Transforming Alternate Fuel into Holding Fuel

[LEM]

It would be interesting to know if in other parts of the world the captain is allowed to transform, inflight, his alternate fuel into additional holding fuel.

In other words, the scenario is this: you are in the holding because of fog at destination; after a while you have to decide if you want to divert or continue to hold using the alternate fuel (thus committing yourself to landing at destination).
Are you legally allowed to do that? :suspect:

[Tinstaafl]

Oz doesn't always require an alternate providing the destination met. forecast is above certain defined limits within a certain period bracketing your ETA. It's quite possible to depart with the destination below those limits - requiring an alternate - and arrive with the destination above the limits - removing the need for the alternate.

One of the variations on this theme is for the met. to be forecast to improve above the limit by a certain time. It's always been possible to plan to hold until the operational requirement ceases however it may require too much fuel/time etc.

You arrive before that time, intending to divert, then reassess fuel vs holding until the operational requirement ceases. Quite do-able.

[GlueBall]

If you were to go into places like Diego Garcia or Ascension Island, specks of land in the middle of the oceans, you normally wouldn't have an alternate (unless you were empty of payload and full of fuel), but you'd have two hours' worth of holding fuel.

[BOAC]

In other words, the scenario is this: you are in the holding because of fog at destination; after a while you have to decide if you want to divert or continue to hold using the alternate fuel (thus committing yourself to landing at destination

LEM - great to see you asking so many questions - they need to be asked.

Which bit of JAROPS is the 'quote' from please? It is the 'fog' bit that puzzles me! Ain't NO way I'm getting rid of MY alternate fuel then :eek:

[DFC]

Are you holding because the weather is below landing minma?

or

Are you holding because the weather (while being above minima) is causing a slow down in movement rates?

IMHO if it is the former then the only fuel that can be used to continue a hold is the extra fuel above that required to reach laternate and land with the final reserve.

If it is the second, then I think that there are situations where (separate independant runways etc plus weather above minima), where the flight can comitt to the destination and then the fuel requirement is to land with the final reserve.

Just a stab in the dark, so perhaps someone can confirm the above theories?

Regards,

DFC

[quid]

In the USA under the FARs, you can. The FAR states "no person may takeoff an airplane" without the required fuel. Once you've taken off, that FAR has been satisfied. There is no requirement as to how you use that fuel. There is no minumum amount of fuel that is required to be on board at landing.

Now, in real life................but you asked for the legal answer.;)

[ottobrake]

As i can see, is unsane to burn the alternate fuel in order to hold over destination airport waiting for better conditions, because you don´t have any way to predict either meteo or tecnical reasons will let you make an app and landing.

[411A]

Legal, under US FAR's, yes as quid has pointed out.

Good idea....absolutely NOT.

In EVERY company where I have worked, to use alternate fuel for holding would result in dismissal, if the chief pilot/fleet manager found out.

And, IMHO they would be right in doing so.

[DrSyn]

You hold for fog, etc. You burn off your Alternate Fuel in the hold (as per LEM's example). The fog lifts. The aircraft in front has a problem and blocks the runway.

If LEM's scenario is acceptable practice with any operator, (quid's post noted), I am sure many of us would like to be enlightened before we book our next holiday/vacation flight.

Additionally, anyone who has not experienced the exotic experience of realising that the Altn Fuel on his computer plan is somewhat optimistic has not truly experienced the "thrill of flight" :sad:

[LEM]

There is a very interesting incident report (unfortunately in French only) at http://www.bea-fr.org .
For those who don't understand French, I'll try to explain quickly:
on 28 August 1999 a french 737, F-GJNF, landed at Paris LFPG with only 800 kg of fuel left.

The Paris area forecast was all CAVOK, but suddenly fog arose, and CATIII went in progress with considerable dalays, of course.
The airport was not closed, but suddenly capable of taking only a fraction of the normal flow per hour.
The captain, instead of diverting to Orly where the weather was good, insisted on waiting in the stack, with no idea of the expected delay, using his alternate fuel as extra holding fuel.
He had to eventually declare MAYDAY on final.

Very bad decision and gambling, obviously.

But the interesting point is that, perhaps surprisingly, he didn't break any legal rule, as noted in the report.

I have to admit I can't find any reference to this aspect in my company manuals.
I once used part of my alternate fuel (thus committed me to destination) in Rome, because of heavy traffic, but the weather was excellent, LIRF has got 3 runways, etc etc..., and I had a precise Expected Approach Time from ATC.

It seems we all agree, substantially, on the conduct to take, but it's interesting to note the legal requirement is quite permissive.

[BOAC]

Lem - I still need to hear where you think it is writ that holding at an airport in fog is an allowable 'committal' scenario? In my book, the CESM should have been charged with endangering his a/c, pax and crew. I think Il a frappe every rule in the livre!

[LEM]

Maybe I didn't express myself correctly (my english is so bad!).
The scenario described is not taken from any book or Jarops...
It's simply what happened in that report (btw did you read it?):ok: :ok:

[BOAC]

OK - here is the pdf file (http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/1999/f-nf990828/pdf/f-nf990828.pdf)

Having struggled through most of it using 'Babelfish', the kindest thing I can say is that I would have beaten KLM to Orly! :eek:. They made a wise decision. How does it go.....? "Better to be down there wishing you were up there than up there wishing you were down there" :O

NB: PERSONAL OPINION

I repeat. I do NOT think what happened was/is legal in JAROPS or even under commonsense/airmanship.
In UK it would lead to the well-known 'coffee - no biscuits' chat with either 'retraining' or disciplinary action of some sort.

[LEM]

I perfectly agree with you, of course.
What is amazing is that, although bad, his decision was not considered "illegal" at that time (4 years ago).
I can't find a reference in my manuals about deciding to use alternate fuel as extra holding fuel.
If someone do so, wether permitting or forbidding it, please let us know. :hmm:

[NW1]

(c) An operator shall ensure that the pre-flight
calculation of usable fuel required for a flight
includes:
(1) Taxy fuel;
(2) Trip fuel;
(3) Reserve fuel consisting of:
(i) Contingency fuel (see IEM OPS
1.255(c)(3)(i));
(ii) Alternate fuel, if a destination
alternate is required. (This does not
preclude selection of the departure
aerodrome as the destination alternate);
(iii) Final reserve fuel; and
(iv) Additional fuel, if required by
the type of operation (e.g. ETOPS); and
(4) Extra fuel if required by the
commander.

JAR–OPS 1.375 In-flight fuel management
(See Appendix 1 to JAR–OPS
1.375)
(a) An operator shall establish a procedure to
ensure that in-flight fuel checks and fuel
management are carried out.
(b) A commander shall ensure that the amount
of usable fuel remaining in flight is not less than the
fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a
safe landing can be made, with final reserve fuel
remaining.
(c) The commander shall declare an emergency
when the actual usable fuel on board is less than
final reserve fuel.

Appendix 1 to JAR–OPS 1.375
In-flight fuel management

(b) In-flight fuel management.
[(1)] If, as a result of an in-flight fuel
check, the expected fuel remaining on arrival at
the destination is less than the required alternate
fuel plus final reserve fuel, the commander must
take into account the traffic and the operational
conditions prevailing at the destination
aerodrome, along the diversion route to an
alternate aerodrome and at the destination
alternate aerodrome, when deciding [whether] to
proceed to the destination aerodrome or to divert,
so as to land with not less than final reserve fuel.
[(2) On a flight to an isolated aerodrome:
The last possible point of diversion to any
available en-route alternate aerodrome shall be
determined. Before reaching this point, the
commander shall assess the fuel expected to
remain overhead the isolated aerodrome, the
weather conditions, and the traffic and operational
conditions prevailing at the isolated aerodrome
and at any of the en-route aerodromes before
deciding whether to proceed to the isolated
aerodrome or to divert to an en-route aerodrome.
(See AMC to Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS
1.375(b)(2))]
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

[Captain Airclues]

This subject was covered in the ATC Forum

Here (www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50602)

Airclues

[BOAC]

LEM - JAROPS 'permit' the use of alternate fuel at destination in CERTAIN circumstances. Have a look at your Ops Manual?

[LEM]

Thanks a lot everybody!
and the Antigua thread is extremely interesting!

LEM :ok: