What I was getting at is this...
When you plan the flight, how often do you add an extra 700 to 800kgs merely to compensate for your own mistakes and allow for a go round, radar vectors and a 10 mile ILS without compromising your capability to divert. I've used 1200kg to land after a go round.
Most guys put on 200kg for "this and that" (insert your own preference) which is not a lot of use for any practical purpose.
This may explain why a crew may elect (wrongly) to continue with an unstable approach, because to do the correct thing and break off will use up diversion fuel if they've been good company men/women and taken flight plan fuel.
With more pressure on companies to minimise fuel burn both for the benefit to the environment and for cost, crews will come under increasing pressure from management and from the training department to justify carriage of extra fuel above flight plan minimum. My company have a fuel manager whose sole responsibility is to monitor and minimise fuel useage by optimising routings, looking at closer alternates etc. More and more of our alternates are "fuel alternates" where the approach would be even more difficult than at the destination and the fuel burn required for the alternate may be miminimal.
This adds to the pressure to get in first time!
We all know when to carry extra fuel, but we never know in advance when were going to misjudge or mishandle a normal approach. My contention in my earlier post is that we are not encouraged to carry "approach energy mismanagement" fuel as we don't plan to mismanage the approach.
Stan Woolley
Thank you Sir