Irex Question

[Jay Bo]

Just finished of my 4th Bob Tait cyberexam and have a question that i could find the answer for.

An aerdrome within a class c ctr has ops requirements for 30min weather and 30min traffic holding. An aircraft is overhead for landing, with only 30mins holding fuel in addition to a fixed reserve of 45mins. If the nearest alternate is 40mins flying time and the aircraft is advised by atc that an approach is not available for the next 30mins due to traffic the pilot should

1. advise atc that you can hold provided you are given priority for an approach should the weather deteriorate
2. proceed immediately to an alternate
3. declare an emergency
4. hold until the weather deteriorates and then request a priority approach

I did choose 2 for my answer which is wrong. I did fine in the jepps "that a pic arriving at a destination without the notified traffic holding fuel will not be accorded priority approach unless the pilot declares an emergency"
So i am leaning towards answer 3. Is this correct?

However i have heard RPT that are put into hold for extended amounts of time do get a priority approach without declaring an emergency

thanks

[rocket66]

Jat Bo

Your question reminds me of when I sat my IREX and it stumped me also. Without getting off my arse to find the reference the answer is from memory it is "declare an emergency".

I personally havent done a whole lot of IFR flying but I think you may find a lot of pilots will carry a little more holding/alternate fuel above what is required operationally on days where the wx is a bit ordinary to combat just this situation. Company SOP's will also set their own standards with this topic.

Remember its much easier to squirt in some extra fuel rather than fill out the bloody paperwork after you declare a fuel emergency!

Happy flying


rocket:ok:

[Skynews]

1. ATC may give you some priority out of the goodness of their hearts but not required to without a PAN call. So NO.
2. You don't have sufficient fuel to divert to your alternate with reserves in tact? So NO.
4. Same as 1, no such thing.

3. is the correct answer and yes, you will have some explaining to do if it happens for real. And there would be paperwork. You will NOT get away with making a PAN without explaining yourself.

[cficare]

"senarios" are always hard too be clear.....

The answer is 3....no question.....and probably no paperwork.

ATC may have traffic holding....they certainly change the order if an emergency is declared.

[The Green Goblin]

Think practically what you would do.

Are you going to PLAN to depart for the alternate without the required fuel? NO

Are you going to hold like Avianca Flight 52 waiting for the wx/traffic to facilitate your arrival? NO

Are you going to be sucking the buttons off your seat cause your butt cheeks are puckered up nice and tight? YES

Are you going to declare an emergency? DAMN STRAIGHT!

Look for common sense in these scenarios and do what you would actually do operationally.

[apache]

unforutnately, the answer is not "what options do you have" or "what would you have done prior to departure" .... but "what would you do should you arrive overhead with this scenario".


Wholly unreallistic, but, what the airlines want now is a pilot QUALIFIED and LEGALLY able to be in the RHS. the above scenario is UNLIKELY to happen very often, therefore experience is NOT REQUIRED in airlines of today.

Just do a bit of research about the fuel policies of a certain regional airline who dictated that "pilots who carry more than 100kg of fuel in excess of flight planned minimum fuel from an outport will be asked to explain their actions" ..... and then had an aircraft have to turn around and return to departure airport for more fuel, rather than carry an extra 3-400kg at MINIMAL cost for holding cos Sydney experienced a severe TS which is prone to happen in summer months. LACK of experience by the captain as well as bullying pressure from the company in the end cost them $$$$

[Counter-rotation]

One of my biggest gripes is how exam questions are often, actually not very practical. Having said that, I did study with Bob Tait in person for my CPL, and I cannot imagine a better instructor or general top bloke. (Was it Bob's question, or a sample CASA question, I wonder?)

So it's multiple choice format now - thus I advocate (when doing these type of exams) the use of a process of elimation to find the answer (or at least improve my odds for a guess :})

Several replies above have done that, and yes I agree - 3 is it, if you ask me. I honestly find that by thinking practically, you can "trick" yourself into the wrong answer. That is not the candidate's fault, either - the bloke who wrote the question is sometimes more interested in setting a trap, than testing your knowledge! This is my pet hate with these types of questions... Be aware of it, know your "enemy", so to speak, and you will improve your marks :ok:

Good luck,
CR.

[swh]

You have arrived at the airport with less fuel than is required. Therefore - pan call, priority approach and landing.

I know this will sound somewhat silly, but IREX is somewhat of an english/airlaw exam. No Australian regulation states a requirement for the minimum fuel to be present at the time of landing (however it is specificed overseas by many countries). The only requirement is that sufficient fuel to be carried for the flight to complete safely.

CAR 220 and CAR 228 do not state a "fixed reserve" is required at the end of a flight, that is normally set out in the operations manual, or in the case of private operations it is up to the PIC.

From AIP ENR 13.1, when in class C airspace, the 30 minutes would be the expected landing time, so you would expect to be landing with fixed reserve intact.

Without knowing what the minimum fuel is required by the operator at the end of the flight, it is unknown if they would be landing with less than the required minimum safe amount of fuel (i.e. some operators require an alternate for all flights), and many operators do not see INTER/TEMPO/Traffic holding as being cumulative, just take the most limiting, as the INTER and Traffic are both 30 minutes, that is all you need. Therefore a declaration of urgency is not required.

Interesting choice of words for the question, the indication of 45 minutes fixed reserve would tend to point to a piston aircraft, and not carrying the fuel for an alternate would indicate that an alternate was not required as the 30 minutes of holding was okay (i.e. an INTER or buffer period).

From CAAP 234

fixed fuel reserve means an amount of fuel, expressed as a period of time holding at 1 500 feet above an aerodrome at standard atmospheric conditions, that may be used for unplanned manoeuvring in the vicinity of the aerodrome at which it is proposed to land, and that would normally be retained in the aircraft until the final landing.

Without specifically being told that 45 minutes is required for safety of flight at the time of landing, when the notification of weather and traffic holding was given, with worst case landing delay of 60 minutes, with 75 minutes of fuel onboard, the aircraft does have sufficient fuel onboard to legally to continue to hold.

Practically if I say flying to MEL and at the planning stage I did not need an alternate. When inbound was told by ATC to hold at altitude for Wx and traffic delays (like unforecast fog), I would seriously be looking at diverting to SYD/ADL as the fuel required from that point would be less than the 40-50 minutes to from the missed approach to SYD/ADL.

In my view, declaring an emergency when you have another safe option available is just lining up another hole in the swiss cheese.

[Skynews]

I disagree with SWH,

First, declaring an emergency is no big deal, it affords you the priority you require, probably some paperwork to explain why you needed to declare a Pan, that's it. It's safe, it's sensible.

As for the intention of fixed reserve, I suspect, and i admit it is not clear, that the unplanned maneuvering is to cover the case when you arrive with reserves in tact, and from my experience, only "some airline ops" have an alternate requirement, and have to maneouvre, say a missed approach for traffic, not stable etc, where you start to burn that fixed reseRve although that would not have been the case if you landed as planned.

[BoatsNHos]

I know this is an old thread, but for what it's worth I got a slightly modified version of this question on my IREX yesterday.

The only difference was that the alternate was 30 minutes away (inclusive of variable reserve), making the correct answer proceed immediately to the alternate.

A vague memory of reading this discussion had me second guessing whether I was missing something, but I eventually settled on the right answer.

[Di_Vosh]

Exactly!

I remember that IREX question in the Bob Tait book and the correct answer is "3".

In the real IREX exam the question was as you put, and that changes the correct answer to "2".

DIVOSH!

[Checkboard]

a certain regional airline who dictated that "pilots who carry more than 100kg of fuel in excess of flight planned minimum fuel from an outport will be asked to explain their actions" .....
Note - this is not "bullying" by an airline. Any professional should be able to explain exactly what fuel is on board, and why it is there. It only becomes "bullying" if the company wants to argue about the amount - and I have never heard that.