Originally Posted by
pineteam
Hello everyone,
I would like to have your point of view on this case:
Imagine you are flying a commercial jet from A to B, flight time is 1h15m, A is your also your destination alternate and both airports are single runway only and weather is cavok on both airports.
Due to long taxi on the ground, you have burned more fuel than expected and once airbone you only have 5 min extra fuel. You are now on final at B airport and due to ATC mistake you have to perform a go around as the taking off aircraft is still on the runway.
Now obviously your extra would not be enough to shoot a second approach if you still wish to keep airport A as your destination alternate.
In that case, since weather is good, I would cancel airport A as alternate, which will give me more than 1h extra fuel and shoot a second approach at airport B and I don't need to declare minimum fuel as I will land comfortably with much more than 30 min of fuel in the tanks.
Now I know by the books to dispatch an aircraft without destination alternate, one of the conditions is that the airport must have 2 parallel runways. But as I understand this rule is only for dispatch conditions isn't it?
In the air, all those rules don't apply. From the EASA AIR LAW book:" The commander of an aeroplane has the final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft whilst in command.'' And it's up to the captain responsibility to ensure that the aircraft will land with not less than minimum fuel. So as long as he does not land with less than 30 min of fuel in the tanks, he is not breaking any law. That's how I understand it.
Cause some guys tell me that in that case, I should immediately divert to the alternate. But the alternate is 1h15min away, single runway with now zero extra fuel. Meaning that I would be in minimum fuel immediately and if I need to do a go around or any delay I would be in mayday fuel. So I don't understand how this could be even a consideration...
The airlaw is not very clear about it IMHO. And I believe lots of people are very confused about it. So many diversions happened when they ran out of extra time while they were less than 10 min flight from their destination.
Please share your thaughts about it.
Thank you.
You are 100% correct. As long as You land with at least 30 min of fuel in the tanks You are legal, be it your destination or an alternate of any type. Now this is the law but then sometimes operators can be more restrictive than that so it is very important you are also 100% clear with your operator's commit to land policy. Some operators require 2 independent runways even in super cavok conditions with no exceptions, others have flow charts and gates to determine the course of actions, it's basically up to anyone to establish what to do according to the ops specificities. The Law does not cover all the possible scenarios anyway and the ball is yours when you are in the air, like in many other circumstances. Immagine in the scenario You just described that between A & B there is a 200 NM squall line (ok since you alternate is your departure airfield you can tell me that if you would really have that squall line you would have seen it coming and/or accounted for extra fuel anyway but it is just an example). If You start your diversion at your min diverting fuel back to "A" You are technically correct, only to find yourself then having to make a weather avoidance that will probably leave you with less than final reserve at your alternate. Is it safe ? Nope. Same story if You go around at "B" for a runway inspection and ATC tells You that delay is undetermined... could be 5 min, 20 min or airport closure for the next 2 hours. Are You going to try Your luck ? Probably not and you start your diversion at your alternate. Anyway all that applies in the not so common (except for islands) situations where You have no other suitable airports around You other than the planned alternate(s).