FR9999

Gents,

My previous operator used as standard contingency fuel the method of ERA3. I always wondered if this is legal or not. Below you will find an extract of EASA CAT.OP.MPA (link: http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/d...-R.pdf#page101)


Contingency fuel, except as provided for in (b), which should be the higher of:
(i) Either:
(A) 5% of the planned trip fuel or, in the event of in-flight replanning, 5 % of the trip fuel for the remainder of the flight;
(B) not less than 3 % of the planned trip fuel or, in the event of in- flight replanning, 3 % of the trip fuel for the remainder of the flight, provided that an en-route alternate (ERA) aerodrome is available;
(C) an amount of fuel sufficient for 20 minutes flying time based upon the planned trip fuel consumption, provided that the operator has established a fuel consumption monitoring programme for individual aeroplanes and uses valid data determined by means of such a programme for fuel calculation; or
(D) an amount of fuel based on a statistical method that ensures an appropriate statistical coverage of the deviation from the planned to the actual trip fuel. This method is used to monitor the fuel consumption on each city pair/aeroplane combination and the operator uses this data for a statistical analysis to calculate contingency fuel for that city pair/aeroplane combination;
(ii) or an amount to fly for 5 minutes at holding speed at 1 500 ft (450 m), above the destination aerodrome in standard conditions.
Note: (b) refers to the RCF procedure



How do you interpret this? Do you need the highest amount of contingency fuel of either A, B, C or D. Or do you need the highest of amount of fuel if you compare the 4 situations after you've calculated them separately?

Thank you for your input.

BizJetJock

No, you use the method of your choice out of A-D and then use whichever is the higher of i or ii.

You notice that C and D require large fleets flying regular routes and an entire department monitoring the fuel consumption, so most operators smaller than BA etc rule this out as totally impractical.

B only works if you have a suitable ERA, but is the favourite if there is one.

A works every time.

Hope that helps.

FR9999

Thanks for your response. So if you have a suitable ERA3 alternate then you don't have to uplift the 5% contingency but 3% will be legal?

FR9999

So it is legal to go for B when there is a suitable ERA3 alternate, even tough the 5% contingency fuel would be a higher value?

I'm asking this because I understand that when an airplane is limited by its takeoff weight an airline is looking for different ways to reduce weight by using above mentioned methods, but to do that every time seems to me not very good practice?

B737900er

The question is: Is planning ERA3 on a daily basis legal?

Companies will plan for ERA3 because the cost is lower.
I think if a company could plan a RCFP on a daily basis and the pilots accepting it they would.

I don't mind taking 3% if the conditions are suited for it. Personally I want 5% when the conditions enroute are bad or my MNPS Flight level has a good chance of being lower.

Peter G-W

The ERA with 3% contingency is perfectly legitimate and routine procedure for dispatch on the basis that if you run short of fuel and can't make your destination for whatever reason then you divert to the ERA with plenty of fuel remaining. Depending on the positioning of the ERA I have seen plans that would put you above max landing mass at the ERA and a burn off fuel is specified/calculated for you. How can that not be safe? Bear in mind also that this is merely a legal minimum, not the amount that you actually take.