PDA

View Full Version : Minimum Fuel - such is CHIRP


Natstrackalpha
7th Apr 2012, 17:32
ICAO - should enforce a law which states that any airliner Captain declaring minimum fuel - or indeed a fuel emergency - will not have any retribution (or in case I have that word wrong) - their a---s kicked (unless of course the airline makes a habit of it.)

Just like in the world of "Go-Around" those sacred words are whispered and acted upon and yet, they still get a slight interrogation "what was the reason for your go-around" with a slightly angry tone - yes they do, so don`t argue please

The more obstacles we take out of the equation of "the proverbial is about to hit the fan" the easier life will become without there being any inkling of a tendency to avoid the situation in fear of some over the carpet outcome.
I.e., tell it like it is. Before you come screaming in to comment on prior preparation and planning, etc., etc., etc - "good airmanship is not getting into situations requiring good airmanship" forget it - we have heard it all before. This is for the if, then, when it happens, then what??? Scenario. If the situation can be justified and no fault lies with the crew - then total b-----ks - because of the word If.

In situations where there must be a call, then, there must be a call. Taking second thoughts, complicated what ifs OUT of the equation would be a good thing!

People, like those who burn around in 330s 747s and the like have enough on their plate without having to apply a little . . finesse, savoir fare to avoid a poo fight.

You all know what I am talking about, so please, don`t get brainy or defensive, creative or imaginative.

ATC do not have crystal balls, and yet, there are some controllers with more savvy than others - especially with local base pilots. ATC will always do their damndest to help all the time - as will other aircraft.

There should be NO extra potential pressure of any sort - obstructing a pilot`s intention to declare a fuel emergency - neither from the Authorities or indeed from company.

True, a serious briefing down at the pub with pilots and controllers or indeed a sober visit to the control tower goes a long way towards greater cohesion and understanding between the ATC units and pilots - these little get togethers are frequent and often and good.

Also, there should be a civil law prohibiting bozos with handhelds who immediately phone the nearest infested news team to create panic and mayhem all over the world just because a Captain had announced to a Controller that their fuel state was approaching healthy reserves - the essence of a fantastcially good pilot is to keep these reserves thus healthy and intact - until touchdown.

ICAO - the FAA and the CAA (if they are watching) should get real, upon real.
and, know that sometimes in the realm of "look at what the winds doing now" scenario - coupled with "loads! of traffic tonight due to this that and the other tonight - IT sometimes hits the fan."

Naturally, all us lot, i.e., pilots, despatchers, flight planners, navigation officers and many more not mentioned here, do their darndest to ensure that every eventuality is properly catered for - ahead of the game.

So, when the marbels do fall out of your pocket - for whatever reason, be it Murphy`s Law, God or Satan or simply an unfortunate situation which could not easily be . . rectified/saved then that moment is not the time to start having to consider outcomes which are b--ger all to do with the flight situation at that time.

"Hey, howz Joe?" "He got fired" "Why?" "they said he was surplus to requirements - but, in fact they got p----d off because he declared a fuel emergency, had the authorities on his --s and the press phoning him all the time, looking for an exagerated scoop"

"Are you the Captain of this aircraft - " "Er, Yes I am" Did you just call a fuel, sorry, my pass, Civil Aviation Authority, did you just declare a fuel emergency?" . . .

"Hello John, Derek here, would you like to come to my office in the morning - just had the CAA on the phone - appears you had to declare a fuel emergency - leave? Sorry it won`t take long, you`ll miss your flight to go on holiday - don`t worry, we`ll fix you up with another one, it`ll all be part of the same package"

If you start covering precautionery emergency calls with undiluted sewage of worry and potential eventualities, then you dilute the effectiveness of the decision timely made and executed. In which case - do not blame the pilot, for it be on your head, not his, if things go bump in the night

chubbychopper
7th Apr 2012, 18:25
I have a feeling that nothing on your wish list is likely to happen soon, if ever. Also, I don't see any valid reason for not having some kind of stewards enquiry after declaring a fuel emergency - after all, if it was as a result of events that could not be forecast or expected, you won't have any reason to be concerned, will you?

The only time I sailed close to the wind in this respect was when I realised in advance that I might face the eventuality = my own stupid fault!

Piltdown Man
7th Apr 2012, 21:04
Why fix what's not broken? I've not heard of anyone getting getting grief for declaring a "Mayday" when they expect to be landing with less than final holding fuel. I've heard a few controllers giving out grief (quite rightly) when people whinge about flying on minimum fuel, but that's all.

PM

J.O.
7th Apr 2012, 21:45
Just like in the world of "Go-Around" those sacred words are whispered and acted upon and yet, they still get a slight interrogation "what was the reason for your go-around" with a slightly angry tone - yes they do, so don`t argue please.

When you are incorrect, you must expect an argument. Maybe it's like that where you work but it's not like that in many places. When I was responsible for following up on ASRs, the only reason for follow-up was if the ASR wasn't clear on the reason for the go-around. And in cases where an unstable approach or weather concerns led to a go-around, the crew got a thank you note from the boss.

Get me some traffic
7th Apr 2012, 22:38
Many years ago at a BALPA/GATCO Forum discussing airport capacity. An erudite fleet captain with a very respected airline stated that in a capacity strapped situation if there wasn't the occaisional go-around, ATC weren't trying hard enough. I believe he was right. We are all human and will make mistakes. The system in which we work must be robust enough to accommodate these mistakes but should not penalise honest errors. If there are a number of similar errors the system must be changed to eradicate these errors.

IcePack
7th Apr 2012, 22:44
J. O. Why the heck would you file an ASR for a go around?
That is obtuse pressure in itself. Granted if it was a tech/safety issue ok.

PEI_3721
7th Apr 2012, 23:03
Nats, the problem is not the lack of ICAO recommendations or pseudo legal protection; it’s a lack of safety culture in the particular organisation.
A low fuel state or any other non-normal operation is an opportunity for learning; what factors contributed to the event, when, why, how. Dismissing or punishing crews for such events represent a basic lack of understanding of human factors and safety principles.
There are plenty of requirements for SMS, company safety governance, etc; use these to bring errant operators into line. CHIRP maybe, ASR/MOR with a request for follow up, and a thorough public investigation; even AAIB/NTSB on safety grounds – that’s poor SMS/safety culture, not low fuel.

Why file an ASR for a go around? Your choice; is there anything to be learned from it, share info with others, safety data, even operational efficiency stats – the results of the GA were safe, but it costs. Understand the reasons why – save money. If the crew exercised good judgment, then that’s the cost of safety – a good investment, nice to know.

Agaricus bisporus
8th Apr 2012, 08:43
Fella, first and foremost, ICAO can neither make laws not ensure that anyone adheres to those that individual states do choose to make. It certainly isn't a subject that any normal democracy would make a law about anyway. Get over it!

Second, on go-arounds. Never been criticised for one myself, nor ever heard of anyone who was. The biggest bollocking I ever got was for going to the CP and apologising for doing a G/A due to my completely misjudging an approach. He told me in no uncertain terms that he "Fekkin well pays me to do fekkin go-arounds" and not to fekking apologise for doing so. He was right - and a good lesson was learned. Any company that does as you suggest needs to bave a Flight Safety report filed against them for creating pressure to enter hazardous situations.

Finally, a poster above wonders why an ASR would be filed for a G/A. Some companys require one, simple as that. I don't agree with that policy (my co. is one of them) and I usually write a single short sentence to let them know I don't approve, "G/A due traffic on runway". It's just arse covering bullshine for one of the crowd of gutless list-tickers in the shed full of our list ticking "managers". Means nothing, it's just an annoying waste if my time but it's their train set.

4Greens
8th Apr 2012, 09:10
Old Qantas story. Captain dragged in for dicussion on why he had landed at Heathrow with a huge amount of fuel remaining. He replied that it was that figure because he couldn't get any more on!

shon7
8th Apr 2012, 10:00
a culture of accountability is a good thing to have. whether its airlines or banks.

Being questioned on something does not bother me. If I had a valid reason to carry more fuel, I indicate the same and its the end of the discussion.

If I'm carrying excess fuel for other ulterior motives or to make a point to management - well then obviously it will be questioned.

Cough
8th Apr 2012, 10:13
ASR's have to be filed for every G/A at my mob...

Emoclew
8th Apr 2012, 10:59
At my co. the rule is all approaches are made to a G/A and briefed for. Only if safe to do so, is the decision made to "Land" at DH.
No report, written or otherwise is made for a G/A. If the approach is outside SOP's, Ops Monitoring will pick it up anyway....

Natstrackalpha
8th Apr 2012, 11:20
A low fuel state or any other non-normal operation is an opportunity for learning; what factors contributed to the event, when, why, how. Dismissing or punishing crews for such events represent a basic lack of understanding of human factors and safety principles.

That is my point = I agree with you.

Natstrackalpha
8th Apr 2012, 11:25
So, in the heat of a filthy approach where the devil himself has come out to play, don`t for get the failed engine and the changes of runways due to changes in wind direction, then call your fuel emergency with a happy heart and a clear mind without stopping to think or evaluate whether or not this was your fault.

Natstrackalpha
8th Apr 2012, 11:26
When you are incorrect, you must expect an argument.

Oh, I`m incorrect . . so sorreeeee . . .! Cause 0 - Retribution 7 ! well done!

Natstrackalpha
8th Apr 2012, 11:32
Old Qantas story. Captain dragged in for dicussion on why he had landed at Heathrow with a huge amount of fuel remaining. He replied that it was that figure because he couldn't get any more on!

Love him!!

"The only time you have too much fuel on board (notwithstanding perf) is when the aircraft is on fire!"

Natstrackalpha
8th Apr 2012, 11:36
If I'm carrying excess fuel for other ulterior motives or to make a point to management - well then obviously it will be questioned.

That, would be purley daft and pointless. Mr. Hi Viz. However: Retribution 2- Cause 0

well done!

Natstrackalpha
8th Apr 2012, 11:58
Nats, the problem is not the lack of ICAO recommendations or pseudo legal protection; it’s a lack of safety culture in the particular organisation.
A low fuel state or any other non-normal operation is an opportunity for learning; what factors contributed to the event, when, why, how. Dismissing or punishing crews for such events represent a basic lack of understanding of human factors and safety principles.
There are plenty of requirements for SMS, company safety governance, etc; use these to bring errant operators into line. CHIRP maybe, ASR/MOR with a request for follow up, and a thorough public investigation; even AAIB/NTSB on safety grounds – that’s poor SMS/safety culture, not low fuel.

Why file an ASR for a go around? Your choice; is there anything to be learned from it, share info with others, safety data, even operational efficiency stats – the results of the GA were safe, but it costs. Understand the reasons why – save money. If the crew exercised good judgment, then that’s the cost of safety – a good investment, nice to know.


If only everyone thought like PEI 3271 - we could all, live, fly and breathe!!

Maybe, there is hope. . . . . .Retrib 0 - Cause 20

Happy Easter Everyone!!

BOAC
8th Apr 2012, 13:03
I just cannot see what all the excitement is about - 6 recent breathless posts about it - had a bad trip or two? Companies who drive for minimum fuel uplifts NEED to know why it went 'wrong', so an investigation is surely to everyone's benefit and might shift their policy slightly?.

Regarding ASRs for whatever - as Cough says, the professionals just do what the company ask. If you have not screwed up, brilliant. If you have, then........................

What was the relevance of the reference to CHIRP by the way?

Natstrackalpha
8th Apr 2012, 16:57
What was the relevance of the reference to CHIRP by the way?

...what . . so you can attempt to diminish the value of that too . . .?

What is this pre-BA stonking?

Dick Deadeye
8th Apr 2012, 17:51
Natstrackalpha

What on earth are you on about?

What is this pre-BA stonking?

Retrib 0 - Cause 20

Minimum Fuel - such is CHIRP

Some experienced pilots have already replied to you, including BOAC who is one of the more experienced pilots on this forum.

Perhaps, if you bothered to try and explain your point rather more clearly than you have done, or reply more coherently in response to a question, you might get a better response.

It would also appear that English may not be your first language, so perhaps you're not deliberately trying to be obnoxious in your postings, but if you could avoid coming out with juvenile comments such as

...what . . so you can attempt to diminish the value of that too . . .?

Oh, I`m incorrect . . so sorreeeee . . .!

Chubby chopper sir

yes they do, so don`t argue please

Cause 0 - Retribution 7 ! well done!

forget it - we have heard it all before

then perhaps you might not come across as quite such an ignorant and arrogant person as you currently appear to be.

Something tells me however than you won't listen!

Natstrackalpha
15th Apr 2012, 09:03
Am not giving you any of my sweeties now `cos you`re horrid!