Peter wrote:
I don’t think carrying cans of avgas in the plane is the legal issue. I would be surprised if the usual airline regs for carrying stuff really apply to GA – even if some people will read them as thus.
Well, it depends… The EASA rules are quite clear.
NCO.GEN.140 Transport of dangerous goods
(a) The transport of dangerous goods by air shall be conducted in accordance with Annex 18 to the Chicago Convention as last amended and amplified by the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Doc 9284-AN/905), including its supplements and any other addenda or corrigenda
(b) Dangerous goods shall only be transported by the operator approved in accordance with Annex V (Part-SPA), Subpart G, to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012
Fortunately there are enough alleviations that it doesn’t really affect most of us.
except when:
(1) they are not subject to the Technical Instructions in accordance with Part 1 of those Instructions; or
(2) they are carried by passengers or the pilot-in-command, or are in baggage, in accordance with Part 8 of the Technical Instructions;
(3) they are carried by operators of ELA2 aircraft.
(f) Reasonable quantities of articles and substances that would otherwise be classified as dangerous goods and that are used to facilitate flight safety, where carriage aboard the aircraft is advisable to ensure their timely availability for operational purposes, shall be considered authorised under paragraph 1;2.2.1(a) of the Technical Instructions. This is regardless of whether or not such articles and substances are required to be carried or intended to be used in connection with a particular flight.
The packing and loading on board of the above-mentioned articles and substances shall be performed, under the responsibility of the pilot in command, in such a way as to minimise the risks posed to crew members, passengers, cargo or the aircraft during aircraft operations.
A_A, thanks for posting that.
I think that Part 8 of the Technical Instructions infers a limit of 60 litres (in Jerrycans?), but exemption (3) is the relevant one for most of GA.
I wonder why ELA2 and not ELA1? Bigger planes can carry hazardous items more safely 
A local used to run a bit of a “fuel tanker service” from his airfield in Northern Ireland, he’d fly with about 25 jerrycans in the back of a Cherokee 235!
He told me once he wasn’t worried about the avgas because he knew how much it weighed, it was the lobsters because he didn’t have an exact weight for them and if he overran the end of the runway the CAA would ask him difficult questions. With the jerry cans of avgas (he always had at least some on any trip) I thought to myself the CAA would have to be asking them poshumously after a serious overrun! He also used to carry live sheep in the back of that plane. It was just another one of his farm vehicles.
Sadly he died of a brain tumour a few years ago, and we all miss him.
Peter wrote:
I wonder why ELA2 and not ELA1?
ELA2 includes ELA1.
How does one use a fuel totaliser when flying with a ferry tank?
In most installations you cannot set the totaliser to more than the standard tank capacity.
Peter wrote:
How does one use a fuel totaliser when flying with a ferry tank?
In most installations you cannot set the totaliser to more than the standard tank capacity.
My fuel computer can be reprogrammed fairly easily for total fuel capacity. I had to reprogram it several times until we figured out the actual useable fuel quantity of my plane…
Is 45% range a useful figure? has anyone flown that slow with sole benefit to max range? is it good for engines to fly +12h at 45% power?
I have done max range at 65% in various aircraft but I am wondering if the hassle of going 55%-45% is worth it for extra 300nm?
Ibra wrote:
Is 45% range a useful figure? has anyone flown that slow with sole benefit to max range? is it good for engines to fly +12h at 45% power?I have done max range at 65% in various aircraft but I am wondering if the hassle of going 55%-45% is worth it for extra 300nm?
@Ibra, depends on the mission, does it? For example, flying over body of water. :) Or over a country where landing is a paperwork hassle.
Another example – you have to land at a very expensive airport to refuel.
How long it takes to perform a technical stop is another concern – it might be quicker to fly slower than to land an refuel.
@lbra it depends. My own experience is that a retractable gear aircraft is reasonably on the front side of the power curve that 45% economy long range is approximating Carson speed. A fixed gear light turbulence is likely to knock you into behind the power curve territory and then not a very efficient power setting as you struggle to get back to Carson speed. With minor down drafts you are probably not efficient at all!
On the Bonanza, Continental helpfully does not like you going below 2300 RPM on the IO-520 so although POH publishes 45% power settings, in practice you are operating at 65% unless above 9,000 and full throttle, and then % power will reduce with altitude.
My own preference is that these big bore air cooled engines like to be operated at 65% or 75% power.
My SOP on the Bonanza is 600NM calm wind maximum range using 65% and VFR planning (one hour reserve). The book says more range but block planning and using simple round numbers helps with my planning. 500NM IFR range assuming destination is comfortably above minima and not requiring two alternates. I don’t despatch if destination is low IFR requiring two alternates.
