Originally Posted by
Escape Path
Never in 11 years of flying commercial planes have I performed 3 go arounds in a single flight, nor I have heard of anyone else doing it. I can only think of one instance when I did 2 in a single flight.
Fuel is critical, I agree. But I believe we have pretty good tools these days to make informed decisions on how much extra fuel to take and not take set amounts just for the sake of it (i.e. "I take 45 mins of extra fuel no matter what"). Some have mentioned busy single runway airports, which is a big concern because it almost never happens, but when it does, it's chaos. As
Roj approved mentioned, it is the PIC's job and responsibility to make sure that in the event that such a scenario presents itself, it does not create a critical situation, let alone a crash. We have procedures to avoid these things and it's our job to use our hard earned airmanship to take the proper decisions, before and after dispatch, to not get ourselves into situations where we might be in danger.
If we think, based on the information we might have, that we need extra fuel, then by all means we should take it;
no rule will ever overthrow the PIC's authority. In safety management there's the concept that we need to balance profit and safety: If we take all possible precautions for every possible scenario, no matter the statistical probability that it happens, then it becomes an economically inviable operation. If we instead don't take any precaution for the sake of profit, then it becomes an unsafe operation. Our job is to execute a safe and efficient flight by all legal means possible, not taking fuel for a joyride.
I entirely agree with you.
However I will just point out that your experience completely correlates with statistics.
Two go arounds in one flight should happen once every 10 000 to 1000 000 hours (I don't know the exact figure, if I worked data analysis at my airline I could tell you a precise figure). You're just a bit unlucky that it happened to you (that day was probably very prone to go around due to wheather or something else that you could identify easily) but it is not something completely unusual.
Three go arounds should happen once every 1 million to 1 billion hours, so you would have to know 100 to 100 000 pilots to hear about one pilot making three go arounds. Since there are more than 100 000 pilots in the world, it should have happened already in the industry.
Note : These figures are "ballpark", probably too high. That's because the probability of a second go around, given the fact there was a first one, is higher than the probability of a go around with no previous go around. Because the conditions that favored the first one are still present to favor the second one. Also if you never carry fuel for 3 go arounds + diversion, there is a high probability that you will never make a third one and always prefer diversion before (you could still go around at alternate)
I agree that we shouldn't make the operation unprofitable, but it seems to me that the current trend is rather towards the unsafe side. Ryanair famously declared several mayday fuel in a row. At my airline, some captains are very prone to fuel economy, and I figured that it's always when you reduced your margin to the legal minimum that there is a runway change, a runway inspection, some waiting time before takeoff... I once took off with 30 to 180kg margin to the legal minimum (depending on the arrival QFU, which was doubtful), to a single runway airfield, with clear skies. If you take the legality aside, the figure was close to my acceptable limit.
In a fuel emergency, would you rather attempt a taxiway landing or consider that final reserve is a reserve to account for mediumly rare events, and decide not to do everything in your power to avoid starting to use it ?
There is an aircraft stuck on the runway after you decided to go around for a stupid reason (e.g. long flare on a 3000m dry runway) : do you divert using your final reserve or do you attempt the taxiway landing ? Or do you attempt a runway landing with performance computation guaranteeing the avoidance of the aircraft stuck on the runway ?
Originally Posted by
Kennytheking
I’m not sure I follow your logic. With respect, you seem to be only considering shorthaul in a limited geographic theatre. You seem strike me as wanting to make sensible decisions but you can’t just make up your own fuel policy. You might get away with it at your current operator but when you move to a longhaul operator you have to play their game.
Your post suggests that you are measuring contingency fuel in go-arounds which might be ok for shorthaul Europe ops but it doesn’t work elsewhere. Contingency is fuel for issues from the time you unplug the fuel bowser. It could be used for delays at departure, or weather avoidance(think 200nm deviations a when flying ME to AUS) or when flying though China where they descend you from FL400 to FL280 up to 1000nm from your destination. My point is that there are so many more issues than just go-arounds that factor into contingency. My employer has far more data than I do and are better placed to assess an appropriate value of contingency. Obviously I will make the final decision, but I take their inputs very seriously.
Yes, I currently fly short and occasionally medium routes in a very well equiped region of the world (Europe has many airports), so my reasoning is biased with that.
Of course, if you take into account that transporting one more ton costs you 300 or 400kg instead of my current 25kg, the computations can change enormously.
However, the general reasoning about safety remains. If you want a safety level as high as 1 in 1 billion flight hours, you have to cover for extremely remote events. I'm certain that long haul flight requires an in-flight fuel management that's much more advanced than short haul.
The only question in this thread would be : is the legal minimum sometimes higher than the safe minimum ?
If yes, we could reduce the legal minimum rules.
For my type of operations (which is a biased point of view I admit) I don't believe that the legal minimum is often higher than the safe minimum.
I don't know about long haul. I don't know enough about the operations, or even the aircraft. I know the fuel gauges uncertainty for my aircraft but not for long haul types.
I'm not making up my own fuel policy, I just figured out that one simple reasoning about statistics shows that it gives figures that are compatible with what is currently done. This reasoning is not applicable to real life because you can't compute probabilities while at the pre flight briefing, but it still gives a realistic result. The only purpose it serves is helping me justify the amount of extra fuel I want : remind the crew that we have to prepare for very remote events.
Contingency fuel is different, because it happens enroute, that is when you still have fuel and options. Except when flying to an airfield that is just on the coast after an ocean, in most cases you can still land ahead of your destination if you figure you don't have the minimum landing fuel that you decided. But that minimum landing fuel still depends on the go around reasoning I made.
If they want to reduce contingency fuel, on routes with airfield before the destination, I don't see any problem with that. If one flight every 100 000 flights will land on that en route alternate airfield, and if the supplementary cost related to this single flight does not exceed the savings made on the 99 999 others, then go ahead.
However I would like this calculation to be reliable. If both costs even out, if there are calculated close to each other, it's better in my opinion to pay a small amount every time than a large amount once in a while. Because bad luck does happen and could make you lose much money, whereas a small amount each flight is a better guarantee. Just like insurance, but that type of decision is a bit subjective.