I just take a couple water bottles. tiny opening (:)) which never had to use, but it’s always there.
I also tell the passengers that the little window you can open is to release the pee bottle in case you need it. Usually makes them laugh (useful when some are tense, 1st time flying small plane)
I know a guy who peed into a thermos flask 
A pilot friend told me a story about a longer flight in a C172 where he simply had to go and pee. Having no “Travel John” he wisely thought that the plastic bag the vests are stored in could be a smart idea. Unfortunately the bag he used had tiny holes in it. Yikes.
Also recommended by Prince Harry
Peter wrote:
unless it isn’t because you have tons of fuel and a big enough bottle to pee into
I’ll never take off anymore without that:
TravelJohn
I had my kind of experience before
High altitude (FL160) cruise 32 L/hr.
Mid (FL100) cruise 40L/hr
Low level (say 3000ft) cruise 43L/hr
All for 140kt TAS.
Peter wrote:
And I thought I was tight, landing at LDSP with 45 litres – the lowest I have ever done. But there are normally loads of alternates down the Adriatic
Well, your fuel flow is higher than mine. Normal Cruise is at 37 lph and eco cruise at 31 lph. Still, 45 liters would be about what to tanks dry? 1 hr? With 30 liters, I could have gone back to Altenrhein if they had made me, but as I said, I asked them before passing Altenrhein.
Yes, a totalizer is very useful indeed.
It’s a question of common sense too. Going with a planning which takes close to the max range into an area which is full of runways to land on is much less of an issue than going someplace where you have 100 NM to the next suitable diversion port. Yet it does also not make sense to go over the top and plan fixed amounts which cut your range in half.
We landed at ZRH with about 35 liters remaining
And I thought I was tight, landing at LDSP with 45 litres – the lowest I have ever done. But there are normally loads of alternates down the Adriatic.
My next two lowest ones were LGMT-LDZA and the following day LDZA-EGKA which coincidentally both ended with 53 litres.
No way would I even think of doing any of this without a ~ 1% accurate fuel totaliser. I know of one TB20 pilot who did EGKB-LGKR, landing with 23 litres, but without a totaliser so he could have equally ditched some 100nm short.
NPA 2016-06 (A, B and C) introduce the phraseology into the EASA AIr Ops regulation. I pondered long and hard as to whether the concept of final reserve fuel, “MINIMUM FUEL”, and “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL” make sense for non-commercial ops in light aircraft, but in the end was convinced by the paradigm that seems to work well for CAT and is understood by ATC.
The difference proposed in Part-NCO (sub-NPA C) compared to the ICAO standard is that the pilot is permitted to set their own level of FRF using a risk-based set of criteria. Recommendations are made in AMC.
JasonC’s and what_next’s Citations don’t get as much discretion in Part-NCC, but we did correct the anomaly that while a Citation operating under Part-CAT uses a FRF of 30 mins, under Part-NCC it must use 45 mins at present!
LondonMike wrote:
It would be interesting to see what JasonC’s fuel planning looks like with his aircraft being considerably faster than a single piston aircraft.
Here is an example from EGTK to LEBL with LEGE as alternate. Broadly speaking I would never plan to arrive at my destination with less than 600lbs which in this case is covering contingency, alternates and a final reserve.
