MOR'ed..... OUCH!

[Antigua]

Hello Chaps/Chapesses,

Excuse a mere pilot butting in here, but I've obviously upset one of you, and it's going to cost me beer if I can't clear it up!

I got MOR'ed by one of the 'Directors' At LHR the other day, and I've been called into the office to expain myself.

The scene..... BNN hold. Long night flight from the W coast of the US of A coming to an end. We thought.

Weather..... lovelyish.

Fuel ...... OKish.... Just about. We have a new fuel flight planning system in BA that is even meaner than the old one with trip fuel. Some of the 15mins contingency fuel almost always goes en-route for lots of reasons. I could enlighten you further, but you might die of boredom. LGW is the alternate, but if you are banished to a hold that option usually disappears after one or two turns. Fine .... if the EAT is reasonable. We 'commit' to LHR, and assuming the EAT is met we run down the fuel in the hold to land with Reserve fuel as a very minimum. For the uninitiated Reserve fuel is best described as 'guage error' fuel. In other words, you can't guarantee it's there.

So an 'assured landing' is now important to us.

The other dal I had 3.5 tonnes on top to play with. Not much in a 747-400. Not enough for the 40 track miles to landing I was offered last time I did a go-around at LHR due to inadequate spacing on 09L. (ATC initiated go-around in that case).

Once bitten..... etc. I politely tried to intimate to the Director after leaving BNN, that it would be a good idea all round if we didn't have to do a go-around from this approach. ie.... please can we have another mile between us and the preceding a/c, or so?

This immediately appeared to get his back up. What would our intentions be in the event of a go-around, I was asked. A very quick return was the answer.

So he MOR'ed me.

Now this is where I need help. I thought from my visits to you at LATCC, (pretending to be the 'emergency' on your Sim recently, for instance), that forwarning is everything. That is what I was trying to do. If I had done a go-around, an emergency (possibly) would have had to have been declared.

I'm sure that this would have caused you and us no end of grief and paperwork.

Question?. Would you have preferred me to keep quiet and spring a mayday on you on the go-around if the 2.5 miles was not quite enough in the end? Because if you are going to MOR us like this then you will be getting a lot more suprises in the future.

AND we can insist on spacing if we want, you know. I don't want to get snotty, we all have to make this (very) imperfect LHR thing work if we can, and to a large extent we work for each other on a day to day basis, but which way do you want it to play it boys and girls?

I'll play it anyway you like, but I'm not going to run out of fuel to give HAL 2.5 mile spacing. We pay them for the landing, they pay you to facilitate it, doesn't that make us the customer?

Contentious? Moi?

Answers please, on a letter bomb to......

ANTIGUA

C744

:confused:

[Warped Factor]

As far as I'm concerned, say something sooner rather than later and we'll accomodate it.

My only concern would be that it doesn't become a regular request from multiple aircraft. Because if it does, landing rates will go down, EAT's will go up, and you'll be off to Gatwick before you even make it anywhere near BOV :)

WF.

p.s. the minimum spacing isn't for HAL's or ATC's benefit, it's for yours and ultimately your company's in order to minimise overall delays.

[939]

I think that there are two points to consider:

1) If you are running the fuel that low you should remember the line in the good green book that refers to 'endangering safety of an aircraft' and possibly be satisified at a 1261.

2) Maybe the controller was not at his best socially and didnt appreciate your possible 'nervous humour'

When I said right you should have known I meant left...:) :o :p :mad: :confused: :cool: :rolleyes: :eek:

Just thought of a third:

3) If you do run low tell Atc nice and early, you will/should be asked if you are declaring an emergency, to get the priority you will have to declare but you will then find that the seas part and the job is a good en! The reason why you now have to declare an emergency is that a certain airline use to tell ATC that they were short of fuel to get No1 when rumour has it, the certain airline had enough gasol to circum-navigate London Village several times...

[j17]

Antigua

There would be two possible solutions to your problem.

1 Declare that you may be bit short of the go juice and would
not really like a second approach.This realies on the
approach controller telling the tower controller of your
predicament.In this day of c**p rostering, pmt, and more
importantly an insult to the profession, an abymissal pay
offer ,this coordination cannot be guarenteed.

2 Bite the bullet and declare a fuel emergency,the waves will
part and you will have the shortest routing you seen for a
long time.By doing this you may have to make a trip to
somebodies to explain your actions

At the end of the day we can only act on the information we are
given. Its your choice.

[BEXIL160]

Just to clarify.

There is no such status as a"Fuel Emergency" in the UK. If you use this phraseology UK controllers are instructed to ask if you are declaring an Emergency. As stated above, the waves will then part and you will be whisked to the front of the queue.

The correct words of course are the "PAN" phraseology, or if things really are dire "MAYDAY". Both will get everybodies attention, whatever the hour of the day.

The subject of Fuel carriage often comes up. When ATC in the UK says "No delay expected" this can mean up to 20 minutes in the hold . FIVE times around. No EATs are issued. Today we can be quite a bit more accurate with the expected delay, but don't rely on it for fuel planning purposes as we may not update the time if it remains within the 20 mins. If EATs change significantly we MUST tell you asap, hence they can be relied upon a little more for Fuel planning purposes.

So if you hear the words "no delay expected". This can mean up to 20 mins holding. Does your fuel reserve allow for this I wonder?

off we go....

Rgds BEX

[Carnage Matey!]

Well in my company (and Antiguas) the guidelines for declaring a fuel emergency are clear:

PAN if you think you might land with less than reserve.

MAYDAY if you know you will land with less than reserve.

In the case of committing to LHR one is entirely within the letter of the law and is not endangering the aircraft provided the EAT/No Delay (yes we know it means up to 20mins) is reasonably accurate. Provided it is, then the situation is not an emergency. However if the aircraft ahead is a bit slow to vacate then a nervous ATCO sends us around, our calculations are done for and we are immediately into a Mayday scenario.

Antigua wasn't asking to jump the queue, but merely emphasising that he'd like more seperation in order to prevent you having a very disrupted morning.

[Warped Factor]

Carnage,

Antigua wasn't asking to jump the queue, but merely emphasising that he'd like more seperation in order to prevent you having a very disrupted morning.

Appreciate that, but see my previous comment.

If lots of inbounds were to ask for increased spacing, for whatever reason, it would very quickly sink the landing rate.

By all means if you find yourself short, but within the legal limit, ask for an extra few hundred yards in front. Just try not to make a habit of it :)

WF.

[ATMWorldLeader]

This is all symptomatic of systems running very close (too close?!) to the edge - on the one hand planning fuel so tight on such a long leg and on the other hand capacity and demand being so finely balanced at Heathrow.

The laws of probability dictate that something will give on occassion. We must be certain that when it happens it is capaity that is compromised, not safety.

[phd]

ATMWorldleader - you beat me to it - my thoughts entirely

Firstly let's all agree on this thread as to the priority here. Is it safety? Or is it getting as many aircraft on the ground in as short a time as possible?

Do not kid yourselves it is the former. We are all allowing the safety margins to be steadily eroded in the interests of the commercial imperative to maximise revenue and minimise costs.

When flying for recreation I would never plan my fuel so tightly that I could not get to my alternate and still have plenty of fuel for several go-arounds. I would also not want to be so close to the a/c ahead of me that the other pilot could feel me breathing down his neck on final. Joe Public on the flight in question would surely have been horrified if they had known the situation that was developing around them, and that if they did not get down first time there might not be sufficient fuel for the next one.

Surely Antigua was doing the right thing asking for a little more spacing? And the Directors at LHR believe they are doing the right thing by following the airlines and HALs instructions to space at no more than 2.5 nm to keep up the landing rate.

But surely we can all see what is really going on? The bean-counters are prevailing and the experts - the pilots and controllers - are losing the argument.

I will stick my neck out here and nail my colours to the mast. It is time to reverse the trend - increase a/c spacing to a minimum of 4 miles and carry at least 30 mins contingency fuel above and beyond the diversion reserve. Let safety come first for once and s*d the cost. We will all have to pay a little more for the privilege of flying - but at least we will have a safe operation at LHR.

[Antigua]

posted 18th April 2002 17:34

.
1) If you are running the fuel that low you should remember the line in the good green book that refers to 'endangering safety of an aircraft' and possibly be satisified at a 1261.

2) Maybe the controller was not at his best socially and didnt appreciate your possible 'nervous humour'



When flying for recreation I would never plan my fuel so tightly that I could not get to my alternate and still have plenty of fuel for several go-arounds. I would also not want to be so close to the a/c ahead of me that the other pilot could feel me breathing down his neck on final. Joe Public on the flight in question would surely have been horrified if they had known the situation that was developing around them, and that if they did not get down first time there might not be sufficient fuel for the next one.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ladies and Gents,

Thanks for your collective interest.

I started this NOT because I felt like a whinge at BF because, frankly I’ve been at this game too long to worry that an MOR might damage my career.

I know in my own mind that I did the right thing, and we all lived, so I don’t care if I upset a few vested interests in discussing it afterwards.

Also, I try not to do ‘nervous humour’. Ordinary humour if it gets people to read the post is enough. I don’t do ‘nervous’ when I am dealing with Brit. ATC, either. I have asked for the waters to be parted before, and I know exactly what miracles you people can achieve. (Last time at LATCC sitting in as the ‘emergency’, Don G gave me a GCA into Birmingham from an en-route screen, as I couldn’t see or change freq. Impressive)

What I did want to do was start a discussion on this last bit of the approach, and your conceptions of our capabilities, fuelwise.

Interestingly, back at LATCC, one of you thought it would be helping us to put us in a hold for fuel dumping. I pointed out that we specifically DIDN’T want this. (Getting your own fuel back). This made me wonder if there weren’t similar misconceptions on our fuel capabilities on the approach.

The above quote on recreational flying is frightening.

Yes we plan for 20mins VERY minimum on entering the TMA airspace. But that’s it chaps. Once we are in there, the clock starts ticking and we can’t leave. Full stop. Once committed in the hold to LHR (or anywhere else for that matter), having accepted the EAT, then on leaving the hold for an approach, not only do we not have enough fuel to divert to ANYWHERE, but we don’t necessarily have enough fuel to do a go-around AT ALL, even a truncated one. Did you know that?

Now do you see why I ask for a bit more room? If you stick me on a 15 mile final staring up the jet-pipes of an AirUzbekistan Tu 154, 2.5 miles in front of me, on only his second visit to Planet Earth, wouldn’t it make you nervous?

That’s worst case, BUT it is legal, it is increasingly normal, AND IT IS WHAT OUR COMPANIES WANT US TO DO!

We try not to get into this fuel position, but a lot can happen to us between say Singapore and LHR. We are frequently weight limited out of there and cannot carry anything other than minimum LEGAL fuel. And that includes HEL or FRA as an en-route alt. We make the fuel (non) decision when you are probably on the previous shift to the one when we get to talk to you for the landing.

We are commercially and politically leaned on just as you are. I have copied my Tech. Manager with some of your replies. I want my company to know your views as well as mine.

Day before yesterday, if the TWR lady had listened carefully as she said ‘Speedbird 282, runway 27L wind 260/7 kts cleared to land’ she might have heard the yank at the back (computerised voice on flight deck) say ‘DECIDE’. That’s ten seconds to landing. On that flight we had nearly 5 tonnes spare on landing. Just enough for a standard go-around, riches indeed. If we hadn’t had that fuel…. A bit late, shall we say.

Did you know a 400 can do an automatic go-around on 3 engines up until 2 seconds AFTER 5 feet radio (wheel) height? Very clever machine. It won’t do it on some approaches though. Not enough fuel.

The other day I was sitting at the end of 09R waiting to take off. One of our Squadron (400s) broke off his app. To 09L and did a split ar**d S turn and landed on 09R. Nice piece of flying, fun too. Anybody see it? Ask yourselves WHY he did it. If you can’t think, see above. Also ask yourself what was going through his mind as he was doing it. If he had cocked it up with the fuel he probably didn’t have, well…….

This isn’t a futuristic fantasy, this is here and now, and almost certainly happened today.

As they say, discuss.

If you have been ….. thanks for listening.

ANTIGUA




:confused:

[groundzero]

Hello Mr Antigua,
Unfortunately I see this all too often. There are controllers (only a few thankfully) who MOR pilots because they can - delusions of grandeur. I am a controller and I appreciate any information pilots can give if it can make my life easier and therefore make the sector run more smoothly. I feel mortified when I hear so called colleagues treat pilots like 5 year olds. I'm afraid there is no quick solution to this from your point of view so it may be a case of having to bite the bullet and put up with it.
As far as I'm concerned, I hate surprises so please don't keep a lid on things because of this minority of morons!

[BDiONU]

Antigua:
Your post of 17.34 was most certainly an eye-opener! All I can say is BLOODY HELL!

[NigelOnDraft]

I seem to recall a notice (BA? CAA?) stating that if a Go Around would cause one to make an emergency call, then "advise" ATC.

What Antigua did seems entirely iaw the rules:
1. At no stage did he consider he may go below Reserve Fuel on landing, provided landing was "assured" - so no Pan / Mayday / Emergency call needed
2. Had he gone around, or been sent around, he now would be landing below Reserve.. so would declare a Mayday
3. The idea of the above instruction, which I believe was introduced at the request of ATC, was that if you are going to shout "Mayday" in response to the ATC Go Around instruction, it might make things easier all round to advise the controller(s) in advance that a Go Around will cause an emergency declaration, and a mile or 2 extra separation might be a good idea.

I will be very interested to hear what BA Mgmt come up with when they call Antigua in. It is their policy he was following to the letter. Whilst ATC "MOR'd" Antigua, they really "MOR'd" the BA Fuel policy...

NoD

PS And I wonder what the change to BA Fuel Policy is coming out that is so important that they are sending it by post?

[Scott Voigt]

Antiqua;

It's a shame that they don't have the phrase minimum fuel there like we have... It isn't declaring an emergency but advises ATC that if there is undue delay then you will have to procede to your alternate while still a ways out... If you tell ATC that while on approach, they will get the hint here...

regards

[Stan Woolley]

Is it not a responsibility of the Captain to be satisfied with the fuel the aircraft is carrying? Or are you not a JAR operator?

It seems to me that even this basic responsibility has been handed to people who remain largely on the ground,including people with ATPLs who should not be called pilots.

Doesn't the 20 mins holding come on top of reserve(30 mins)+ diversion fuel at the planning stage?

Safety first.....yeah right.

[Antigua]

Doesn't the 20 mins holding come on top of reserve(30 mins)+ diversion fuel at the planning stage?
________________________________________________

Hello Flanker

I don't want there to be any misconceptions here. We are talking about the commercial aviation world with all the constraints that implies, and we are talking about ultra long range operations in my Singapore - London example.

At no stage was I suggesting that either myself or my company are trying to fiddle or get around anything.

Captain don't get paid to marry people or demonstrate their magical handling skills these days.

We get paid to 'manage' the movement of 400 people half way round the world using a bit of kit that costs somebody else £120,000,000. I left all the zeros in. Look at them. Then multiply that by 57. That is the size of my companys' investment in just one of their fleets.

I don't think it is unreasonable of them to run the operation in such a way that they stand half a chance of getting a minimal return on their money.

They pay me, and many like me to help them do that . One hull loss for any reason would destroy all that. I sit in the middle of the money men on one side, and the passengers on the other. Unlike other professionals, (Doctors, Lawyers) who don't die under their own knives or go to jail with their clients when they make a mess of it, we have an inbuilt interest in making the whole damn show work.

So forgive me when I get a bit ratty when those not directly involved make sweeping and grandiose statements like yours. (You're not a polititian, are you?)

I say it again, it is normal in reasonable weather (which a weekend pilot wouldn't drive his car in) to 'commit' to a destination, and use the diversion fuel and the contingency fuel up whilst waiting to land. I've always thought that the secret of flying an aeroplane is simple. Knowing, from experience, what is going to happen next.

Which is why, when I leave the hold with just enough fuel to make a safe landing, I know that is safe. What I don't think is safe is having a go-around sprung on me by someone on the ground, (see above about being 'involved' in the flight), through commercial imperatives of their bosses even further from being 'on' the aeroplane.There is simply NO fuel carried to cover ATC and/or other aeroplane cock-ups during the landing process.

Sviot11 has it right. As I said before I have been around a bit and I remember an Avianca 707 running out of fuel and crashing whilst trying to land at JFK. I believe the 'Low Fuel' call came from this. Don't forget ... we don't just have to think about the CAA/JAR rules, we have to operate to FAA rules in the US of A, OZ Rules (STRANGE) in OZ etc... etc...

What I was trying to do when I got MOR'ed was to make a non-existent (in this part of the firmament) 'Low Fuel' call.

I couldn't do it officially here, and my mates in ATC couldn't respond to it , officially.

OK - where do we go from here?

ANTIGUA:confused:

[Stan Woolley]

Antigua

Actually I'm a current UK 737 Captain who carries enough fuel not to worry about the odd 'unexpected' Go-Around,of which I've had more than a few.

My company pays me to make such judgements,what are you paid for? :rolleyes:

Now I'd bet you're a bit ratty!

I accept being fortunate in that our operation is normally very different to scratching for performance to make minimum fuel, but that does not change the FACT that you are ultimately responsible for the fuel on your aircraft.

Sorry I forgot, the company will of course back you all the way when it goes wrong!

[Capt H Peacock]

I’m fascinated by phrases like ‘committing to LHR is entirely within the letter of the law’ because the law says no such thing. You are required by JAROPS in Part D 1.255 to have the following:

Trip Fuel
Contingency
Statistical Excess (if you have used the 5%/15mins or 3% with ERA Contingency options)
Alternate (can sometimes be dispensed with if <6hrs, VMC multi runway dest below MSA)
Final Reserve

And in the case of LHR etc fuel for min 20 minutes delay (AIC 36/1998, SOC 2000)

If you don’t have that in tanks then your fuel plan is wrong.

Don’t expect sympathy from the controller if you have ignored these minimums, these are officially promulgated figures. If your company try to make you take off with less – refuse. You are legally responsible for ensuring that you have at least this amount in tanks before dispatch.

If everyone who arrived at BNN with fumes expected a priority approach, you could forgive other operators who plan legally to become upset that they are subsidising your company. If your company policy does not include these minimum figures then you are not operating to the ‘letter of the law’, you are outside it and you could be placing your AOC at risk.

The controller is entitled to expect you to be carrying promulgated reserves, and if you are not then an MOR is not inappropriate. If you’ve planned all these things and you’re still short, then OK it’s not your day, but phrases like ‘we always burn the contingency on the way’ means you should have added more trip fuel. A statistical excess MUST be added to the trip fuel, and you as commander are required to take it into consideration.

[Antigua]

If you don’t have that in tanks then your fuel plan is wrong.

_________________________________________________

RTFQ, Cap'n Peacock.

Or even better read the JAR bit about what you can do when you arrive in the vicinity of your destination, wx permitting.

The Flight Planning Stage is 15 hours behind you when my concerns arise.

What you have in your tanks to start with is irrelevant here.

ATB

ANTIGUA :rolleyes:

[Antigua]

Flanker
Still just another number
posted 20th April 2002 13:43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Antigua

Actually I'm a current UK 737 Captain

_______________________________________________

Congratulations, mate.

Got you out from behind your bald description of yourself as 'pilot', though, didn't it?

OK - I'll talk to you now I know. You get some real wierdos on this forum.

ATB

ANTIGUA

[Stan Woolley]

I've no problem being called a weirdo but the politician bit was deeply offensive! ;)

It's all about what we are prepared to do with the fuel onboard I guess,and it looks like I would run away before you would.

I flew the 767 short haul only for a while, one of the best jobs I've had. From what you are saying the 747-400 is now off my wish list !

Regards.

[Capt H Peacock]

From the Special Objective Check 2000 conducted by the CAA:

4.3.4 Recommendation 2 Operators should review their fuel policies to ensure that adequate provision is made either through their computer programs or by adjustments made by aircraft commanders or dispatchers (acting in accordance with guidance or instructions specified in operations manuals) for the Trip Fuel to include, where appropriate, fuel for use in holding prior to commencing the approach when there is reason to believe that this will occur. An example of such circumstances can be found in AIC 36/1998 (Pink 170).

Now my F question. Did the Commander dispatch with such provision in tanks or not?

[NigelOnDraft]

IMHO This debate is getting a little silly...

Antigua acted iaw his company SOPs.. and those SOPs are approved by the CAA etc.

There was NO danger at any time. If Antigua had felt the situation "dangerous" he would not have acted the way he did (I suppose).

However, the fact is that fuel policy, and the busy airspace around LHR (and elsewhere) meant that the ATCO had his nose put slightly out of joint - fair enough. If arriving without loads of holding fuel affects the holding order / number of diversions / ATC workload etc. this becomes a commerical problem. So let ATC, the CAA and BA slug it out.

As far as we (pilots) are concerned, one follows SOPs as long as safety is not affected. I said elsewhere, Fuel in Tanks on Departure is largely not a safety issue - its what you do "as it runs out", and the gates you set yourself. This debate is entirely about the fact Antigua did just that. Under the SOP, he did not need to tell ATC a Go Around would result in an emergency call, just good sense and A'ship he did so.

Lets keep apart safety, and good commercial practice into LHR... If ATC do not like the low fuel states we are coming in with, then say so, loud & clear and frequently! But calling the situation "dangerous" as some have here is OTT...

[chiglet]

As an ATSA, [who tries to keep "up to date"] can I ask Why a "certain" Far Eastern Company was PUBLICLY censured [spelling?!] in BOTH the "Meja" and "specialised" press for doing what Antigua does? Or am I missing something here?:confused:
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[Spotter]

I'm an ATCO, though not in the London TMA.

If you can't make a safe go-around from an approach we NEED to know as soon as that becomes apparent.

If you tell me that you don't have enough fuel to do so I WILL submit an MOR. As I believe that the situation is potentially dangerous. It is for the MOR investigators to ascertain the how & why of what happened & whether the rules have been broken, or if not, whether they should be changed.

Assuming that you operated in accordance with your company's policy then it is not you, but that policy which has been MOR'd.

What has been the company's attitude & response to the MOR?

[Scott Voigt]

Antiqua;

Actually, we have had the min fuel phraseology for a very long time. The problem with Avianca was that he NEVER said that he was a fuel emergency... The Capt. asked the FO if he had declared an emergency more than one time and the FO said that he had, but never at anytime had he actually told ATC. If he had, the problem wouldn't have happened...

regards

[Four Seven Eleven]

Antigua

we don't just have to think about the CAA/JAR rules, we have to operate to FAA rules in the US of A, OZ Rules (STRANGE) in OZ etc... etc...

:D The 'rules' you were told about regarding sheep were only a joke!!:D

Seriously though, as a non-pilot (ATC), how different are the Oz rules? Do they require more or less fuel......or is it not that simple?

[SilentHandover]

Maybe the controller involved is doing the right thing by MOR'ing situations like this, it has to be the best way to highlight the problem and get something done about it. What will the airlines and the CAA take more notice of? A stack full of 1261s or a few excerpts from PPRUNE.
Perhaps this is the way to get
a: the airlines to load more fuel
b: the CAA to increase reserve minimas
c: the inclusion of "Fuel Emergency" into use in the UK.

Just the opinions of a lowly ATSA

SH

[Carnage Matey!]

Chiglet and Spotter:

The difference is that in Antiguas case had he gone around he would have had sufficient fuel to carry out a go-around and landing but this would be the final reserve fuel being burned. Hence he would be landing with less fuel than final reserve and an emergency would have to be declared on the go-around. This is legal and i.a.w. company CAA-approved fuel policy. Its one shot then an emergency.

In the case of the far eastern airline they were making an approach with significantly less fuel, so little in fact that flying a go-around to an expeditious landing would not even be possible. Its one shot then bust.

One of these scenarios is very uncomfortable, the other is downright reckless. That is why only one was reprimanded.

[NigelOnDraft]

Spotter

<<If you can't make a safe go-around from an approach we NEED to know as soon as that becomes apparent>>

Depends on what you mean by "safe".

(Some of) the rules in Nigel's outfit:
1. Mayday = WILL land below Reserve
2. PAN = MAY land below Reserve.
3. < 2hrs out from dest, given certain criteria, can reduce Fuel such that you will land with Reserve or more...
4. Reserve = 30 mins going round in circles at 1500'
5. A "Go Around" will use much of that Reserve Fuel (full power and all that).

IMHO, a Go Around at a little above Reserve will REQUIRE a visual or TIGHT radar circuit to avoid running out of fuel.

The above means that, according to the rules, the first ATC will know of the problem is the Mayday call early in the Go Around. This is not implicitly dangerous (unlike, say a fire), it is just an urgent (very urgent!) call demanding immediate assistance and priorty.

Anitgua "pre-empted" the above by suggesting to ATC to reduce the probability of a Go Around - seems good idea to me.

If ATC do not like the above (I am not sure I do, but its the rules from BA and approved by the CAA) then please say so, and not just here - but where it counts!

NoD

[M.Mouse]

The issue is getting cloudy here.

Antigua complied with CAA approved company SOPs. Had he diverted instead of using his diversion fuel in the hold then he would have ended up at his diversion field LGW with minimum reserve anyway ie 30mins at 1500' in BAs case.

The policy works well most of the time however should the weather forecast be bad we take lots of extra and are not questioned about that decision.

My point would be that due to commercial pressure we are spaced at 2.5 miles where possible, often get landing clearance at very low level or after landing have to stand on the brakes and vacate soonest because the guy behind is already over the fence!

Couple this situation where there is undoubted (legal) commercial pressure via company SOPs to carry minimum fuel and it all borders on the unacceptable. Where else in the world do ATC have 2.5 mile approach separation to accommodate the amount of traffic?

LHRs holding delays are the stuff of legend. The real dilemma is the complete unpredictability of the length of those delays. It is about time the regulatory authorities said enough is enough and insist a) on more realistic approach spacing and b) that companies cannot promulgate a fuel policy that is acceptable in many situations but inappropriate for LHR.

I believe the situation at present is a disater waiting to happen.

before anybody gets the wrong idea BA managers do not stand at the door with a big stick should a pilot take extra fuel. I and my colleagues have no problem taking extra if we want it but the culture is to take minimum where possible but I say that minimum has become too little.

[no sig]

I've read all the posts and frankly I'm still struggling with the notion that a GA under normal operations could result in a Mayday due to fuel remaining. OK, I have no doubt that were it to happen then an expedious circuit would be flown and a landing made. However, and I ask the question, were there to be a serious accident on the landing runway is there contingency within LHR local procedures to assure the other runways and services remain available bearing in mind the distraction of the incident? Having witnessed such an event at LAX with a Continental DC10 groundlooped and on fire on the north runway complex, the airport all but ground to halt for a period of time with emergency vehicles and all rushing across the airfield to the accident.

I know it would be a bad day all round, but do the local procedures cater for such an event?

[NigelOnDraft]

No Sig...

<<frankly I'm still struggling with the notion that a GA under normal operations could result in a Mayday due to fuel remaining>>
Best its in the open then!

FYI the policy is little altered if the airfield is single runway, which could be even more interesting...

What do other airlines use as their policies in these circs? i.e. in the hold, and going below the Fuel reqd to proceed to Dest, GA, proceed to Div and land with Reserve...

NoD

[Over+Out]

Having read all the post, it makes me very worried that BA can carry so little fuel that a Go Around can cause a MAYDAY due fuel shortage. I am an ATCO and for what ever reason things do go wrong, Go Arounds occur ( a couple of times per day).
Imagine if every aircraft in the London TMA was flown in the same manner. Somebody calls a MAYDAY, we break aircraft off the approach to accomodate it. How many aircraft behind would also call?
I think Anitgua did the right thing and asked for a bit extra.This forum has high lighted a problem. It is the BA Management who are being MORed. (And/or the CAA if they allowed the SOP.)
I'm glad this subject has come up, unfortunately ATCO's cannot get near the flightdeck these days, so unfortunately we have to have these debates on this forum rather than face to face.

[Spitoon]

It may all be legal. But it scares the willies out of me.

Not the fact that an aircraft may be low on fuel on arrival at destination, you understand, but the thought of a pilot who's so confident that he plans it! Antigua, you are destined for management and make no mistake - always assuming of course that you're not there already and just setting an example.

There is simply NO fuel carried to cover ATC and/or other aeroplane cock-ups during the landing process.
There you are, that confidence again, Antigua. Obviously your aeroplane will never suffer a problem that takes a few minutes to sort out and there is just no way that you will ever cock-up. It doesn't take much to block a runway for a few minutes - a hydraulic spill, burst tyre, birdstrike. All of these can happen on the nicest of nice days and just because there's another runway doesn't mean you get first dibs on it. And even if you are the customer (and that depends very much from where you look at the airline business) you, the pilot, are part of the team - e.g. no sales agents, no pax = no need for pilots. Everyone in the team has their job to do and their own responsibilities. If ATC send you around there?s a reason - believe me, no controller will do it unless there?s a real reason even if it's not apparent to you - and you can play your part by planning to have enough fuel that you (and your colleagues who are company people to the core) don't compound the problems by immediately calling an emergency. And I don't care if the rules say that you can operate that way, it doesn't make you right.

Well that should get your goat Antigua.

Reminds me of the joke about what's the difference between G*d and a British Airways Captain.





And just in case you've never heard it ....... G*d doesn't think he's an airline captain.

[NigelOnDraft]

Spitoon (and others)

Please don't blame Antigua... its BA policy approved by the CAA.

If you don't like it, please come up with an alternative:
1. What is the minimum acceptable fuel to re-plan on landing at LHR with? (I say replan because we never plan to arrive with reserve - its only allowed after unforeseen extra fuel usage such as long holding, unexpected headwinds etc.)
2. At what stage / Fuel state do you call "Pan"?
3. At what stage / Fuel state do you call "Mayday"?
4. What other options are there as the fuel runs down?

NB The answers cannot include:
1. Divert. In SE England, you are diverting to another busy airfield, probably single runway, and joining the queue there. So the problem is not solved, just transferred.
2. Make any other radio call. UK policy is that there is no "Low Fuel" call or similar. Its PAN, Mayday or silence...

And again - what do other airlines do? I previously flew for another UK LH scheduled carrier, and I believe the policy was very similar...

NoD

[Edited for spelling!]

[Carnage Matey!]

To add to this debate I would point out that this situation is not unique to long haul aircraft and I can cite several similar butt-clenching cases on short haul, where we plan our fuel to the nearest 100kgs with pretty recent info on delays. Any combination of late climbs, sub-optimal levels, unforecast headwinds, early descents and speed restrictions can see your contingency fuel burned before you make the holding fix. Add to that 'no delay' becoming an EAT out of the blue and suddenly your faced with calculating just how long you can stay in the hold and still have fuel to make an approach, divert and keep a bit spare for mum. When that time is reached its a choice of stay where you are, burn the div fuel and hopefully land at destination with a bit to spare or divert, burn the div fuel and hopefully land at diversion with a bit to spare. Very much between a rock and a hard place and diverting from a dual runway airport to a single runway airport seriously narrows down your options!

[Spitoon]

NoD,

I don't blame Antigua for BA policy. I dare say that 2.5 mile spacing on final is ATC policy - everyone's under pressure these days.

But that's no reason to all but promote the policy here and, no doubt, on the flight deck in Antigua's case. If I'm a bit less antagonistic than in my last post, there's no straight answer to your questions - all I'm asking for is a little common sense. I just don't think planning that tightly on fuel, even on a nice day, is sensible.

Even Antigua says he will carry more fuel when the weather is forecast to be poor - but I wonder how much. Just enough to cater for the holding that he, with his years of experience, thinks is reasonable for the weather conditions?

OK, I don't know how many tonnes of fuel are needed for a go-around and a normal radar circuit or whatever is likely at the destination airport, but I would say it's sensible to try and have that much as you establish on the ILS at the end of any flight. I do know that every tonne that you land with burnt more fuel during the flight but the balance is what safety is all about.

If you didn't carry emergency oxygen on every flight you could save a lot of fuel too, and let's face it, it's not used that often (as many flights as end up doing a go-around?), but few people would advocate doing away with it because on the day you need it, you want it to be there.

The post that started all this off seems to me to demonstrate a lack of this simple common sense on Antigua's part - for such tight fuel planning - and on the controller's - for taking exception (if that's what happened and bear in mind we probably haven't heard the controller's side of the story) to the legitimate request for some extra space.

At what point should a pilot call PAN and MAYDAY - common sense says when the situation dictates. I guess PAN when the situation looks like it isn't going to pan out - excuse the expression - the way everyone expected and fuel may become a problem and MAYDAY when it is a problem. In any case, with a fuel shortage, unless there is some other problem that means fuel is being burnt at a greater rate than expected (or is not available), the situation will deteriorate through PAN to MAYDAY. And I would be surprised if you didn't get the same priority for a PAN as for a MAYDAY as soon as you called it. I don?t think a 'Low Fuel' call adds much - you'd get the same reaction from ATC as for a PAN or MAYDAY - and when the UK rules on such things were not so clear, Low fuel calls appeared to be blatantly abused by some carriers.

What are the other options? Keep ATC in the picture. It should already be obvious that on the face of it, I think an MOR was an overreaction in this case - but hopefully, in other cases, it will enable the controller to plan the traffic taking account of all the relevant information.

I know this all sounds a bit idealistic but I don't have any other answers right now - I just know I don't like the ones I'm hearing.

[Stan Woolley]

N.O.D

To quote Antigua:

'.....we not have enough fuel to divert to ANYWHERE, but we don’t necessarily have enough fuel to do a go-around AT ALL, even a truncated one. Did you know that? '

Come on Nigel!WHO ultimately lets it get to that state?Going round in circles 'till you've no options!!! Being MOR'd doesn't worry him he says,well neither does running out of fuel it seems.But he's been doing it for so long that he can see the future and he just 'knows' that its safe.

Allowing a 747 or indeed even a Cherokee to get to this position is to me, incredible.If I was in the back of the thing knowing that was the case I would be very unimpressed, to say the least.

The Boeing I fly gives a 'LOW FUEL' warning at around 45 mins worth which is about half an hours holding fuel plus a Go around plus quick vectored circuit.The circumstances described above are way below that.

You needed some suggestions:
1)Carry more fuel.
2) Divert to LGW,STN,EMA,BHX,MAN,GLA,PIK or a bunch of others if delays are too long.(if there is holding at all the above you should never have got airborne!)
3)Say 'Pan' well before getting to the state in the opening quote.
4)Say 'Mayday'shortly afterwards if it aint happening.
5)Search in vain for the handle between your legs!!!!

What's the point in having years of experience and tons of knowledge if you ignore it all to 'follow the policy' straight into a field?

[Expeditedescent]

Antigua,

I actually work with the Director concerned, and there are some things that you have incorrectly assumed.

The MOR was submitted not because he had his nose put out of joint but for exactly the reasons stated by other ATCO's.....that your aircraft was in a position where you had declared how low on fuel you were.........your action of informing him was appreciated and he was grateful for you doing so. He was in no way annoyed or upset by your information. However he was absolutely correct to enquire as to what would happen if you did have to go around...........what if the previous lander, burst a tyre or had some kind of landing accident?
Reasonable question surely?

Your email however has been doing the rounds at work, and I can assure you that your comments regarding the LL Directors lack of suitable final approach spacing have not gone down very well, and neither did the tone of the end of that mail. Contrary to your belief most go-arounds at Heathrow are not caused by inadequate final approach spacing..........which is FYI done superbly by very skilled people in a very intense situation.......I would challenge you to do an hour of LL FIN. The majority of goarounds are caused by late runway vacations.

As has already been stated on here, operating as a regular into Heathrow, I think it is misguided to put oneself in a position where one does not have enough fuel to make at least one go-around without getting into a drastic mayday situation.

Some of your assumptions and comments about my collegue have not been appreciated, and have been read and noted by the controller concerned.

[Carnage Matey!]

Flanker, if you have a way of predicting holding at all the UK airports you listed 15 hours ahead then I'm sure lots of people would love to hear from you and may I please have next weeks lottery numbers! I suspect Antiguas post regarding no go-around at all may not be quite as he intended as in this situation I think the ASR from the P2 and the mandatory report from the engineers would reach him much quicker than an MOR.

Spitoon - my book estimates extra fuel burn at 4%/hr, thus over a 12hr flight you'll burn 48%of the extra fuel to carry it. Assuming you'd like about 4 tonnes spare at the start of the ILS, thats 8 tonnes extra you'd need to load in Singapore, which is about 80 passengers. Longhaulers make extensive use of reclearance, whereby they file to a nearer destination then refile onwards towards the intended destination as the fuel situation permits. However nobody can think of everything, the best laid plans etc etc and sometimes you may find yourself victim of excessive, unpredicted holding or you may turn out of the hold to be given a 40 mile final. Even with that extra 4 tonnes it may still not be enough. Sooner or later somebody is going to run short no matter how much extra fuel we carry.

[Scott Voigt]

For those who asked, where else in the world do you do 2.5 miles on final..? Well we do it here in the US... Probably where they came up with it there <G>...

regards

[M.Mouse]

Thank you Scott I did not know that.

Flanker

I know that the majority of us are not setting out to criticise LTMA controllers. The spacing on approach and general control is like poetry! What some of us are saying is that our company SOPs and your modus operandi are backing us all into a corner where it could all go horribly wrong.

Interesting that we are hearing all about BAs CAA approved fuel policy on this thread, what is the policy in FR, Easy, BMI, Virgin, etc?

[Stan Woolley]

M Mouse

Did you read my post(s)?I'm not ATC.


Carnage Matey

I assume you are only holding right down to minimum when the weather is good enough to allow it.It is extremely unlikely that extensive holding everywhere will be taking place in fair weather,wouldn't you say?

[NigelOnDraft]

Good debate... Getting some interesting reactions...!

I disagree with one thing that Antigua has been interpreted as saying (and so I may disagree with him) - the requirement to land with Reserve, does, IMHO, leave you with sufficient fuel to Go Around, Visual Circuit / TIGHT radar circuit, land before tanks dry i.e. without a call, the way I would play it always leaves the option for the Go Around.

Having gone around, the situation is now "urgent" - the next landing must be made - hence the "Mayday". The PAN option defines another specific fuel state that got skipped here, but may be made where there is a little more fuel...

As I said before, lets try and concentrate on "safety". Issuing a Mayday does not imply a dangerous situation in itself, its just a radio call. Its "grave & imminent.. threatens.. immediate assistance required..." i.e. I would expect ATC at this stage to keep a runway clear for you. The commercial fall out of this may get the policy changed, but I don't think it has (yet) occurred in recent times.

Chances of this happening:
1. How often at LHR do we get to an approach where we land with reserves only, or a little more? Very rarely - the times I've "committed" to LHR (gone below fuel sufficient to divert) is probably ~5 in as many years of SH operation based there, in each case landing comfortably above reserve (I think only 1-2 of these would have required a PAN if we went around)
2. How often, of these rare occasions, require a Go Around? Very few... and if you do as Antigua did, still less because ATC were forewarned (if unhappy).

As said elsewhere, very different from the certain other carrier regularly landing at LHR without fuel to do a Go Around and saying nothing...

NB Our rules used to say that as we "committed" to LHR, consideration be given to informing ATC. I still do that - it gives an ATC an idea, well in advance, that fuel is not that fat, and more importantly, if others did it, lets ATC see the day building up where "everyone" has committed! What's more, when I make that call, ATC seem to understand what "committed means"...

NoD

[M.Mouse]

Sorry Flanker my mistake. My post should have been addressed to Expeditedescent.

[FlapsOne]

Since someone asked, here's the EZ policy.

Min arrival fuel =

Alternate fuel = the burn from G/A @ dest to alternate at an appropriate level

Final Reserve Fuel = 30 mins hold fuel @ 1500' in icing (about 1200kg depending on type)

Alt Fuel + Final Res Fuel = CMR (Company Min Reserve)

If you're gonna land with less than Final Reserve (for whatever reason) it's a MAYDAY.

Capt may go below CMR only IF satisfied that landing at dest is assured (defined as landing can take place within any FORECAST wx deterioration and plausible sngle failures of airborne or gnd equipment).

Ergo, if held close to LGW/LTN on a 20 min - No Delay, it is permissible to go bleow CMR, if the Capt is satisfied that above is OK.

(There is a whole page on landing with less than norm reserves and I've only given you a snippet).

If you're gonna land with less than 1600kg and not yet established on Final Approach - PAN PAN.

The PLOG, like any other, states the JAR min fuel required for the trip. The Capt may take what he likes as long as he can justify it if called upon to do so.

I have NEVER YET been asked to justify my fuel load and, if it were to happen at EZ, it would be a discussion rather than a b0ll0cking - of that I have no doubt whatsoever.

Needless to say the above assumes Cat1 or better.

Rgds to all

[Carnage Matey!]

Sounds pretty much the same as BA but with slightly different names with the same restrictions on going below 'CMR'.

[no sig]

Nigel OD

Is acceptable in your SOP's to 'commit' to a destination with single runway?

[M.Mouse]

What is the difference between committing to a single runway at destination and diverting to a single runway?

[Capt H Peacock]

Here we go again with this ‘committing’ thing. There is nothing in UK law that allows the commander of a UK registered aircraft to reduce fuel to such an extent that a go around would compromise the safety of the aircraft and its occupants. The over-riding restriction is that the commander must at all times ensure that the aircraft will land with at least final reserve remaining. I would suggest that for an aircraft with final reserve remaining on touchdown to commence a go around, you will barely have enough fuel for a visual circuit. 30 minutes holding at 1500’ is just that, not a full IFR missed approach and subsequent radar pattern, as you are required to plan (JAROPS AMC-OPS 1.255). To plan such a tight margin in a public transport aircraft in VMC would be bad enough, to routinely plan this IFR is foolhardy.

The CAA have officially promulgated the extent to which holding should be expected at LHR in AIC 36/1996. It appears that Big Airways don’t feel themselves bound by the ‘information for guidance and necessary action’that is contained therein. I would be interested to know what other items of UK legislative material that they also find themselves exempt from. You are required to have knowledge of all such AIC’s and are expected to operate with them in mind.

Perhaps we will have to institute NOTAMed holding fuel requirements for the UK like they do in Oz. What does Big do down there? I feel that like many large organisations, the interpretation of relevant legislation has been allowed to be overcome by introspective judgements and a corporate arrogance that is prepared to exclude all versions of the truth but its own.

Culture it may be, safe it is not. Nigel holds a UK licence issued by the CAA, it has conditions and responsibilities attached. The MOR process is the last line of defence to allow the Authority to review an operators’ procedures to ensure safe compliance with current legislation. Perhaps the more MOR’s that are filed, the safer our skies will become.

[FlapsOne]

Assuming that almost everyone agrees that the min planned arrival fuel is final reserve fuel plus div fuel - what does this AIC actually recommend that we do?

1. Should we add an EXTRA 20 mins holding fuel for the TMA?

OR

2. Should we, as seems to be commonplace, say that we already have this 20 mins fuel as an integral part of our current plan BUT (and it's a big BUT) if any part of it is used, we can no longer divert and land with more than final reserve (ie we must commit)?

Now the CAA already know that we are arriving back with the statutory reserves so, one must conclude from that, they are referring to an EXTRA 20 mins fuel for routine ops into the London TMA.

If this is not the case - What was the point of the AIC?

[Antigua]

Ladies & Gents

I have sat back and watched this debate develop. It’s much better than I had dared hope. Thank you all for your views. Even the ones that I REALLY appear to have upset. If I have, then I apologise. I wanted to kick it off in a slightly contentious manner so as to ‘encourage’ your participation. Well that worked!

>>>>>Spitoon

But that's no reason to all but promote the policy here and, no doubt, on the flight deck in Antigua's case. If I'm a bit less antagonistic than in my last post, there's no straight answer to your questions - all I'm asking for is a little common sense. I just don't think planning that tightly on fuel, even on a nice day, is sensible. <<<<<

Spitoon, I’m not promoting any such thing. I’m merely saying that this is the company policy that I am stuck with. I don’t enthusiastically chop back the fuel at the planning stage to prove that it can be done. Just the opposite. Ask any of the co-pilots that fly with me. OK, you can’t, but if you knew me personally, well….. shall we say you’d be convinced. Exaggerating a point to make it maybe. I plead guilty to that.

What I was trying to say is that the fuel policy we have does not sit well with the ATC environment, phraseology, et al, as exists in the London Area, WHEN, for whatever reason, we find ourselves in a hold, perfectly properly committed to an airport, and getting low on fuel because things haven’t gone swimmingly over the past thirteen hours. Doesn’t always happen, we don’t want it to happen, we don’t plan for it to happen, but when it does happen I would like pretty please to have a form of words somewhere between strained silence and a mayday. And not to be criticised for using it. Simple as that.


>>>>>Even Antigua says he will carry more fuel when the weather is forecast to be poor - but I wonder how much. Just enough to cater for the holding that he, with his years of experience, thinks is reasonable for the weather conditions?<<<<<


Not ‘even’ Antigua… ‘especially’ Antigua takes LOTS. But we weren’t talking about those conditions, were we?

>>>>>Flanker

Come on Nigel!WHO ultimately lets it get to that state?Going round in circles 'till you've no options!!! Being MOR'd doesn't worry him he says,well neither does running out of fuel it seems.But he's been doing it for so long that he can see the future and he just 'knows' that its safe!<<<<<

Well I certainly seem to have got up your nose Flanker.

I said none of that in the way you put it. Let me try again. Do you think I would have started this if it didn’t worry me? The whole point of the posting is that it does worry me. And if I didn’t care……? See above. I know it’s not safe when we get 2.5mile spacing whether we like it or not.

>>>>>Expeditedescent


Your email however has been doing the rounds at work, and I can assure you that your comments regarding the LL Directors lack of suitable final approach spacing have not gone down very well, and neither did the tone of the end of that mail. Contrary to your belief most go-arounds at Heathrow are not caused by inadequate final approach spacing..........which is FYI done superbly by very skilled people in a very intense situation.......I would challenge you to do an hour of LL FIN. The majority of goarounds are caused by late runway vacations.

As has already been stated on here, operating as a regular into Heathrow, I think it is misguided to put oneself in a position where one does not have enough fuel to make at least one go-around without getting into a drastic mayday situation.

Some of your assumptions and comments about my collegue have not been appreciated,
and have been read and noted by the controller concerned.<<<<<

May I call you ED?

Now this posting DOES worry me a lot. I am not worried by the implied threat either. I am hoping that we can put this down to the limitations of this medium ( no body language, facial expression, etc…). Some have said that it would have been nice to know that an MOR had been filed, at least. Or a ‘please ring the watch supervisor on ext….’ would have been responded to, believe me. I’m sure he was very busy, so no problem.

Please read my original posting again. I made no blanket accusation about bad spacing. I think you do a marvellous job. I do not know how you do it. You are consistently the best in the world in very trying circumstances.

But you must admit you are human, and occasional mistakes will be made. I can count on the fingers of one finger how many times it has happened to me in the last five years. But it
has happened. Once. And once the preceding a/c just didn’t clear. One of ours too… double whammy. Sods law says one of these will happen to me on the odd occasion when fuel is tight. Chaps/chapesses, IT ONLY HAS TO HAPPEN ONCE.

>>>>>The majority of goarounds are caused by late runway vacations.<<<<

IT DOESN’T MATTER! If we didn’t have only 2.5 miles then it probably wouldn’t happen then.

Nobody willingly ‘lets’ the fuel get very low. If you divert, you use the diversion fuel and a bit more moving to put yourself in the same position at a different airport, only with less fuel. I personally don’t have a clue how many track miles you are going to make me do going there, either. Just that piece of the unknown may cause a mayday even before reaching another airport. At least you know where you are holding at BNN for LHR.

ED, I meant no disrespect to anybody, or any group of controllers. But PLEASE accept that we all make mistakes. I do. Lots.

Getting stuffy about it, sir, is in my humble opinion, dangerous in itself. We had that knocked out of us on countless CRM courses.

Lets leave it at that.

Look in my profile and get the chap involved to e-mail me privately, and I’ll apologise in person, if you like. Like my old flying instructor used to say ‘smack him in the teeth and buy him a bucket of beer’.

One thing IS clear to me. People DO care about this topic, and DO want to improve it. As far as I am concerned,…… job done.

Thanks Everybody

‘You’ve all done very well’

ANTIGUA











M.MouseStill just another number posted 23rd April 2002 20:13 What is the difference between committing to a single runway at destination and diverting to a single runway?


About 6 tonnes of fuel,usually MM!





:confused: :confused:

[NigelOnDraft]

No Sig...

<<Is acceptable in your SOP's to 'commit' to a destination with single runway?>>
Yes - but at a later stage i.e. EAT or delay known. However, I think you'll find most Nigel's (indeed most pilots I am sure!) would get "cold feet" around here. Committing to LHR, with 2 (and a 3rd if dire situation, whether prepped or not) runways is one thing, a single runway airfield with anyone ahead brings a different outlook.

<<The CAA have officially promulgated the extent to which holding should be expected at LHR in AIC 36/1996>>
Yes - but this applies to the planned fuel. We are NOT talking about this! We are dicsussing what one does as the fuel runs out, for whatever reason... Unexpected headwinds, extensive holding. As said previously, if you have the crystal ball that states how long holding at LHR will be in 20 mins time, let alone 15 hours, please could you lend it to us...

In addition to those telling "Big Airways" to call the low fuel state earlier. Please read the AIC:
"A radio call prefixed by MAYDAY ... PAN .... should only make call when ... in danger .... not because the fuel state has fallen below the amount needed to comply with formula given above.

So, in addition to bearing in mind safety v commercial, can we also bear in mind between "planning fuel" we depart with, and what we do as it runs down below the planned fuel

I see the EZY fuel policy is very similar... i.e. no PAN or MAYDAY until likely / will land below reserves, and can commit...

NoD

[NigelOnDraft]

Capt H P

<<as you are required to plan JAROPS AMC-OPS 1.255. >>

Out of interest, please could you let us know:
1. Which airline (or if sensitive, nationality, and type of airline / flying).
2. What your company fuel policy on these areas is...
3. Does it comply with JAROPS xxx above?

Lets not get personal - lets all learn. If Big Airways policy breaks certain rules / laws, lets hear it, and we'll put it to them....

NoD

[Stan Woolley]

Hello Antigua

Actually it was Nigel on Draft that wound me up by going on about following company policy and 'Don't blame Antigua'.Sorry mate,but I did count all those zero's and multiplied by 57 and you're right, it is a big responsibility - yours!

And it was you who wrote.Quote:

'Knowing,from experience,what is going to happen next.Which is why,when I leave the hold with just enough fuel to make a safe landing,I know that is safe.'

I have some experience too and while it points me in the general direction, I don't knowthat the one ahead is going to vacate! 2.5 mile spacing, so what - if you've got fuel!

Anyway back to the point,I don't disagree with you giving the controller a 'heads up' on the situation,its practical if not strictly 'correct', and I apologise for suggesting you don't care as I'm sure you do.I have been reacting more to what you wrote about how tight the fuel situation can get and how this happens.

Actually I can't believe things get that tight very often because as has been said it should be flagged up by more than one method.If you are not exaggerating then its up to you guys to do something about it.As for the hard commercial world,I would wager I have more varied experience of it than you do, but I have learned to say 'no, thank you' when I need to.

[Capt H Peacock]

Thank you Nigel, but my employer and my identity are not germane to this debate.

What is important is that we get a clear idea of what the Authority is requiring of commanders who wish to operate into LHR and other major airfields in the UK. I will reiterate that the CAA has published its intended interpretation of AIC 36 in the Special Objective Check, and that is that you must expect 20 minutes holding when you arrive at these airports. That means you must add that fuel to your expected burn. If you are arriving in the kind of weather that the UK has been blessed with these last weeks then it may well be that your alternate fuel is not required and could usefully be substituted for ‘holding fuel’. If the weather is not suitable for dispensing with an alternate (JAROPS Part D 1.295 refers), then you must take this holding fuel IN ADDITION to your planned fuel.

If during your approach phase the delay has exceeded the promulgated 20 minutes, you have the option of continuing to wait for an approach subject to the overriding responsibility of the commander to land with final reserve fuel. If you reach a fuel state such that after an approach you will have insufficient fuel to meet that requirement you MUST declare a PAN. Here is the relevant document.

AIC 131/1999

3 Actions to be taken when an immediate landing appears necessary

3.1 After having completed essential emergency or abnormal checklists, briefing the crew and preparing the flight deck and cabin areas for landing will be amongst the foremost priorities. Quite possibly the first request the crew will make of the air traffic service provider will be to adjust the aircraft’s heading towards the airfield where they now wish to land. Flight crew can expect ATC to assist, but only when a formal emergency has been declared and the commander’s intentions have been made known.

Personally I would be considering this course of action when I’m down to one approach and one missed approach and radar circuit. My PAN call would follow the go-around. I’m sure that Nigel is familiar with the frequency of go-arounds at LHR, one ATC mate says about two a day is an average. Do you feel lucky?

In my experience, LHR is the one of the only airfields that I visit when holding is a regular and expected occurrence. It is one of the only airfield where I enter the FMC hold as a matter of course. I can expect to hold on about three in four occasions.

So would you:

Leave the stand at JFK without 40 minutes taxi fuel?
Operate to an island destination, perhaps Grantley Adams, where CB’s are forecast without additional fuel for holding off?
Fly across the Andes without an oxygen critical escape route?
Fly a parallel approach into Denver Stapleton or Atlanta without TA selected?
Whatever


So why would you arrive at the World’s busiest international airport, in one of the most densely populated areas of Europe, when you know you’ll probably have to hold, when the Authority have officially informed you that you may have to hold, with no holding fuel?

It’s just not sensible. It’s not good airmanship.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Maybe I've missed something among all the chatter, but as a very experienced Heathrow Radar Director can I say to our crew friends that we don't do tight spacing for fun - it's damnably hard work. Just about all the ATC procedures we follow are agree by, if not demanded by, the AIRLINES. 2.5nm spacing can get very fraught (I'll not say more on here because one doesn't know who might be reading) but we only do it because the airlines apparently want it. If we take life easy and the delays extend who starts whingeing? Not us - the AIRLINES. You pilot chappies who don't like the procedures ought to be gently wringing your Flight Managers by the throats, not complaining - however politely - on here. There ain't much us coalface workers can do about it; we've got our feet on terra firma.

Lastly, anyone who plans fuel believing that they can use 27L as an "alternate" when 27R is the landing runway *(and vv) is... how can I put this politely..... barking mad!! The departure runway is frequently not available for landing due to WIP (big crane in the undershoot for example) or maybe the ILS is on maintenance, etc, etc.

Anyone agree that the fun has gone out of this game??

[NigelOnDraft]

Flanker
<<Actually it was Nigel on Draft that wound me up by going on about following company policy and 'Don't blame Antigua'>>
Sorry to 'wind you up'. What exactly did I say to cause this?

Capt H Peacock
<<Thank you Nigel, but my employer and my identity are not germane to this debate. >>
I never said it was - I was just asking what areas you flew in, you not having said it on this thread. You have now added <<In my experience, LHR... >> which is fine - there are plenty on these forums who do not know what they are talking about...

<<So why would you arrive at the World’s busiest international airport, ... with no holding fuel? >>
I NEVER said I would.

May I ask 2 things, before bowing out:
1. We are NOT talking about taking LITTLE fuel at the planning stage. We ARE talking about what to do as it runs low... 95%+ of the time the "plan" will work, holding will not be horrendous, and we will land, even after 10-20 mins holding, with ample fuel to go around, divert etc.
Once in a blue moon (and that will occur from time to time given the number of movements at LHR), someone will arrive at LHR having used significantly more fuel than expected en route, and now find extensive delays. We are discussing what to do now...
2. Myself, and other 'Nigels', have made very clear here what BA Fuel Policy is. I'm not saying I totally agree with it, and as a consequence, when its my shout, I'll take 'extra' because commonsense / A'Ship dictate. What we're are not getting as feedback is:
i) Where BA Fuel Policy contradicts any law / rule / AIC etc.
ii) Commonsense alterations to BA Fuel Policy from ATC to help everyone out.

This debate, when it avoids getting personal, is a good learning curve for everyone. Whenever we used to take ATCOs on the Flt Deck, they were always amazed at the BA Fuel Policy (which seems common to most UK operators). It is only be debating here the message might get across, and then communication (if necessary via MOR) might get a better policy implemented across the board.

So, Flanker and Heathrow Director, may I reiterate:
1. When do you want us to call PAN?
2. When do you want us to call MAYDAY?
3. What Fuel should we have (in terms of Go Arounds, diversion capabilities) as a minimum on landing before advising you of "a problem"?

NoD

[terrain safe]

NigelonDraft:

If I can introduce a flippant remark to this extemely interesting debate:
1 : Hardly ever
2 : Never
3 : Loads

[NigelOnDraft]

terrain safe...

Some humour much appreciated...!!

I should add that I find the LHR (and UK in general) ATCOs by far away the most professional worldwide, and also the most helpful in terms of working with us...

It is for this reason that I (and others?) ask for their opionions and thoughts here. We workd with them every day - the more we know of their pressures, and they ours, we can increase the overall level of safety (primarily), and commerical benefit (secondarily).

Re the 2.5NM spacing - its a circle. The "airlines" (the Mgmt, NOT the Flt Crew) demand tighter spacing, ATC provide it very well (but occasionally let down by "late vacations" - for which read, unable always to comply with optimum). The whole thing is getting very tight, and I, for one, believe it will end in tears...

Please do not think I "support" 100% the BA Fuel Policy, hence why I am here...

NoD

[Stan Woolley]

NigelonDraft

What wound me up(by pprune standards anyway)was the implication that having sparse amounts of fuel for holding was the fault of your company,approved by the CAA. For the umpteenth time it is up to the PIC to load extra fuel when required, it is their responsibility in law to do so,pressure or not.

What is annoying is your second last post which implies that you haven't read my previous posts where I have clearly spelled out that I am a pilot, not ATC, for whom I too have a great deal of respect.:)

[Carnage Matey!]

The point you seem to be missing Flanker is that on a 13 hour flight you having sparse fuel for holding is not necessarily the fault of the PIC either. When planning a flight 15 hours ahead you take as much fuel as you think you need, and maybe even a little extra for comfort. But the point is, the calculation for required fuel is not done on the back of a fag packet, its done by a computer calculating the performance of the specific aircraft based on forecast temperatures and winds aloft that are 6 hours old, and might be 21 hours old by the time you arrive at LHR. Add in quite accurate statistical data for holding and delays into LHR plus the other legal requirements and you have a fuel figure. You might want ot ake more than that, but it needs to be justified. You can turn around and say I want X tonnes more because of LVPs at LHR but you can't really keep saying I want 2X tonnes more and screw the company because I say so. Nobody is pressurised to take less fuel than they need, but they are asked to take only as much fuel as they think they need. Then when you find the winds are stronger, the temperatures higher, the routing less direct and the holding lengthier you may find that your best, most educated assessment wasn't enough this time. Which takes us back to the position of Antiguas initial post.

Edited to say having reread this post it may still leave me open to the accusation that "If you think the adverse events may occur then you should be loading more fuel". Perhaps, but then I don't walk around watching out for meteroites that might hit me. One has to make a professional judgement which is only as good as the information you base it on. Its not precise, its hit and miss and its the rare miss occasions were talking about here, not the regular hits.

[NigelOnDraft]

Flanker...

Apologies for that mistaken identity - I have not been following the names too closely, more what was written...

However, I will in turn ask you to read my posts again:
<<was the implication that having sparse amounts of fuel for holding was the fault of your company>>

When did I ever say we (BA) have "sparse" amounts of holding fuel?? I have said quite a few times, this is not an issue of planned fuel... it is entirely about what happens when the plan fails (which is very rare, as I said), for whatever reason... which is exactly the situation Antigua found himself in. I have read that AIC a few times throughout this debate, and I cannot see it disagrees with BA's present policy at all. Indeed, a recent campaign by certain individuals within BA, resulted in a "change" to our policy so became compliant with the AIC...

So my (TIC) reply to your
<<For the umpteenth time it is up to the PIC to load extra fuel when required>>
is
"For the umpteenth time the PIC has planned fuel legally and sensibly, but now finds, in the hold, that the quantity is decreasing (well) below the plan, and what he should do in terms of advising ATC..."

NoD

[spekesoftly]

"PAN PAN, PAN PAN, PAN PAN"

It is not a matter of what ATC want you to say, it is what YOU, as an aircraft commander, taking into account company policy and all relevant legislation, MUST say, if in YOUR judgement the situation warrants.

Then, and only then, can UK ATC give you the priority that you need.

[Stan Woolley]

Nigel and Carnage

Please read some things Antigua wrote on this thread.

This isn't a futuristic fantasy,this is here and now, and almost certainly happened today.

We are frequently weight limited out of there and cannot carry anything other than minimum LEGAL fuel.

That's worst case, BUT it is legal, it is increasingly normal, AND IT IS WHAT OUR COMPANIES WANT US TO DO!

We have a new fuel flight planning system in BA that is even meaner than the old one with trip fuel.LGW is the alternate, but if you are banished to a hold that option usually disappears after one or two turns.

Nigel

You didn't say BA carry sparse amounts of holding fuel,but your colleague above seems to be doing so. I'm only going on what has been written here, nothing else.I just don't think his actions are sensible from how he is describing the situation.

Nigel and Carnage

Of course nobody carries extra fuel for no good reason - BUT,
given the above and the thoughts of others on this thread it seems to me that a bit more, more often,is entirely justified!

Regards

[egffztzx]

Manual of Air Traffic Services (1-13):

Separation standards are MINIMA and shall be increased when:

(a) Requested by the pilot

etc, etc, etc

[Guy D'ageradar]

egffztzx,

Thank you - about time someone said that.

Sorry boys (and girls) but a lot of you are missing the point. I may not work in the London TMA but we all have our moments and if a streetwise captain can give me a heads up about a potential problem that allows me to plan ahead for the eventuality, I am a very happy bunny indeed. No such thing as too much information.

Where I work, an extra mile or so is no great problem and I will happily oblige, especially if it avoids a) a go-aroud (much more work for me) or b) a big pile of smoking aluminium.

I know that many of you work under greater pressure and workload than me and don't want to apear flippant but the manual says (or at least used to) safe, orderly and last and (imho) least, expeditious. (Better than the safe, efficient and, wait for it......friendly that we have here!)

Antigua, the guys at London TMA/ may well be too busy for the odd special request but don't let that put you off asking the rest of us.

:p

[Antigua]

You didn't say BA carry sparse amounts of holding fuel,but your colleague above seems to be doing so. I'm only going on what has been written here, nothing else.I just don't think his actions are sensible from how he is describing the situation.
_______________________________________________

Flanker, REALLY

Now really you are being perverse. SPARSE?

In relation to the original example of SIN - LHR in winter (stronger winds from the West for 13 hrs), what we do is reduce the ZFW by shedding staff pax/freight/fare paying pax, in that order, until the AUW = RTOW with (note, WITH) the original flt plan fuel offered by the gnomic computer in ZRH or GVA or wherever the damn thing is. All our plans have en-route alternates, so there is no other descision to make. We CANNOT and most certainly DO NOT further reduce the fuel load by shaving ANYTHING off the normal holding reserves.

With the Roller (Trent - Core) powered 400, this is also usually
Max Structural Wt. (We can still use derated T/O power, but that's another arguement if you want it.)

In other words ...... just what you do in your Fluff-Jet, but with bigger numbers.

Please don't accuse me of carrying SPARSE fuel. Or if you do, shout at the CAA, it's their set of rules.

A lot can happen to an ultra long range flight before we creep onto H109, or whatever they call the edge of your known world. It's FINISHING the flight with sparse fuel that concerns me.

ANTIGUA:)

[Cuddles]

So, did you get your fuel bonus this month then?:D

A mile? couldn't you claw that back from an inventive interpretation of speed control?

However, if it were me, I'd rather you asked, in fact maybe I'd rather you left some pax behind as well.

[Antigua]

Hello Cuddles,
___________________________________________

A mile? couldn't you claw that back from an inventive interpretation of speed control?

___________________________________________

WHAT? And upset my mates in the Director Suite (sounds like something from IKEA)?

ACTUALLY we take great pride in doing CDAs AND flying the exact speed you ask for. We don't always get it totally right, but we try.
So 'Satan - get thee behind me'.

Anyway, I've tried it. With a VRef of 152 kts (or thereabouts), + the standard 5kts on an unblowy day, that only gives you 3kts to play with on the '160 to 4' bit.

Besides, you probably have a speed camera attached to the scope!

ANTIGUA

[Stan Woolley]

Antigua

I reckon an example ofperverse would be trying to deny the clear message in your early posts, or were they dramatised for effect?

OK fair enough, lets not use sparse, lets say bare-minimum instead. So what seems to be happening a fair bit is that you end up taking off with bare minimum legal fuel and while you're having your nap ATC won't let you climb anywhere near optimum,you keep getting levels below those planned,and those pesky winds seem stronger than expected,then blow me, Maastricht want you at FL 250 two hundred miles out.
GEEZ that never happens!

Now fine,s*it happens,but if it keeps happening there ought to be a message there. So you end up holding at LHR without a lot of fuel/options. And it's you who said it is 'increasingly normal' and 'almost certainly happened today', did you not, or am I being perverse again?

A hundred pilots will come up with at least a hundred ideas about fuel, but to me at least, leaving yourself on approach without..... 'necessarily enough fuel to do a go- around AT ALL, even a truncated one' is hopefully a not even once in a lifetime occurrence.

Why not bid for the 777, maybe it can do the job? And by the way could you send me a postcard from somewhere windswept and interesting,you long haul sky god? ;)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I personally have no objection to a pilot chattily telling me he has a fuel problem... had one yesterday: "We can only hold until XXX (his EAT minus about 1 minute)". Usual stuff which we hear every day of our working lives.. However, guys, much as I don't actually MIND you saying it you should know that officially I'm not supposed to act upon it unless you declare an emergency.. Officially I cannot change the landing sequence to accommodate you just because you casually mention that you're tight on fuel. Nevertheless, if some of you saw the gyrations we go through to help you jump the queue sometimes you might be amazed - especially those of you who fly a certain long extremely pointed object.. Maybe we should interpret the rules absolutely to the letter... get Stansted, Birmingham, Gatwick, etc., full up with Heathrow diversions every day and see if the message gets home...?

Lastly, I really feel for the long-haul guys but the ones that get up my nose are those who come from Manchester and tell me they can only hold for only 5 minutes (happened very recently)...

[WeeWillyWinky]

<<Maybe we should interpret the rules absolutely to the letter... get Stansted, Birmingham, Gatwick, etc., full up with Heathrow diversions every day and see if the message gets home...?>>

Might be one of the best suggestions so far made!

[spekesoftly]

Question for Antigua please:-

Going right back to your very first post, which spawned this lively and very enlightening discussion - Did you in fact get the extra mile spacing that you asked for, or were you still spaced 2.5nm behind the preceeding aircraft?

I appreciate that was but one detail in the issues you raise, and appologise if I've missed the answer elsewhere. No hidden agenda, I'd just like to know.


"speed camera attached to the scope" ...... hmm, now that's an idea!! ;)

[Antigua]

FLANKER
________________________________________

And by the way could you send me a postcard from somewhere windswept and interesting,you long haul sky god?

_________________________________________

Certainly, how about Chicago in Feb?

OK ...... I give up. You are the one that likes playing with words. Can you come up with a few that I can throw at my Director Flight Operations (DFO), who thinks he's Group Operations Director (GOD) when he asks me why I dived into HEL because I was a BIT worried about what might happen in two hours time when I arrived in the (sunny) London Area?

Address the letter c/o my bunk. When the nice young lady brings me my morning tea and my (ironed) copy of the Torygraph, I will read it with interest.

Kind Regards

ANTIGUA :mad: :rolleyes:

[Antigua]

SPEKESOFTLY

Still just another number
posted 26th April 2002 08:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question for Antigua please:-

Going right back to your very first post, which spawned this lively and very enlightening discussion - Did you in fact get the extra mile spacing that you asked for, or were you still spaced 2.5nm behind the preceeding aircraft?

_______________________________________

Reminds me of a joke. "Conductor!...... Is this bus going to Speke?"

" What do you think I am, gerl, a ventriloquist?"

_______________________________________

Mind you Speke's probably been nicked by now.

ANSWER : YES, thanks to the professionalism of the team at LATCC that day. Not that they're talking to me any more. Except via their lawyers. If they had left it at 2.5, I may have filed an ASR myself .

Seriously though folks....... it needs to be addressed by our bosses committees and their bosses committees. I don't know about the NATS side, but ours hide behind a risk-assessment model in these instances, which has been approved by the CAA.
This is what has happened since 'The Herald of Free Enterprise'.
Shifts the blame to the blokes at the sharp end when it all turns to sh 1 t. With a bit of luck they'll be dead by then, (Chinook/Scottish granite).

Or am I being cynical again?

ATB

ANTIGUA

[spekesoftly]

Thank you Antigua :)

And just mind you don't get 'nicked' by those Gatsos :D

[Mr Fishy]

Antigua
I don`t think tech stopping for fuel is the issue here, if you thought there would be a delay at LHR then more fuel loaded would have being a good idea (aic 131). If the r/mtom was restricting then maybe offloading frieght/bags/or even bars(as I have done in the past) may help. But as has been said we do not have a crystal ball so it is possible to get into the same fuel situation as you had and I`m sure we all have been there.
What I do find strange is the statment that once in the hold at LHR we have no fuel to divert (does this happen often?). I know that since the introduction of JAR we can in exceptional circumstances land with final reserve fuel (30 mins) when an approach is imminent etc, etc (ASR required in our company).
I would have thought with the variables at LHR it would be possibly not a good idea to excersise this option and to divert when down to no less than 30 min plus diversion fuel.
Having said that I can also say that hindsight and a perfect world are wonderful thing`s.

A very confused Fish!

[Stan Woolley]

Good Morning Antigua

Whats with the :mad: ?

The long haul sky god bit was just banter at your suggestion that my known world ends at Larnaca.

Anyway all the best and keep up those Balpa subs :D

TTFN

[M.Mouse]

Mr Fishy

Couple of points if we all did that then there would be many diversions each day, especially on a good weather day when many of us do carry flight plan fuel.

Secondly it has been pointed out that diverting at the point you suggest means you burn your diversion fuel and reach your diversion with 30 minutes reserve only. Much the same as burning it in the hold except that this time you are not where everybody wants to be!

What is worring many of us now is that with the old SWORD flightplan one nearly always burned less than planned. Presumably due to slack in the SWORD program. Now we have CIRRUS which is too clever by half and appears to have no slack. It is very, very precise, just a shame the real world isn't.

Yesterday I received a letter and multi-page notice explaining why we are now going to be using 'statistical' contingency fuel ie avaraged figure using historical data. Again a very precise tool in a very imprecise environment.

When I joined BA we always took extra above the required for comfort. In fact I was told during my route training that only managers took SWORD fuel. Gradually the culture changed led by the new (then) '400 fleet. The culture is now take plan fuel unless you need more and in the process much money was saved or should I say less money was wasted carrying unnecessary fuel.

The problem now is that many of us feel that men with calculators are trying to be too clever. It is now apparent that many of us do not trust the new CIRRUS planning system and will be reluctant to take 'statistical' contingency. As somebody pointed out in conversation we will have turned a full circle and once again nobody but managers will carry CIRRUS fuel!

I am all for being thrifty but CIRRUS and 'statistical' contingency fuel are, in my opinion, a step too far.

What is really worrying is that the CAA approve all of this.

[Antigua]

FLANKER,
________________________
Good Morning Antigua

Whats with the ? (ENRAGED Smiley)

The long haul sky god bit was just banter at your suggestion that my known world ends at Larnaca.

Anyway all the best and keep up those Balpa subs
__________________________________

LARNACA? Luton more likely
:)

Sorry - the enraged smiley was 'cos I pushed the wrong button,as the girlfriend keeps telling me. I am, after all, a pilot. Or was if the powers that be read some of this! Therefore the BALPA subs are safe. TWO disciplinaries in one career would be one too many!

TIC

ANTIGUA

PS I'm off to watch Hampshire try to play cricket, as I REALLY need to get out more!!

:cool:

[Giorgio]

Hi there and sorry for butting in here as im not an ATCO or a pilot,

It seems that there is an awful lot of commercial pressure on both ATC and the guys in the cockpit to run the system as cost effectivly and efficiently as possible, (sorry if im repeating things here) and because of this, saftey is being compromised.

OK, long haul flight of say 15hrs, a super efficient fuel planner and soon to be out of date weather info and any other unexpected changes enroute leads to the aircraft being potentially very low on fuel on arrival at their destination, yes?

If the crew decide to add extra fuel on top of the calculated reserve for their flight and then they fail to use that extra fuel, is that fuel then wasted or can it not be removed and/or re-used?

Surely the airlines cannot justify any action against crews that add 'a bit extra' for longhaul flights when they - the crews - know that things could change quite considerably by the time they reach their destination and are just making sure saftey is NOT compromised, considering that these birds cary several hundred passengers.

It also seems as if ATC procedures are a little out dated with regard to declarations about the state of the aircraft, seems most ATCO's would appreciate the extra info ( i know i would if i was in that position :) )

Again i apologise for entering into this topic but i thought you may like to hear an 'unproffesional' viewpoint.

I think you all do a fabulous job and i would much rather be flying than traveling any other way.

Kind regards

George

[Captain Airclues]

I wonder if we could get back to the original point of this thread before we reach the magic 100 posts? We can discuss ideal fuel reserves as much as we like, but there will always be occations when things don't go as planned, and we get a little concerned, even if we are not in the strict Mayday or Pan situations as defined by JAR. This concern can be as a result of holding at destination or diverting, especially if we have diverted from a two runway airport to a single runway airport.
Antigua is an extremely professional and competent aviator, but he is also an excellent communicator as those of you who have met him will know. What he did was to communicate his concerns to the Director as he thought that this might be more helpful than springing a Mayday on them in the go-around. In my many visits to LTCC I have always been told that you prefer us to let you know about any problems that we have. However, in Antigua's case this communication resulted in an MOR.
So perhaps we could get back to the original question. Do you want us to inform you of any problems that we might have, or do you want us to wait until we reach the strictly defined (JAR-OPS-1.375(c)) limits before springing a Mayday on you?

Airclues

[Guy D'ageradar]

Captain Airclues,

As far as I'm concerned, when there is a problem or even potential problem, please let me know ASAP - the more time I have to plan any required manoeuvres and/or arrange a gap in the sequence, the better.

[greatorex]

OK, Guys. Can I be honest here? What worries me isn't so much the fuel (or rather lack of it) issue, but the fact that an e-mail on this forum has found it's way outside of this forum:

Your email however has been doing the rounds at work, and I can assure you that your comments regarding the LL Directors lack of suitable final approach spacing have not gone down very well, and neither did the tone of the end of that mail.

If, as I think I am, correct in assuming. Someone (I'll be polite and refrain from using the word lowlife) cut and pasted one of our colleagues words and took it upon themselves to distribute this around EGLL. If this is the case, then frankly, that person far from thinking that they have done some great public service has probably not only infringed Antigua's moral copyright but has breached the trust of each and every one of us users of this board. Many of the forums on Pprune are open to all and it would be a shame if they became password protected because of the pompous and misguided actions of one or two 'busy-bodies'.

[phd]

At the risk of repeating myself - I will repeat myself.

Firstly let's all agree what the priority is here. Is it safety? Or is it getting as many aircraft as possible on the ground per hour and minimising fuel consumption?

Do not kid yourselves it is the former. We are all allowing the safety margins to be steadily eroded in the interests of the commercial imperative to maximise revenue and minimise costs. When I say "we", I mean pilots, controllers, airline managers, the CAA and the politicians that entrust them with the management of airspace and aviation.

Surely we can all see what is really going on? The bean-counters are prevailing and the experts - the pilots and controllers - are losing the argument.

I will stick my neck out here and nail my colours to the mast. It is time to reverse the trend - increase a/c spacing minima on final to 4 miles and carry at least 30 mins contingency fuel above and beyond the diversion reserve. Let safety come first for once and s*d the cost. We will all have to pay a little more for the privilege of flying - but at least we will have a safe operation at LHR.

Anybody know why the Herald of Free Enterprise rolled over?
Because a Finance Director mandated the sailing of ferries with open bow doors as it saved 20 minutes per turnround and made the company an extra £700,000 profit per year.

Anybody know why the Challenger Shuttle disaster happened?
Because the managers and politicians won the argument and the launch went ahead against the better judgement of the engineers who suspected the o-rings would not function properly and exhaust gas blow-out was likely.

Anybody know why the Hatfield rail crash happened?
Work it out for yourself.

[Christopher James]

It is true that the PIC must use his judgement in deciding what fuel to load for his trip. It is equally true to say that, living in an imperfect world, things will not always work out the way they were expected to. To cover every eventuality would be financially impractical and would jeopardise the existance of many carriers. It too is not a competent thing to do. The question here is balance.

I believe the crux of the issue boils down to government policy. Airlines must be allowed to operate in a fiancially wise manner, taking a balanced view of the issues. Govenment policy has failed to balance the provision of redundant runway capacity in line with the growth in demand for Heathrow. REDUNDANT runway capacity is not wastage (as believed by many who do sums) but an essential part of the safety culture that we should be living in. Not only does it remove the need to pack traffic to the very limit, which itself is unwise, but it permits the allocation of a separate runway for traffic with difficulties of any kind, thereby protecting the need to keep the traffic moving. The refusal thus far to provide such capacity is negligent in my opinion and IS worthy of an MOR. It is something that we have got wrong and it must be put right, quickly. Lets hope the DETR sees sense and are smart about it.

In the interim I offer the following observation: Every evening at about 19:00 the outside line goes, it is always BA ops., re the CONC. Knowing they are always tight they obtain updated delay data and use that in their planning. (I have seen it divert without even getting into the hold.) I would hope that same data could be applied to other traffic.

As far as r/t calls are concerned: One never knows what unforseen problems you are going to encounter on the approach e.g. flaps or gear. If we get to PAN things have gone wrong and to that end I will always respond positively to a hint about fuel. At the same time, that gives you guys a responsibility to me to be wise in your planning. I don't have any problem with a captain making me aware that he is tight on fuel but remember, asking for a bit more room doesn't achieve a whole lot anyway because and extra .5 nm will be no good if the preceding bursts a tyre.

Antigua, I support your actions and thank you for a debate that can only further safety. We need to get back on the flight decks.

CJ

[Expeditedescent]

Greatorex........

I was always told:

"Never ASSUME it makes an ASS out of U and ME".

Fraid you have fallen into that trap.

Some facts for you:

1. Work is Terminal Control not LL, as APP Radar is provided from there not the tower building.

2. The "lowlife" who sent the copy of the email to us at TC was Antigua's fleet commander (or some other such similarly titled position, cannot remember exactly who it was) at one of the World's favourite airline's, and it was not marked as confidential, controlled, or infact any other restriction placed on its distribution. It was opened for discussion as it contained "nothing controversial".

3. The email was nothing to do with this board, nor was PPRUNE ever discussed, it was an internal mail, sent from the airline to NATS, as a follow up to a CA1261 report.

I should point out too, that the airline concerned was inappropriate to name the controller concerned by including his name in the 1261 copy........1261 reports are meant to be confidential when discussed outside of the parties directly involved.

I suggest greatorex, there is only one busy body involved in this discussion..............you, sir.

[greatorex]

In which case, I was wrong and apologise.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

How leisurely it would be to go back to 4-mile spacing at Heathrow, as it was when I started back in the very early 70s! Four-mile spacing in the wind conditions we had yesterday would have given us a landing rate of around 30 an hour. Given that the traffic offering is over 40 for many hours of the day we'd end up at 10pm with about 100 a/c holding, either in our stacks or on the ground somewhere. I'm not altogether sure that the airline industry could take that. One answer is to run the place all night, then we could shift at least the same amount of traffic with 4 or 5 mile spacing..... but the noise freaks are mega powerful and they'd go bananas. (I'll bet there are some on here - I've certainly fielded irate phone calls from airline pilots complaining about aircraft noise. Can you actually believe it?)

Let's hope it's a quite afternoon today - Saturday usually is, thank God!

[beerdrinker]

Antigua,

Thanks for starting this posting.

Interesting replies – most very useful but,

Flanker – rhymes with *anker. Rather apposite given the tone and content of his postings.

Capt Peacock. Again well named. A pompous know it all on an old TV series. Can you imagine him going to work (if he is in fact a working airline pilot) with two flight bags. One with the normal stuff and the other with his personal copy of the UK AIP (was Air Pilot), JAR’s, ANO, AIC,s and Rules of the Air.

I too am worried about Cirrus and now Statistical Contingency. We are cutting things down to far and the time is beginning to come when we will revert to the old days and carry some for Mum. Otherwise our colleagues in ATC are going to hear the words” Be advised that in the event of a go-around we will be declaring an emergency” more often. Will also bear in mind the quote from the ATC Manual that separation will be increased at the “request of the pilot”.

The only good thing we have on our side at the moment is the re-opening of Afghan airspace. Helped a lot from BKK last week.

I have not yet received the package (mail a little slow to frogland) but will read the last sentence carefully and probably react accordingly.

Enjoy the cricket – we are off for a lunch gastronomique


Beerdrinker

PS. Will not tell Mrs Antigua about the girlfriend’s buttons.

[120.4]

True enough Mr Director.

A very senior NATS manager once told me that using the argument of safety as a lever to obtain additional runway capacity would be to admit that we have already taken things too far. If we have gone too far, would we be able to admit it? An inability to acknowledge error in our game is dangerous and I am sure it is something that the crews work on in CRM.

If 4 miles is the spacing that we ought to be using then using less is to allow commercial pressure to back us into a corner that jeopardises safety. Now, if that has happened we need to be big enough to admit that we have got it wrong and act accordingly.

All the TC sectors have a target sector flow which is 80% of the sector capacity, so I am told, supposedly giving some contingency. Except Heathrow, where traffic is flowed usually 2 per hour OVER the runway capacity thereby DELIBERATELY inducing pressure on the final director to pack the traffic in. Does that not indicate that we have allowed an imbalance between capacity and demand to develop?

If the airlines are to be allowed to operate a financially competent (as well as safety conscious) fuel policy, which is essential, then SPARE runway capacity must be provided to cater for the unforseen. The government's policy therefore must be questionable.

Have a good afternoon, see you tomorrow.

Pount 4

:)

[Stan Woolley]

beerdrinker

Thanks for calling by and insulting me,very helpful.

Since you then go on to more or less back up what I've been saying, what does that make you? :mad:

[Captain Mayday]

Antigua - one of the best threads I've had the privilege of reading, thanks for kicking off the debate. Raised multi worthwhilies.

Sounds like
2.5 miles is pushing the margins
beancounters are ruling both roosts too much
London is too busy
.... so, send those big jets on a fuel stop off to sunny Prestwick. (oh I forgot, they used to do that when they were paraffinically challenged in the 70s). That way us poor holidaymaking disadvantaged palefaces don't have to fly south to the big smoke, and then north again 4 hrs later, waving to inlaws as we flush the aerial loo over the Clyde. And the nice drivers get a nice crew rest day to play golf and buy beer for the kindly ATCOs who don't get to see them on post 9/11 non-existant fam flights.

Who loses ?

Grumpy beanies.

Who cares ?

PS I thought a Cirrus was one of those lovely plastic planes with the parachute, like wot's just arrived at Glesca - drool

[Mr Fishy]

Beerdrinker
I actually found Flanker and Captain Peacock`s comment`s very valid and it is obvious that their main concern is SAFETY, I don`t have a problem with that!!

[Vlax]

Antigua – Very interesting! Amazed to know that a go-around could result in a Mayday!!!

For that reason alone I would be grateful for the “heads up”.
Sh*t happens, I’m sure all pilots, at one time or another, (long haul to light a/c) have arrived at destination with less than planned fuel or less than they would have liked. I have!

Ok EGLL is different, but even so you’re entitled to the extra spacing. Good call and very valid reason and wouldn’t cause a too big a problem at majority of other airports.

However, a word of caution. A runway can often be taken out of use without warning, for numerous reasons, it doesn’t have to be a cockup on anyones part. Normally because of the speed of the ops people out there, it goes un-noticed, but it can easily result in 1 or 2 go-arounds!

Anyone (even Joe public if they new what one was) are entitled the file an MOR. Personally I try to avoid paper work! From the reaction here in this forum it may well be justified, after all there IS a SAFTY implication, then best to have it out in the open.
That’s my brake over, back to the desk.
:cool:

[Antigua]

Christopher James
_______________________________________
Antigua, I support your actions and thank you for a debate that can only further safety. We need to get back on the flight decks.

CJ
_______________________________________

Thank you CJ

Nearly one hundred postings. A few backs up, which means to me that my original intention of kick starting the debate worked wonders.

'Expeditedescent' hope you have calmed down. The piece of paper you circulated around LATCC appears to be my official response to the original MOR. It seems my Flight Manager, a very nice and switched on chap ('only' a First Officer too - would that happen at NATS? Or is it still 'Buggins Turn' there?), passed it on to you verbatim. I guess that is a vote of confidence in me! It was no more or less confidential than the original MOR, and like the MOR, no doubt, contained my name. So please don't get stroppy about that. It was also factual. I HAVE done go-arounds due to lack of spacing. If you find that too difficult to swallow, then I'm sorry. See my previous posting about the dangers in this game of thinking you are beyond critisism.

Hopefully I wiil get to meet the controller concerned, and he can criticise me all he likes, as long as he lets me buy him a beer.

NOW, CJ, sorry to stray again. You say.
_________________________________

We need to get back on the flight decks.
_________________________________

..........indeed! What's stopping you? Here's another 'Did You Know?'

DYK that you are still welcome on our flight decks. The extract below is from a recent missive from our Supreme Leader. However the policy NEVER changed, even after 9/11.
___________________________________________

FAMILIARISATION FLIGHTS

The financial constraints on our business and the security situation following 11th September have compelled us to review our policy towards familiarisation flights for non-British Airways employees.

Although in the past we have taken a relatively generous attitude to requests for people such as Air Training Corps cadets or serving personnel in the Armed Forces to experience a flight with us, there is a measurable cost associated with these tickets. In the present climate, we need to preserve every penny we can. Accordingly the General Management team has decided that we can only justify these tickets for our own trainee pilots as part of their curriculum or for Air Traffic Control Officers as part of the long-standing liaison programme.
_____________________________________________

So .......... from our point of view, there is nothing stopping you. Not EVEN our bean-counters. If you have been told anything different, I would suspect your own bean-counters!! Not a totally suprising thought to the average ATCO, I think.

Kind Regards to all our readers......

ANTIGUA
:)

[spekesoftly]

So where do we go from here? Should pilots and controllers try to persuade the regulators of UK Aviation to introduce an official 'low fuel' call, without the need to declare a 'PAN'? Would such a procedure be open to abuse, and therefore fall in to disrepute, as seems to have sometimes happened in the past?
Might it give false comfort to the programmers of 'Cirrus' et al, and tempt an even meaner fuel policy?

Contentious questions perhaps, and I don't have a ready answer :(

[Christopher James]

Antigua, re the flight decks:

I was under the impression, perhaps not very well informed, that it had been decided that giving non-uniformed persons access to the flight decks would alarm the pax. I had also been under the impression that our (NATS) famflight scheme had been suspended.

This is exactly the sort of issue that we need to talk to each other about but I do fear that the issue needs to be addressed in far higher circles than we are capable of reaching. As has been said, airlines must be allowed to operate in a financially competent, as well as safety conscious manner but the volume of traffic that is being scheduled onto Heathrow's two runways makes that a difficult balance to judge. Having used every last scrap of capacity to move aeroplanes we have backed ourselves into a safety issue.

To truely solve this problem we have to remove runway capacity from the equation. Is it something for our professional bodies to take up on our behalf? If the extra capacity government is planning doesn't come to Heathrow then this less than satisfactory situation is with us for the forseeable future.

CJ

[Antigua]

Christopher James
Still just another number
posted 28th April 2002 18:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Antigua, re the flight decks:

I was under the impression, perhaps not very well informed, that it had been decided that giving non-uniformed persons access to the flight decks would alarm the pax. I had also been under the impression that our (NATS) famflight scheme had been suspended.
__________________________________________

As you can see CJ, reports on the demise of the scheme have been exaggerated.

Flight deck occupants in civvies may leave the flight deck for physcialogical (sp?) purposes. In other words a pee etc... if (other than 400) the loo isn't on the flt. deck. This has been taken to mean a short stroll to combat DVT etc... If one was to sit and watch a movie during that short stroll.............

We still have our families up there, and if my dragon has packed her SS uniform inadvertantly...... well I guess that means civvies.

As for your point about powers above us needing to get involved, well they will say 'there is no evidence of any disquiet in the ranks'.

Well, to paraphrase Ken Woolstenhome (sp again?) ----- 'There is now'.

Regards

ANTIGUA

;)

[M.Mouse]

Antigua

I appreciate that you sometimes phrase things deliberately in a way that provokes controversy but your quote

' Flight deck occupants in civvies may leave the flight deck for physcialogical (sp?) (sic) purposes. In other words a pee etc... if (other than 400) the loo isn't on the flt. deck. This has been taken to mean a short stroll to combat DVT etc... If one was to sit and watch a movie during that short stroll............. '

is, I presume, taken from your reading of a message from the former '400 CP on the BA Compuserve forum. In order that there is no misunderstanding leading to an overzealous CC member reporting said stroll and watching of a movie it might be pertinent to point out that this interpretation of physiological need was shortly therafter contradicted and expressly ruled out by the notice dated 7th Oct 2001 from the Director of Flight Crew himself which specifically states '.........but an approved jump seat traveller must remain in the flight deck throughout the flight. The only exception to this is for an essential call of nature.'

[Antigua]

Thanks MM

You are quite right to pick me up on that. This isn't the place to go into some of the mental manoeuvrings that went on with our now departed CP over the interpretation of the regs on this.

As I remember, they were still going on as he left!

The point is, I think, that most of the fam flights would be short(ish) in duration, and the person concerned would probably want to remain on the flt. deck anyway, that being the purpose of coming, in the first place.

Up to date 'local' instructions would I'm sure be explained on the day.

I too am a great supporter of the whole idea. I know I get a lot out of it when we are made most welcome at LATCC, (and other places, 'spekesoftly')

Like all things in this business at the moment, the situation is 'fluid'. Don't do no harm to ask, though, do it?

ATB

ANTIGUA

[spekesoftly]

Pilot visits to ATC, controller fam flights - yes, all good stuff, but aren't we letting the real culprits off the hook?

In an earlier post, Antigua mentions 'our bosses committees...........hiding behind risk assessment models', perhaps it's time to get these guys on fam flights, and let them see the very real consequences of their policies.

[120.4]

Antigua:

This morning very strong winds rapidly built us 30 odd minutes delay. You might imagine the pressure one then feels under to get traffic tight and it takes great self discipline not to succumb. Inevitably there are "casualties", today it was BAW 84. Whilst this was going on, 3 cranes were blocking the approach to 27R leaving us perilously exposed should something have gone wrong with 27L. That is both unprofessional and unsatisfactory but is apparently a commercial decision.

Evidently the policies regarding fuel and runways are are not satisfactory and clearly there is disquiet in the ranks. The bean counters don't understand/ want to understand the position they put us in; all they see is numbers. Heathrow Airport Limited want to increase the hourly declared capacity, presumably on the basis that we often land mid 40s per hour. (This morning we did very well (acknowledged by management) to reach 39.) That they can even ask demonstrates a worrying lack of understanding.

Can BALPA not get involved and argue the cause? The issue here is safety and that ought to concern them.

Point 4

:confused:

[Christopher James]

Thanks Antigua, I will be actively persuing a fam flight in the near future.

I take your point about disquiet in the ranks. Lets hope that somebody takes notice.

CJ

[Antigua]

Can BALPA not get involved and argue the cause? The issue here is safety and that ought to concern them.

Point 4
__________________________________________

'ANTIGUA'................................................... .................. Well you do say callsign only!

Hello once again. Thanks for sticking with us.

Probably, is probably the answer to your question. I think there may be a bit more milage left in this, but when you're all sitting back exhausted, I'm going to collate all this and ask them the very same question. BALPA are having a minor civil war at the moment but I'm sure I can get into an ATS Study Group (or whatever they call themselves this week) meeting and put it to them.

It may not suprise you to know that in my younger days I sat on this committee ( for about ten years - or so it seemed at the time). That was way back in the days of the likes of Fred Frost etc. from your side........... yeah, well I did say I'd done the rounds.

As an aside, and to show how long ago it was, I wrote the BALPA appraisal of OMEGA, and together with a collegue did the pilot side of TCAS at Malvern. (YES..... it started off as a ground based thing). At least on this side of the Pond.

Anyway, I know how slow the wheels can turn, (Dennis Leonards' alpha-numeric callsigns?). It is, however the next step unless someone has a brighter idea?

An incident/crash, God save us, would 'help' of course. But we're trying to stop that, are we not?

Regards

ANTIGUA

:eek:

[Expeditedescent]

Hello Antigua,

Sorry but a family crisis has stopped me replying at length to the earlier post:

I would like to add some more clarity.

I don't need to calm down because I was never that worked up, well apart from greatorex's ill informed assumptions, for which he gracefully apologised.

I replied in support of my collegue, who filed the MOR because he thought it incumbent upon him to do so in light of the events........Not out of vindictiveness or any anger or unhappiness. I repeat he was perfectly happy to accomodate your request. So please lets nobody accuse this gentleman of doing something with some intent that was not there.

I am a bit surprised that you choose to re-iterate the point about go-arounds due to spacing.....I never said that go-arounds due to that reason do not occur, but the fact is that it is not the reason for the vast majority of goarounds...........to try to claim that is a bit demeaning to your so far itelligent and reasoned arguments.
I am a TMA controller by the way, so I really do not care much about final approach spacing............except when my erstwhile collegues screw it up and they fill up the holds (joke guys !!).

I won't answer the comment about thinking we are above criticsism, as frankly I find it a bit childish.

The feedback I passed on to you was the feeling of people at work, not mine personally, so please don't shoot the messanger......sorry if you don't like it but you did get the backs up of some of our Heathrow people, the way the mail was worded.

The fact that your name was contained in the mail sent to us, is really not relevant to a 1261, which is supposed to have assured confidentiality, and again, it was not me that was upset about it, but the individual who filed the report.........that is his perogative.

The controller concerned will not criticsise you if you meet him, because as far as he is concerned you did nothing wrong in the situation. The realtive merits of fuel loadings etc etc, are all above the remit of humble ATCO's.

Respectfully

[120.4]

Keep us posted, I would be interested to know what BALPA have to say.

Point 4

:)

[Antigua]

Hello ED (for short)

I'm going to knock it on the head after this, I think we're into semantics and not a million miles apart on anything.
___________________________________________

I am a bit surprised that you choose to re-iterate the point about go-arounds due to spacing.....I never said that go-arounds due to that reason do not occur, but the fact is that it is not the reason for the vast majority of goarounds...........to try to claim that is a bit demeaning to your so far itelligent and reasoned arguments.
________________________________ED

Can we agree that if spacing was MORE than 2.5 miles, by how much is up for arguement, then IF the controller got it a BIT wrong, or, if the preceeding pilot got it a BIT wrong in clearing, or if the landing pilot got it a BIT wrong on the app. speed, or any combination of the above, then a 'dodgy' go-around MIGHT be avoided, and a MAYDAY may not ruin the day? THAT'S what this is all about.
_______________________________ANTIGUA

I won't answer the comment about thinking we are above criticsism, as frankly I find it a bit childish.
_______________________________ED

Sorry about that. I'm sticking with the comment though, ONLY because ANY pilot, at any stage of his many checks and check-rides that displays any hint of being unable to accept criticism from even the lowliest of collegues, gets looked at VERY keenly these days. I kind of imagined it was the same on your side of the fence, and didn't realise that it might upset anyone.

I hope your family crisis was short lived and all is well. I honestly don't know whether us aviators are better off in being able to get away from them on the other side of the world, or worse off through not being around to deal with them before they get out of hand. I feel threadcreep coming on.

Kind Regards to all.......

ANTIGUA
:confused:

[ATCO Two]

ED and Antigua,

The bad news: the statistics show that most go arounds at Heathrow are caused by tight spacing.
The good news: only 0.24% of approaches at Heathrow result in a go around.

[Bigears]

only 0.24% of landings at Heathrow result in a go around
That would be a touch & go then? :rolleyes:
I know what you meant..... :p

[ATCO Two]

Smartears! ;) Did I spell that right?

[LEM]

There's a road with an 80 speed limit.
Ok, I think, if the limit is valid for an old driver, at night under the rain, why can't I, young and with quicker reflexes, during the day in good weather, increase that limit to 130?

We'll try to answer this question later on.


Everybody focused on the fuel aspect in this thread.
Those who focused on the planning stage were totally wrong: if you load the legal quantity, which must also include the extra LHR holding, you are right, safe and cannot be criticised.

Also those who focused on the fuel management at destination were not on target.
I assume you, Antigua, landed with at least final reserve that day.
It's perfectly legal to land with, say, 35 minutes of fuel left in your tanks.
It is also obvious that, if you have to go around, you will have to use part of the final res. fuel, thus you will have to declare an emergency.
All this is perfectly legal scenario, and you have declared an emergency because you are using even only a few minutes of you final res. fuel, that does't mean you are going to crash five minutes after the missed approach.

The real problem, that day, was in your request for more spacing:
the director was right in MORing you, not because you were not entitled to request more spacing, but just to obtain an official explanation from you.
Not the end of the world.

Heathrow depends on that infamous 2.5nm separation like life on this planet depends on oxygen.
If everybody requested more spacing without having to give an official explanation....


I know the true reason for your request was being behind an UzbekistansecondtimetoplanetearthTu154!

Had you been behind a BA737, I'm pretty sure you would not have made such a request.

Being a Great Captain, your assessment was realistic , and that's the point.
Is it fair to get the same separation behind an UzbekistansecondtimetoplanetearthTu154 and a BA737?
The realistic answer is NO!
And I'm totally with you in your realistic way of thinking.
Unfortunately, the society doesn't allow us to always be realistic: we are not allowed to say certain truths (having a deep experience of a certain continent, I know what I mean...)

I know that having tons of experience, knowledge and abilities, leads you to think you are entitled to behave more realistically than others, sometimes.
But when it comes to rules, it's a bit different: if everybody was allowed his personal interpretation of the rules, like in the speed limit example, a mess would result, albeit you are, realistically and logically, right!

The rule at LHR is 2.5 nm separation.
You have to accept that like everybody else.
If you have to go around you will declare an emergency and get priority for a quick return.
Perfectly legal (and CAA believes that legal means safe )!

I know (well, I assume, since you didn't declare an emergency) you didn't have a real fuel problem, and you just wanted to be cooperative in playing this crazy LHR game, but that raises a big question: are we allowed to be realistic? are we allowed to increase the speed limit because we are young, it's daylight and the weather is good? are we allowed to request more spacing because the preceding is a TU154?

In a better world, we would be.
Actually we can't, and we, the Great Realistic Captains in this case,have to find a way to obtain the same result cheating a little bit, since officially we can't say the truth.

Maybe the magic word is "appreciate ": it doesn't commit yourself like an official "request ", and if the controller is smart he will understand immediately, if not you will have to accept a slightly higher risk of a go around.
" We appreciate a few more yards behind the tupolev..." with the right voice inflection, should obtain the result, if you are lucky, without riskink a MOR.


LEM
a fluff-jet captain
;)

[055166k]

Hello there Antigua....bet you've forgotten the original post.....this has been a good read. If perchance this happens again and you want to keep it in-cockpit I recommend you get hold of a copy of the AIC on Wake Vortex. A pilot is entitled to ask for increased space from the one ahead....if the controller asks why I would respond "for operational reasons"....if the controller asks a second time then YOU report him/her......and respond that you will discuss it after landing with his/her supervisor. The London TMA is not a good venue for protracted negotiation over the RT. This solution is not intended to exactly address your original post but offers a practical alternative to get round the problem, at least until you land and the adrenalin levels have settled.

[LEM]

I like your idea too, 055166k, but it's gonna be a bit hard to explain, later on, why a 747-400 needs more spacing because of the Tu154 vortex...

LEM

[055166k]

The point of the response was to be positive and to recognise and respect the authority of the commander of one of the world's biggest passenger-carrying aircraft....easy to overlook isn't it?......and a response given after landing would, I am sure, be forthcoming. A discussion of the various viewpoints could take place off the shopfloor. I will never try to second guess the decision of an aircraft captain.....I am not qualified to do so!

[miggs]

I agree with groundzero. Some ATCers file MORs for silly reasons and most of them have no idea of fuel requirements, what is safe and what is not. Someone once MORd an aircraft for arriving at OCK with no holding fuel because they didnt know what the rules actually are.

[LEM]

055166k, if all controllers were like you, it would be a wonderful world, like back in the time, when a captain was a CAPTAIN.

Today, and it's a pity, automation and the big system prevail on the human being, and even a 744 Captain is subject to the same rules of a bank employee!

Safety first?
Actually, MONEY first, and safety second. :ugh:

[have another coffee]

Some very very good reading, this post.

All the reasons behind landing with minimum fuel in tanks is fully understandable. It has happened to me, and at some point in everyones career will happen to you. There are allways factors not accounted for. If they add up on one flight you land with less fuel then you (or the computer) planned for. Thanks to the way we USED to think in aviation practice, some margins are build in to the rules, company procedures and education. So if one day you stepped out of bed with the wrong leg does not mean you'll crash as a result. Thanks to the back up designed into the system.
IF however people are trying to run an airport stretched to its limits. With procedures in the margin of whats legally, human performance wise and technically possible. Than think what will happen if all the bad factors play up on one day. If you arrive on that day with minimum fuel in tanks on short final with that aircraft with a blown tire/ rejected take-off etc....in front of you.
I love to go to Heathrow, and admire the people making it work. But I still got that feeling that its an accident waiting to happen. Again, no offense to people making it happen, but more to the system driving us all in the wrong direction. The reason being either being money, companies or politics. probably a combination of these three which is the worst of all. As this combination is ussually the most difficult to pursue to a change. Everybody waiting for somebody else to make the thirst move, in the mean time saying; we have done it now for years and it's been going great...

If you think safety is expensive. Try an accident.

Keep up the good work at Heathtrow:ok:

[kick the tires]

I seem to remember from a dim and distant life in the RAF, that we used to politley ask for "Fuel priority" if we were getting a bit short of gas.

Didnt use it very often as it was not the done thing, old boy! But as our normal landing fuel was 10 mins to tanks dry, when it was used it did indeed 'part the waves' - and cost the perpetrator an awful lot of beer at Happy Hour! :)

[Point Seven]

What a can of worms. :\

The upshot of all of this is that someone got MOR'ed because we ATCOs don't really know what the legal fuel requirements are. Maybe we should? However, I would add that if I had been INT FIN I may have done the same because I consider an aircraft not being able fly a go around due to low fuel to be an UNACCEPTABLE occurance. THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME RIGHT. This does make me cautious and concerned that maybe this is an issue that sholud be addressed. As someone sage earlier pointed out, one ahead blows a tyre, you could have all the spacing in the world but if you ain't got the fuel to go around once...

I know all the controllers on here harp on about fam flights (cos everyone's got a mate in FACT!!) but surely the understanding of pilots point of view and ours would be served greatly by sitting down face to face over a Club meal (or a pint) and discussing it. We're all working for the common aim (aren't we) and this is something that we could settle by talking to each other.

That said, maybe our old chum Steve V from the US of A has got a point when he mentioned the low fuel warning. I know someone abused the issue at EGLL, but in this day and age of cutting back on fuel and accountability in the event of an emergency (for us too), couldn't this help even if a few kn*bheads out there try and get a freebie?

P7

[LEM]

I consider an aircraft not being able fly a go around due to low fuel to be an UNACCEPTABLE occurance.

You are perfectly right.

Unless he has already declared MAYDAY, the Commander is supposed to have at least final res. fuel upon landing (30' flight time at 1500ft), thus being able to do at least one go around.

If he fails to do so, he not only deserves a MOR, but disciplinary action and retraining, even if he is a 744 captain.

LEM

[055166k]

Point Seven, I don't think that a few kn**bheads are trying to get freebies. It is genuinely useful to undertake a familiarisation flight occassionally. Moreover there was a rather bad airmiss a few years ago and the AAIB identified a lack of understanding or appreciation on the controller's part of the performance characteristics of the aircraft involved..AAIB 4/98. In its submission to the board NATS recognised the value of familiarisation flights. Safety recommendation 4.2 of the report ,also referred to as Recommendation 98-36, directed ATS providers to ensure that controllers are familiar with the operating characteristics of the aircraft for which they are likely to be responsible.....etc. I respectfully suggest that fuel management is an integral part of the operating characteristic of a modern airliner. I cannot agree with your point of view that such flights are merely "freebies".////Kick the Tyres, had to chuckle a bit, I was at Pershore for a while and the Meteor with the Tornado Radar Nose used to take off for a 59 minute sortie with one hours fuel....his idea[ Blackbox callsign] of a fuel emergency was when he had to shut one down on the downwind leg in order to have enough juice to taxi back to the hangar!

[Point Seven]

055166k

The freebies I was talking about were NOT fam flights but those who have abused low fuel calls in the past at EGLL to get a priority approach, when in fact they did not really need one and put everyone else back five miles. I happen to think that fam flights are completely integral to our understanding of your job and vice versa. It seems that penny pinching managers, ours certainly, do not. But that's another thread.

Sorry for not being clear.;)

P7

[BOAC]

I consider an aircraft not being able fly a go around due to low fuel to be an UNACCEPTABLE occurance

Hello again, .7 - we seem to be following each other around the fora!

Just to clarify the situation as there seems to be considerable confusion over fuel states. The thread began with a pilot asking for a bit more spacing to avoid the possibility of a g/a, and the subsequent 40 mile track which would then put him in a 'low fuel' situation. He was NOT 'short of fuel'. BA SOPS require a PAN call if it is LIKELY that I will land below reserve fuel (that is 30 minutes to tanks empty) and a MAYDAY if I AM going to land as such. He was trying to reduce the chances of a MAYDAY, as he was obviously going to be below 'reserves' after a g/a and longish track to re-land.

It would be very rare for an a/c to have 'insufficient fuel for a g/a' but quite common at LHR for a g/a to place an a/c in a MAYDAY situation. All tickety-boo and above board and in accordance with...... drone drone drone. It is the way JAROPS is written now.