Emirates A380 (EK 241) to Toronto went around in Toronto due to wind shear and decided to divert to Ottawa.

CYYZ 012000Z 09017G25KT 12SM VCSH OVC007 13/12 A2964 RMK SF8 SLP040

The weather in Toronto has been really bad for the whole day and the approach was made after few holdings on R/W 15R. It went around at short finals due to windshear warning (as told to ATC). After the GA, they requested a R/W 05 approach which was denied by ATC. Then the diversion to Ottawa was declared and was given the radar vectors.

There is a report on another forum that a Mayday was declared due to low fuel but I never heard it. Anyway, It just landed in Ottawa with reportedly 12 fire trucks following.

Any idea on the reason fire vehicles attended to the aircraft? Seems a little OTT if it was a weather only diversion.

If a low fuel emergency was declared, it is standard practice:ok:

Just posted on the local Ottawa newspaper website:

Giant Airbus A380 set to resume flight to Toronto after emergency landing in Ottawa (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Giant%20Airbus%20A380%20makes%20emergency%20landing%20in%20Ottawa/6716968/story.html)

Sounds like a job well done, good job guys/girls, everyone safe and sound no doubt.

For those aviation brethren whom might not be familiar with fuel policy requirements within other (i.e. non-FAA based) regulatory environments, here are the relevant regulations required within the UAE's Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR-OPS):

CAR-OPS 1.375 In-Flight Fuel Management

(a) ....
(b) A commander shall ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining in flight is not less than the fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be made, with final reserve fuel remaining.
(c) The commander shall declare an emergency when the actual usable fuel on board is less than final reserve fuel.

The general principle is that:

If you think you might land with fuel below 'final reserve' you will declare a PAN.
If you know you will land with fuel below 'final reserve' you will declare a MAYDAY.

Nb. 30 minutes of fuel remaining (for a turbine powered aircraft) is defined as 'Final Reserve' fuel.

There is no such terminology, in CAR-OPS, that includes statements such as "fuel emergency" / "low fuel" etc, therein it's either a "PAN" or "MAYDAY" call that must be made, i.e. depending upon how much fuel you think or know you're going to land with.

OTTAWA — After making an emergency landing at the Ottawa airport Friday afternoon when it nearly ran out of fuel, an Emirates Airlines Airbus A380 was back in the air heading for Toronto following a two hour delay.

Read more: Giant Airbus A380 resumes flight to Toronto after emergency landing in Ottawa (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Giant+Airbus+A380+resumes+flight+Toronto+after+emergency+landing+Ottawa/6716968/story.html#ixzz1wci9OCqF)

Now that oil has tanked 20% since their profit announcement; Maybe EK will put enough fuel to NOT declare a mayday in case a go-around and stop sending threatening emails to pilots who load a few extra tons for "wife and baby"

"Commit to destination with known approach time" what bullcrap. One can NEVER without doubt EVER commit to any destination. There is always some possibility; windshear, late aircraft vacating runway etc etc.

pilotday: Why do I suspect that you wouldn't be happy unless the fuel policy was: "Fill the wings and put the trip fuel in the centre" ?!

It would seem to me that, in this example, the (CAR-OPS) fuel policy, and fuel management & decision making (by the crew) worked admirably and that the outcome (landed safely) was never in doubt... therein the system (procedure, ATC, crew) all seem to have worked as designed... or did I miss something ?!

I'm just saying, there should never be any "commit to destination" verbiage in ANY fuel policy because of so many unknowns. What if Ottawa was beyond range, then what? Hamilton? Buffalo? Niagara Falls? Maybe take a gamble for another wind shear event in Toronto?

If it becomes clear you cannot fly to your destination do a go-around, and fly to your alternate with 30 minutes reserve, you divert BEFORE it happens. End of story.

It appears pilot's followed exactly as the company wants them to. let it be clear, I am bashing EK's fuel policy, not the pilots

Pilotday.

When you know what the heck you are talking about, please come back. The commit to destination is perfecly acceptable policy, makes sense. Read it and grow a pair is my humble suggestion habibi.

I would suggest this had nothing to do with this situation. Looks like a standard, hold for a bit. Make an approach, no that wasn't good. Another runway, no chance sir from ATC. Wx situation crap.
OK lets divert. Getting near the alternate, fuel looks tight. Initially declare a PAN, when it looks like you may land with less than final rsv. Then declare a Mayday if it looks like you will land with less than final rsv. Thats standard fuel policy habibi.
Looks like it worked well. Not an easy day at the office, but job done.

SyB :zzz:

pilotday: Err, reading between the lines, your logic seems little flawed, i.e. diverting does not make the problem go away and neither does having more fuel; indeed it might make matters worse and / or 'encourage' the pilots to have another go when condition aren't appropriate.

In such instances (of a divert), who's to say that an unforeseen problem doesn't also then occur at ones diversion airport? Having more fuel will not make that problem go away at that location. Ok, it might buy you some more time, but it also might not be enough to take you to another location (and who's to say one won't find a problem there too) ?!

One has no guarantee that, just because one has chosen to divert, that a problem doesn't then arise (in the interim), with and / or at the place one is diverting to and / or when one gets there.

Furthermore, having diverted, one is likely to have arrived at ones diversion airfield with Final Reserve fuel - as that's how the fuel is planned an that's how the game is played - and for which we & ATC understand that these are the rules that we are operating to.

Of course, a competent Captain NEVER paints himself / herself into a corner on fuel, and should always be flexible and knowledgable enough to have a plan 'B' (and 'C') up their sleeve, to deal with the unexpected.

The point is to make a well-judged decision, in advance of having painted oneself into a corner on fuel.

However, if sh!t then happens, one of course needs to make the appropriate call to ATC and request assistance - through a call of either PAN or MAYDAY.

Imho, simply having loads of fuel onboard is not (always) the answer to the problem. It's the decision making that's important, not the amount of fuel that's onboard.

Sheikh Your Bootie - well said ! :D

Pilotday, If you divert, haven't you just committed to the Alternate? If I commit I am just diverting to the destination.
I like the fuel policy. It tells me the legal min fuel I need, its then up to us to decide if we need extra and how much. I prefer to make that decision and don't want some office wally doing it for me.


The Don

Don/SyB

I agree. If we didn't have the 'option' to commit, as was the previous fuel policy, when your fuel reached alternate plus final reserve figure, you'd have no option other than to divert. So, instead of hanging around your destination airfield with a known approach time, you're now burning all your alternate fuel flying to the alternate with no extra fuel other than final reserve. That's 30 minutes. And who's to say that during that time, it all goes pair shaped at the alternate! If it's crappy weather at your destination, then committing may not be an option as the landing can't be 'guaranteed', however, that's for you to decide on the day.

Pilotday, may I suggest you re read the policy and actually understand what it's trying to achieve. It's actually giving you more options rather than less. As long as you land with final reserve intact, you're sweet!

Did they actually declare a mayday? Was the fuel burn to alternate greater that was predicted? Did they hang around at Toronto longer than they should have? Not a criticism, just a genuine question?

i think there is some confusion on the point I was trying to make.

You commit to destination, our current fuel policy allows you to land with final reserve at destination if you have an expected approach time. "landing assured" without any other option than your destination airport.

^^^^ this is the specific problem I have with the fuel policy. Its bad airman ship to allow your plan B and plan C disappear while you're stuck in a hold. Then an unexpected event happens such as an unstable approach, wind sheer, ATC go around, then its an instant mayday.

My point it, landing is NEVER assured.

Committing to destination with no other option for landing, then go-around with $1 billion worth of aircraft and passenger liability...seems like an unnecessary risk.

Surely, commit to destination when you have at least at least 2 airports you can reach with final reserve, that's fine, you still have a plan B and plan C. But that really isn't committing to destination, that is starting an approach to your destination knowing that if a black swan event happens you can land at the next airport with final reserve that isn't my filed alternate.

HALAS

pilotday,

Lets say you're going to an isolated airport like Perth or the Seycheles.

You will carry fuel to reach how many alternates?

If you then get in the situation where you can land at your destination with less the FR+ Alt fuel, or land at you ALTERNATE with less the FR+ Alt fuel, which would you choose to do?

Fact is you EVENTUALLY HAVE TO LAND SOMEWHERE, so if landing is never assured, surley it's not safe to ever go flying?

Pilot day - you can commit without an EAT-
If maximum delay not known and EAT at destination not received, the flight may still continue towards destination if it is possible to reach at least two airports at which landing is assured with at least final reserve fuel remaining at touchdown. Two separate and independent runways at a single airport within a flying time of two hours may be considered to be equivalent to two airports, provided that account is taken of fuel burn due any likely ATC delay.

Don is right. Whenever you divert to your alternate one is "committing" to destination. (your alternate is now your destination in effect)

Maybe the fuel leaked out of all the cracks in the wings..

JUST KIDDING!!

lowstandard that was funny!

From the Aviation herald-

An Emirates Airlines Airbus A380-800, registration A6-EDD performing flight EK-241 from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) to Toronto,ON (Canada) with 530 people on board, was on approach to Toronto, when the aircraft was instructed to enter a holding due to traffic congestion as result of weather. After holding for about 25 minutes the aircraft was vectored for a final approach to Toronto's runway 15R and was cleared to land on runway 15R, however, the crew needed to go around from about 600 feet AGL due to a wind shear alert, takeoff clearance for another aircraft on 15L was cancelled due to the go-around and a landing clearance on runway 15L was cancelled as well prompting another aircraft to go-around. The crew decided to divert to Ottawa declaring emergency indicating they might need to cut into their final fuel reserve of 30 minutes in case of any delays. The aircraft climbed to FL230 enroute to Ottawa,on approach to Ottawa the crew reported 6.3 tons of fuel/14000 lbs of fuel on board and cancelled their emergency under the condition that they were vectored directly for a RNAV approach to runway 14. The aircraft landed safely on runway 14 about 50 minutes after aborting the approach in Toronto with more fuel than final reserve remaining and after coming to a stop discovered they needed to backtrack the runway all the way long to be able to turn off to the apron causing another approach to Ottawa to be delayed.

Weather conditions at Toronto Airport were difficult throughout Jun 1st, tower reported winds from 110 degrees around 30 knots gusting up to 40 knots and there were multiple wind shear alerts, also instructing a number of arrivals to go around due to oncoming strong gusts. As a result, a number of aircraft involving domestic and international arrivals needed to declare minimum fuel.

The Aviation Herald would normally not report this occurrence as it is basically a weather related diversion and the crew remained on the safe course of action at all times declaring emergency as a precaution only to avoid any delays during their diversion and to avoid of getting into fuel trouble indeed as result of such delays. However, due to widespread media reports suggesting the aircraft nearly crashed, ran out fuel or landed at 5000 lbs of fuel remaining below final fuel reserve The Aviation Herald decided to cover this flight.

CAR-OPS 1.375 In-Flight Fuel Management

(a) ....
(b) A commander shall ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining in flight is not less than the fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be made, with final reserve fuel remaining.
(c) The commander shall declare an emergency when the actual usable fuel on board is less than final reserve fuel.
The general principle is that:

If you think you might land with fuel below 'final reserve' you will declare a PAN.
If you know you will land with fuel below 'final reserve' you will declare a MAYDAY.

"The crew decided to divert to Ottawa declaring emergency indicating they might need to cut into their final fuel reserve of 30 minutes in case of any delays. The aircraft climbed to FL230 enroute to Ottawa,on approach to Ottawa the crew reported 6.3 tons of fuel/14000 lbs of fuel on board and cancelled their emergency under the condition that they were vectored directly for a RNAV approach to runway 14. The aircraft landed safely on runway 14 about 50 minutes after aborting the approach in Toronto with more fuel than final reserve remaining..."

clearly our rules stipulate to declare pan (fuel advisory in the USA) if you 'think' eating into final-res, and mayday if you actually 'will'.
So declaring mayday ahead of the legal state, just to clear your way into the alternate, then subsequently canceling it, is this wise precaution or not quite sop?

Imagine a Saab 340 doing that and have some big one go-around for it (as reported) and wait for the flak for the poor guy!

Quod licet jovi non licet bovi I guess

pilotday

Are unstable approaches, ATC instructed go arounds and windshear not possibilities at your alternate too?

The only confusion with this policy is coming from your end. :ugh:

glo.

Strictly speaking, yes, but the problem is whether or not a Canadian controller knows the nature of a "Pan" call.

wiz

that's why I added the 'fuel advisory' for the more US prone, but it's the same and it's what should have been used.

A prophylactic emergency is nonsense, anybody can declare that they might run into emergency if held back any further.
Dugong or pencil-jet, that's the coming in line and sop, at least the way I see it.

The guys did a flight from A to B, carried a bit of extra fuel for weather, spent most of that fuel in holding due weather, flew an approach, missed approach and diverted to their alternate airport where they landed with more than their required final reserve.

Why exactly are we discussing this? :confused:

Originally posted by lowstandard,


Maybe the fuel leaked out of all the cracks in the wings..

JUST KIDDING!!

:D haha
Good one.

Mana- Because they declared a MAYDAY. MAYDAYS are usually for quite serious things, don't you agree?

You are right Mana, normally we wouldn't be discussing this, but it is being discussed because the Air Canada spin machine is doing all it can to create negative coverage of EK in the Canadian media. Good on the Aviation Herald to set things straight.

I'm actually surprised the articles aren't suggesting the flight almost took out the Parliament buildings on its way into YOW.

That's not really a Canadian thing to do. There is never mud slinging with respect to safety... People get missed approached and diversions particularly anyone who travelled up north.

The following report must also be from the so called "Air Canada Spin Machine".
Air Canada jet involved in two other mishaps - thestar.com (http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1202601--air-canada-jet-involved-in-two-other-mishaps)

I am not an aviator, I work in airport fuel systems. Is there an absolute minimum fuel on board figure with which any aircraft should have when it lands?

Yes, varies by country but typically 30 min of fuel in tanks is a minimum. Emergency to be declared if it is going to be less than that anytime before touchdown.

Usually any less than 30 mins and the pumps start unpriming. There are also low fuel cautions in that vicinity too but are not typically limiting to dispatch.

So where would 4,500 kgs on a 747-400 sit on that scale?

On an A380 4.5 Tonnes would be around the minimum. i.e. you would be declaring a Mayday if you thought you'd be landing with 4.5. From memory Final reserve was from 4.2 to 4.6 T. An a380 burns more fuel than a 747-400 so i am guessing final reserve for 747 would be about the 4t mark.

........... An a380 burns more fuel than a 747-400 so i am guessing final reserve for 747 would be about the 4t mark.

Thanks ... A couple of years back I enthusiastically met a 747-400 as it arrived on a remote stand (at a UK airport) to provide fuel sevice, sole purpose of stop was for fuel, flight unable to continue to mailand EU having departed East Coast USA and apparently encountered higher than expected headwinds (well thats what I was told). I was soon set up and ready to fuel, just waiting for the figures and in so doing had noted the remaining fuel, total 4,500 kgs. When steps finally arrived the Captain came out to pass the figure to me, he seemed more than a little aggrevated that I had seen the guage readings and noted them down ...

So an APU fire, bird ingestion and uncontained engine failure are "mishaps" while a normal weather diversion becomes an "emergency landing"?

Thanks for proving my point Skywards. :ok:

EK did declare an emergency even though they later cancelled it. So it is not a stretch to call it an emergency landing.

I know it is very difficult to understand the true meaning of free press for someone living in a dictatorship with state controlled press. I also concede that press always has its own agenda but no way the left leaning Canadian press be a propaganda tool for a business such as Air Canada.

Here begins the list:

10: Melbourne
09: Ottawa
08:
07:
06:
05:
04:
03:
02:
01:

Oddy

ODEMA....

How about 100 reasons not to fly Gulf Air.....

Paaaa-lease don't get me started about that rag tag outfit.... Cause I'd be hear all day. :=

Congratulations to the EK Crew. Didn't end up like AF, a statistic and
, informed ATC of their predicament, reassessed their progress relayed this to ATC.

It's unfortunate that too many are arm chair pilot lawyers and cannot see the big picture.

Groper

before you go down the condescending path, think twice.

This is not a critic of the crew. It's a discussion about procedures.
If every aircraft that had to hold, then go-around, then decide to head for the alternate declares emergency because they might arrive below FR, if they would encounter some more holding at this alternate, we will be in a lot of emergencies in the future.
It is the very nature that a late diversion brings you close to minimum. If you hit some more delay there, you can then start by declaring pan or fuel advisory and only when you really go into FR you then declare emergency.
Any use of emergency to improve your number in line, ahead of the real emergency situation, is basically abusing the system and not necessarily good thinking ahead.
I say it again, if more and more pilots think and act that way, ATC will be in a lot of work and we degrade the nature and importance of a real emergency.

Even a huge A380 should not think being allowed to pave its way with some (too) early emergency just because it is bigger, uses more fuel and carries more passengers. Again, imagine a Saab 340 pulling that stunt ...... the poor regional skipper would be in for more that tea and biscuits.

Discussion open

Glofish,
What was the predicted arrival fuel at Ottawa when the emergency call was made? Does not have to be to the nearest kilo, just if it was above or below the final reserve would suffice.
Or are you making assumptions again without knowing all the facts....again?

The Don

seriously, leave the crew alone, leave the analysing to the desk pilots in HQ

nobody knows the facts except the operating crew, EK sends us usually out with min fuel, the planes burn often more than the CFP says cos EK cheats, EK needs a few diversions then they will stop sending us letters or calling us in the office for taking extra fuel.

GoreTex

seriously, leave the crew alone, leave the analysing to the desk pilots in HQ

nobody knows the facts except the operating crew, EK sends us usually out with min fuel, the planes burn often more than the CFP says cos EK cheats, EK needs a few diversions then they will stop sending us letters or calling us in the office for taking extra fuel.

This was what I was trying to say earlier....

1. Its a bad policy to send warnings to the TOP 10% captains who add a few tons above min required. If one month, 90% of the captains took min req fuel, and the other 10% added just .1 ton more, those 10% would get threatening emails....

2. EK cheats on min req fuel (ie. OFP using 12R for departure for aussie trips when 30R is in use etc etc etc..) Hence my problem with the "commit to destination card" that is all too often used. Committing to destination should be an option used rarely, not a crutch because the LEGAL dispatch fuel didn't work out so you are forced to eliminate your plan B and plan C. I would like to know how many flights a day commit at EK?

I think we should all file an ASR when we commit. Why not? We already file ASR's when we can't get Mumbai on HF. If we commit to our destination, it is a safety issue....

...something didn't work out as planned, either OFP fuel was off, weather diversions, restricted step climbs, plane full of fat passengers over 85kg (standard weight) Eliminating your plan B and plan C just to arrive at your destination with 30 minutes of fuel is definitely more of a safety issue than contacting Mumbai on HF

You want something changed, Tim Clark reads ASR's and not PPRUNE.

Recently did a US ULR, overburn by 3 tonnes or so, all with optimised winds levels and practically a single digit CI, ASR duly filed, only to be met with the response "that's what the contingency is for"
Guys I'm flying with now are annotating on the VR and the OFP specific reasons for extra gas, and have included comments such as "incorrect runway used at planning stage...1.5 tonnes added to account for increased track miles" etc etc
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

It should be an honour to be in the 10% society. The EK top 10%, not the gay homo 10% society....

lol

My last 10% Society letter arrived from one of our stars in junior management, suggesting I may in future like to consider how much extra fuel I load. Bearing in mind the carnage of the previous night's rush hour, when five company aircraft diverted due to low fuel state, there could indeed be only one answer.........

Pilotday

Grow some bloody balls and stop with this complaining shit. If you're not happy with the runway and you think you'll need an extra 500 kgs, stick an extra 500 on! It really isn't difficult but you're getting your knickers in a twist over nothing. I've elected to commit twice since the policy was incorporated. During the same time, i've diverted once because I didn't want to commit. Neither situation was an issue and it's what you get paid for... to make a decision!

A genuine question if I may. Are you really in the left seat?

Don

apart from the fact that we rarely get the 'entire and absolutely correct' facts here on prune, I stated clearly that I am not blaming the crew, but merely opening the discussion about the emergency declaration, which affects the fellow aviators in the air (not the EK fuel policy and its interpretation).

Having said that, I opened my case taking into consideration what A380driver published further up, citing the AH. This seemed precise enough to make my point without having to bear the lame blame of 'assuming facts' again.

The crew decided to divert to Ottawa declaring emergency indicating they might need to cut into their final fuel reserve of 30 minutes in case of any delays. The aircraft climbed to FL230 enroute to Ottawa,on approach to Ottawa the crew reported 6.3 tons of fuel/14000 lbs of fuel on board and cancelled their emergency under the condition that they were vectored directly for a RNAV approach to runway 14. The aircraft landed safely on runway 14 about 50 minutes after aborting the approach in Toronto with more fuel than final reserve remaining

fish,
I rather declare an emergency and land with more than 30 min of fuel than too late, I am sure the pax will thank me for that, if you want to be a hero be my guest.

As far as I'm concerned, if I'm expecting to land with less than FR, its a mayday. I don't care, frankly, if it pisses anyone off.

@<hidden>

That's what everyone is saying here, if you read correctly ...... :ugh:


@<hidden>

The pax may thank you, your blood pressure as well.
But what I am saying for the umpteenth time:
If you are in a hold and i.e. committed and some buddies around your yell precautionary emergencies, get priorities and therefore push YOU into a pan or emergency situation, subsequently your buddies cancel their emergencies, land (fuel)fat dumb and happy and leave you dealing with a fuel shortage you wouldn't have had if everyone played a fair game.

Situational awareness is not about your flight only, at least the way I understand professional aviation.

Come back and post once you have witnessed such a situation, you'll sound slightly different.

What I expect is not only sound fuel management, but an even game and everyone playing by the same rules.

Do you understand my point now?

You are assuming that your buddies would declare an emergency just to receive priority. I don't think that is the case.
I think these guys thought they were going to land with less than reserves, so they correctly notified all and sundry.
Upon getting closer and realising that they weren't going to need it (subject to priority for the approach) they cancelled. Once again correct.

In this case (diversion due to weather) is different to the dubai case where we are holding due ATC capacity (incapacity). The way I read the Commit policy, is that it is designed for when you are flying a to b and enroute you are forced for some reason, to burn extra fuel and thus determine early that you cannot reach destination and still have fuel for the alternate. Then you can apply the policy to continue to b.

The way the company uses commit to destination policy to Dubai, when holding, I do feel is fundamentally wrong, and does cause stress because the part of the policy, i.e. landing assured, is not.

I just despair! :ugh:

The Company doesn't use the commit to destination policy, YOU DO! Let's make it easy. The fuel policy can actually be summarised into one, very short paragraph;

'Land somewhere, with your 30 mins reserve intact. If you think you'll land with less, declare a pan. When you get to 30 minutes, declare a Mayday.'

So, decide before you disconnect the bowser how much you need. If you need more, take it. If there's no reason to take extra, don't. What you then do with that fuel, whether enroute, at destination, Dubai, or otherwise, it matters bugger all. Just make sensible command decisions based on safety and efficiency, in that order. That way you can justify wherever you end up landing.

Come on guys, for professionals, some of you are starting to make us all look rather stupid.

The way the company uses commit to destination policy to Dubai, when holding, I do feel is fundamentally wrong, and does cause stress because the part of the policy, i.e. landing assured, is not

You are in the Bubin/Desdi Hold.
If you calculate that your EAT enables you to leave the hold and land with more than Final Reserve fuel, then it is reasonable to assume that, given the current information, the aircraft is assured a landing at more than Final Reserve Fuel.

Ex A380. I don't fully understand your concern on committing to Dubai using the fuel policy. Maybe you are concerned that once committed, the EAT might change for the worse? Personally, provided there are no existing circumstances where I expect an increase in EAT, I am happy to take the ATC EAT at face value.
If I do commit to DXB, then ATC extend my EAT, I will tell ATC which time I need to leave the hold. I will let them know that, if not cleared by that time, I will declare a Pan and exit the hold myself if necessary.

I am still assured a landing, even in this case.
There are many factors in our favour at Dubai. 2 runways (3 if you include SHJ)
Remember when you divert, you are also, usually committing. Often to a less familiar single R/W airport with less situational awareness and probably less fuel.

The policy makes sense to me. It put's the decision making process in my hands. I like that.

I think these guys thought they were going to land with less than reserves, so they correctly notified all and sundry.
Upon getting closer and realising that they weren't going to need it (subject to priority for the approach) they cancelled. Once again correct.

Once again, I think not entirely to the inventors intention!

If you THINK you will, declare pan, if you KNOW you will, declare emergency.

If you think you will and declare emergency, it's like jumping the queue a bit, at least the way I see it.

As to the committing policy, I second bymonek.

Contacted has summarised it rather nicely. If you still don't understand how to apply the fuel policy and what it's trying to achieve, then you're in the wrong job!

Harry

Contacted - Yes I have been in the hold with an EAT then had that EAT changed for the worse.

Then there has been times when Ive been spat out of the hold- sent on a wild vector then sent back into the hold.

I know of one case where the guys were spat out of the desdi hold vectored for a bit then sent to bubin to hold. I remember one week a while back when there were about 4 aircraft that declared Pans in the one busy night.

I know that when you divert to your alt you are committing to your alt (I said that in a post a while back).

Harry - I know the fuel policy inside out and know how to apply it.

Harry - I know the fuel policy inside out and know how to apply it.

Ex 380 lacks the ability to take any criticism! :=

Stops777-not at all. I think Harry was talking about you.:E

Ex A380-800 driver

Your response to Contacted is trying to say what, exactly?

Unless you're prepared to take an extra 10 tonnes everywhere you go, there will always be situations in which you, the captain, are going to have to make decisions regarding your aircraft's fuel state. This is especially true at airports such as Dubai during peak flow.

As I've said before, if you need to declare a pan, do so. Hopefully as more and more CFP's are despatched using StatCon, the amount of aircraft using pan calls will be minimised. I really think you're over dramatising this issue. Only twice have I ever heard a pan call into Dubai, one wasn't EK, and at least 90% of my flights arrive with more than alternate and reserve remaining. Maybe if you cruised in econ, you might arrive with a bit more! ;)

If you understand the policy as well as you claim, I can't understand why this debate is still going?

Not debating anything. Forget it.

Good Going EK...................... :D

Three Birds with One Stone:

1. First Landing by a A380 at Ottawa Airport :E

2. Free Publicity and Promotion of A380 to all the inhabitants of Ottawa :O

3. Made a point to the Canadian Govt :ok:

Code 1- good catch!

AC probably thinks they did it on purpose... :E