Australian ATC holding fuel
Thread Starter
Australian ATC holding fuel
Recently the promulgated ATC holding requirements at various capital city airports in Australia became no longer mandatory but rather "advisory" only.
Can someone please show me where I can find the reference to this change? I've looked everywhere on the internet including CASA, Air Services Australia, as well as my own company documents.
As a pilot in command what does this mean in academic and practical terms regarding preflight and inflight fuel requirements? (If I could find the reference I could probably work this one out myself but am interested in peoples opinion anyway).
Thanks.
Can someone please show me where I can find the reference to this change? I've looked everywhere on the internet including CASA, Air Services Australia, as well as my own company documents.
As a pilot in command what does this mean in academic and practical terms regarding preflight and inflight fuel requirements? (If I could find the reference I could probably work this one out myself but am interested in peoples opinion anyway).
Thanks.
If they were ever "requirements", that was a long time ago. The published holding details have always been "advisories" in the recent past. That said, things did change late last year.
Previously, the AIP text (ENR 1.1) was:
60.3.2 Standing advisories for traffic holding fuel for some major aerodromes are promulgated in ERSA. In other cases, when traffic delays for a particular aerodrome are anticipated,ATCwill advise the holding fuel by NOTAM. The pilot in command of an aircraft arriving at a destination without the notified traffic holding fuel will not be accorded a priority approach unless the pilot declares an emergency.
The AIP Revision of 13 Nov 14 (ENR 1.1) greatly expanded the text.
60.3.2 Standing advisories for traffic holding delays for Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth aerodromes are promulgated in ERSA and are necessary to facilitate tactical flow management. Where delays are not expected to exceed these times no further advisories will be issued.
60.3.3 When traffic delays for these locations are expected to exceed these times, and in any case when significant traffic delays at other aerodromes are anticipated, ATC will advise the holding time by NOTAM.
60.3.4 Not relevant
60.3.5 All traffic holding advisories are estimates only and are based on the best information available. Actual holding may differ from the estimate, including to allow for effective traffic management. Operators should use their own judgement on fuel carriage decisions. Notwithstanding any advisories issued, the pilot in command of an aircraft arriving at a destination without sufficient fuel for actual traffic holding will not be accorded a priority approach unless the pilot declares an emergency.
Previously, the AIP text (ENR 1.1) was:
60.3.2 Standing advisories for traffic holding fuel for some major aerodromes are promulgated in ERSA. In other cases, when traffic delays for a particular aerodrome are anticipated,ATCwill advise the holding fuel by NOTAM. The pilot in command of an aircraft arriving at a destination without the notified traffic holding fuel will not be accorded a priority approach unless the pilot declares an emergency.
The AIP Revision of 13 Nov 14 (ENR 1.1) greatly expanded the text.
60.3.2 Standing advisories for traffic holding delays for Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth aerodromes are promulgated in ERSA and are necessary to facilitate tactical flow management. Where delays are not expected to exceed these times no further advisories will be issued.
60.3.3 When traffic delays for these locations are expected to exceed these times, and in any case when significant traffic delays at other aerodromes are anticipated, ATC will advise the holding time by NOTAM.
60.3.4 Not relevant
60.3.5 All traffic holding advisories are estimates only and are based on the best information available. Actual holding may differ from the estimate, including to allow for effective traffic management. Operators should use their own judgement on fuel carriage decisions. Notwithstanding any advisories issued, the pilot in command of an aircraft arriving at a destination without sufficient fuel for actual traffic holding will not be accorded a priority approach unless the pilot declares an emergency.
As Bloggsy says above.
A command/airline decision as to whether or not you carry the holding fuel.
My mob claim we have an alternate and contingency fuel and that covers any ATC holding advisory up to 20 mins most times, so they tell me I don't need to carry more...
If you're feeling lucky then don't carry it
Just have your plan B ready when ATC say "enter the hold....."
A command/airline decision as to whether or not you carry the holding fuel.
My mob claim we have an alternate and contingency fuel and that covers any ATC holding advisory up to 20 mins most times, so they tell me I don't need to carry more...
If you're feeling lucky then don't carry it
Just have your plan B ready when ATC say "enter the hold....."
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: My Place
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting topic.
I note the AIP quotation states arriving at your "destination" with the holding fuel. What about diverting from SYD to MEL. Is it implied you should also arrive there with the advised holding fuel? It's not technically your "destination" or is it?
From a practical perspective, I know what I would be doing but what are they really advising??
I note the AIP quotation states arriving at your "destination" with the holding fuel. What about diverting from SYD to MEL. Is it implied you should also arrive there with the advised holding fuel? It's not technically your "destination" or is it?
From a practical perspective, I know what I would be doing but what are they really advising??
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In order to get around the required flag fuel reserves at destination, for the LAX-SYD run, my company would file the flight plan to SYD but actually dispatch the flight to BNE.
There was a "re-dispatch" point that flight control annotated on our "how-goes-it" paper work based on the forecast winds and expected fuel burn.
If, by one hour, prior to reaching that point, flight control had not sent us a re-dispatch authorization based on our projected fuel and weather at SYD, we were to notify ATC of our intention to divert to BNE. As I recall, the re-dispatch point was somewhere roughly between Nadi and New Caledonia.
FWIW, I believe this "re-dispatch" technique was contrived by PAN AM and the FAA went along with it. There were times when some of the PAN AM A300's were, literally, arriving at JFK from Europe on fumes. Or so I was told.
There was a "re-dispatch" point that flight control annotated on our "how-goes-it" paper work based on the forecast winds and expected fuel burn.
If, by one hour, prior to reaching that point, flight control had not sent us a re-dispatch authorization based on our projected fuel and weather at SYD, we were to notify ATC of our intention to divert to BNE. As I recall, the re-dispatch point was somewhere roughly between Nadi and New Caledonia.
FWIW, I believe this "re-dispatch" technique was contrived by PAN AM and the FAA went along with it. There were times when some of the PAN AM A300's were, literally, arriving at JFK from Europe on fumes. Or so I was told.
Last edited by wanabee777; 1st Dec 2015 at 12:06.
