MOR'ed..... OUCH!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sarf Coast
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR'ed..... OUCH!
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: united queen dom
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
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...
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 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...
Last edited by 939; 18th Apr 2002 at 17:44.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Carnage,
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: At home
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sarf Coast
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
.
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
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: hogwarts
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re MOR
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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sarf Coast
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
________________________________________________
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
Last edited by Antigua; 20th Apr 2002 at 11:13.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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!
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?
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!
Last edited by Stan Woolley; 20th Apr 2002 at 14:17.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the Tearooms of Mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sarf Coast
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
_________________________________________________
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sarf Coast
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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