with no autopilot, was about 3.5 hours.
However it’s become apparent to me that it’s not necessarily about intending to use it all.
When I started flying the Vagabond (2.5 hours endurance) I thought no big deal, that’s fine. But actually I’m far more comfortably landing with 1 hour’s fuel remaining than with 30 minutes, and if you factor that in then the max leg is 1.5 hours which is not very far at Vagabond speeds! Thus it’s not so much the length of the leg, but the desire (if not necessarily the absolute need) to refuel after each leg – i.e fuelling downroute on a trip of any length at all. And then of course the Vagabond is about visiting strips that might not have fuel…
But with day trips in the TB10 one generally carried enough fuel for the whole thing.
skydriller wrote:
I keep hearing about aeroplanes with 4, 6 or 8 hrs endurance – but how many people actually want to fly for that long in a small GA SEP?
I doubt I enjoy flying that much but good endurance/range is still the best defense against weather or refuel glitches
Also you always have the option to land stretch legs or continue without refuelling
I landed at Cherbourg once with barely 1h in the tanks, airport was unattended and self-service Total fuel pump was not working (nothing in Notams), I spent 1h deciding between Jersey & Granville, I went for Jersey but it was outgoing only
There is also how fast it goes to keep range under winds? something with +500NM range in 60kts winds and 1.5h reserve is ideal
The early models of the Cessna 180/182/185 and Bonanzas had only 55 USG useable and 44 USG useable, respectively. It is as if the designers of these types assumed that they should do what it says on the tin: four seater baggage and full fuel. This gave the aircraft around four hours endurance with VFR reserves, which the designers in their wisdom, correct I think, is the most passengers might tolerate in a small aircraft.
Over time tanks got bigger, 1970’s Chevy Impala styling arrived, and these types got lardier and lardier. The useable fuel increased to over five hours or more and payload decreased. A straight tail 182 weighed 1600 lbs empty, its modern descendant waddles in at close to 2,100 lbs. An early modern Bonanza might weigh 1900 lbs empty, on a later V tail it is not unusual to find some of them on the scales at 2400 lbs plus. The $1MM G36, putatively a spacious six seater, has around 1,000 lbs useful load, not much more than a Warrior.
The backcountry Super Cub and 180 crowd are rediscovering the cult of lower lbs/HP and an early 182 might command $115k, up nearly 200% from a few years ago.
On the question, I would go to the most convenient airport within reason. €150 handling might make me reconsider, but the taxi ride from the cheaper grass strip may cost as much, plus the inconvenience etc This is in the context of practical travelling not a Sunday day trip.
