Interesting thread.
On a quick read through it seems to me the question is about using diversion fuel at destination or diverting.
As none of us has a crystal ball, then no matter what extra fuel we plan to arrive with (within reason), if we're stuck in the hold longer than expected, then we will be faced with a decision.
Taking Heathrow as the example, then under JAR-OPS if certain criteria are fulfilled, then we may use our diversion fuel and stay there.
In practice it means on the odd occasion when totally unforeseen circumstances result in longer than expected delays, one can eat into the diversion fuel. Doesn't necessarily mean you will automatically use all the diversion fuel. Usually much more predictable than diverting.
In my experience this is a positive improvement on the old system, where a diversion had to be made no matter what at a pre-determined fuel figure.
At the very worst, you've burned down to what you would have been arriving with at the diversion anyway, so no difference in terms of what happens next at diversion or destination airfield.
So the question remains to those who advocate not using this part of JAR-OPS, what is the advantage in arriving at a diversion airfield with legal minimum fuel against staying at destination down to legal minimum fuel?
Last edited by Maximum; 8th Apr 2004 at 16:24.