Clean up run.
On sober reflection, I have no quarrel with ‘compliance’ per-se. Indeed, I wonder how many rules one complies with in any given day. From the moment you open the front door there are thousands of rules which govern your life. Add ‘em up, the number will surprise you, consider walking down the street, from home to the car, driving to the airport. You are covered from every angle; from dropping a tissue on the footpath to parking the car. Then there are thousands of ‘small’ rules even within your car insurance policy.
Mostly the rules are based on common sense, litter for example is an expensive, undesirable commodity; the rules don’t stop people bringing cartloads of ‘stuff’ to parks and such, then leaving the remains behind for some other poor sod to clean up.
But simple rules are easiest to ‘comply’ with, particularly when the spirit and intent of the rule is clear. No one wants to run out of fuel and a sensible margin is prudent, particularly at sea or airborne. So clear regulation is required to define the bare minimum required; fair enough. From this a payload can be determined, the numbers are crunched and, verily when the paperwork equals the TOW the flight may be despatched, all legal, neat and tidy. No problem with this except – the extra ton – ‘for Mum and the kids’ is an unwritten by-law, drafted in blood based on experience. This is the one that can land you in strife; even if it saves the day, keeps the numbers legal and the company name intact.
Now a PIC may, without question order extra fuel and many do. There is no legal requirement to explain or apologise for this, even if it means a reduced payload or a tech stop. This is a legal prerogative and it should be beyond question; but is it, truly. It’s the point where law and ‘common’ sense meets both company and peer pressure; the rule of strict compliance used to override the inherent caution of a seasoned crew. To give in to pressure and go with strictly minimum fuel uplift is all the law requires. So the fifth column goes to work, planning begins to add ‘buffers’ to bring the minimum up to an artificial minimum, this may be further modified by creative arithmetic until the point is reached where a balance is struck. This is all counterproductive, a steady bleeding of profit which could be taken by using, with confidence, the minimum allocated and allowing for the odd day where an intuitive ton was loaded inboard, without askance of the PIC.
I’m not using this as a fuel planning exercise, but more to point out that enforced strict compliance, to the last Kg of fuel from both sides can and does create additional expense, pressure, suspicion and risk. The fuel law is clear enough – in a complicated way – it is how the spirit and intent of that law is ‘applied’ which creates the unseen consequences. We have a lot of this ‘risk’ written into our aviation laws, the fact that this can, when pleases, be exploited to suit the regulator on a mission is well established. Clear cut, easily complied with regulation will reduce much of the above and below the line ‘impression’ of compliance, rather than promote it.
We wrote that which is done. We do that which is written; ergo, compliance without subjective, personal interpretation, on a whim.
Sorry ‘V’ just felt a need to explain ‘compliance’ as a variable, malleable commodity rather than a fixed asset.
I know, I know; back to my knitting? Right.
On sober reflection, I have no quarrel with ‘compliance’ per-se. Indeed, I wonder how many rules one complies with in any given day. From the moment you open the front door there are thousands of rules which govern your life. Add ‘em up, the number will surprise you, consider walking down the street, from home to the car, driving to the airport. You are covered from every angle; from dropping a tissue on the footpath to parking the car. Then there are thousands of ‘small’ rules even within your car insurance policy.
Mostly the rules are based on common sense, litter for example is an expensive, undesirable commodity; the rules don’t stop people bringing cartloads of ‘stuff’ to parks and such, then leaving the remains behind for some other poor sod to clean up.
But simple rules are easiest to ‘comply’ with, particularly when the spirit and intent of the rule is clear. No one wants to run out of fuel and a sensible margin is prudent, particularly at sea or airborne. So clear regulation is required to define the bare minimum required; fair enough. From this a payload can be determined, the numbers are crunched and, verily when the paperwork equals the TOW the flight may be despatched, all legal, neat and tidy. No problem with this except – the extra ton – ‘for Mum and the kids’ is an unwritten by-law, drafted in blood based on experience. This is the one that can land you in strife; even if it saves the day, keeps the numbers legal and the company name intact.
Now a PIC may, without question order extra fuel and many do. There is no legal requirement to explain or apologise for this, even if it means a reduced payload or a tech stop. This is a legal prerogative and it should be beyond question; but is it, truly. It’s the point where law and ‘common’ sense meets both company and peer pressure; the rule of strict compliance used to override the inherent caution of a seasoned crew. To give in to pressure and go with strictly minimum fuel uplift is all the law requires. So the fifth column goes to work, planning begins to add ‘buffers’ to bring the minimum up to an artificial minimum, this may be further modified by creative arithmetic until the point is reached where a balance is struck. This is all counterproductive, a steady bleeding of profit which could be taken by using, with confidence, the minimum allocated and allowing for the odd day where an intuitive ton was loaded inboard, without askance of the PIC.
I’m not using this as a fuel planning exercise, but more to point out that enforced strict compliance, to the last Kg of fuel from both sides can and does create additional expense, pressure, suspicion and risk. The fuel law is clear enough – in a complicated way – it is how the spirit and intent of that law is ‘applied’ which creates the unseen consequences. We have a lot of this ‘risk’ written into our aviation laws, the fact that this can, when pleases, be exploited to suit the regulator on a mission is well established. Clear cut, easily complied with regulation will reduce much of the above and below the line ‘impression’ of compliance, rather than promote it.
We wrote that which is done. We do that which is written; ergo, compliance without subjective, personal interpretation, on a whim.
Sorry ‘V’ just felt a need to explain ‘compliance’ as a variable, malleable commodity rather than a fixed asset.
I know, I know; back to my knitting? Right.