I appreciate the professional dialogue on this topic. . .. .As one contributor indicated, "It's good to talk about these things. " . .. .Risking accusations by some of flogging a dead horse, may I invite further "what if?" discussion on this topic?. .. .A quick look at my company OpsMan Reserve Fuel Planning Table shows 30 minute holding fuel for a 747-400 aircraft as follows:. .. .8380 lbs. (approximately 3800 kgs) reserve at GWT 520,000 lbs. (approximately 236,000 kgs - typical passenger / combi landing weight). .. .10060 lbs. (approximately 4600 kgs) at GWT 660,000 lbs. (300,000 kgs - typical freighter landing weight). .. .If one subscribes to the view that . .. ."...when the fuel gets to a state where you may now land with less than "Reserve" (30 mins holding), you make a PAN call. When you will land with less than Reserve, it becomes a Mayday...)" . .. .then these quantities become one's absolute minimum landing fuel in a 747-400 aircraft. However, my current company OpsMan Fuel Policy also specifies [wisely, in my humble opinion] a Minimum Landing Fuel of 12,000 lb. (approximately 5,500 kg) as follows:. .. .Minimum Fuel to Execute a Go-Around 5,600 lbs. (approximately 2,600 kgs) - fuel required to execute a go-around at runway threshold, climb to 1000 feet AGL, fly a pattern, intercept a 3° glideslope approximately 2 1/2 miles from the runway, and continue to landing; and. .. .Minimum Fuel at Touchdown 2,400 lbs. (approximately 1,100 kgs) - fuel required to ensure adequate fuel boost pump coverage to keep the engines running for reversing and throughout the landing roll; and. .. .Fuel Indicator Error 3,960 lbs. (approximately 1,800 kgs) - the maximum design fuel quantity error for the main tanks. (center and reserve tanks empty). .. .Thus, a Minimum Fuel for Landing (Indicated) of 12,000 lbs. (approximately 5,500 kgs) assures sufficient fuel will be onboard at the threshold in a worst case condition with the maximum fuel indicator error (indicators read too high). . .. .This minimum landing fuel figure (albeit in varying forms) is in at least three airlines' 747-400 operating manuals, and - to the best of my knowledge - appears in most operating manuals for this aircraft found around the world.. .. .A cautious approach to a low fuel situation upon arrival (at LHR or elsewhere) might be to apply the most conservative value and make the company limit of 12,000 lb. / 5,500 kg an absolute minimum landing fuel either at destination or at the alternate. . .. .I sense, however, there may be differing opinions from forum participants with greater knowledge of the CAA regulatory landscape - as well as flight crew and ATC controllers with more experience in the LHR environment - and so invite further comment on this thread.. .. .Recognizing too that each company has a unique flight operations 'culture' that might (or must) be considered in the decisions one makes, I should like to state that it is not my intention here to promote 'second guessing' of the SIA crew involved in this actual landing - or any crew involved in a similar situation.. .. .Having said that, it is with the intent of prompting further professional discussion in this thread - from which we all might learn - that I solicit from knowledgeable individuals answers and opinions in response to the following: . .. .1) From the SIA 744 fleet newsletter (excerpt previously posted): . .. ."...The flight was planned on a redispatch flight plan with no excess fuel. At TOD, the FMS-predicted fuel on landing was 8200 kg.". .. .A 'tight' flight plan with no excess fuel is indeed economical - until one must perform a divert to an off-line airport, that is.. .. .At past companies I have worked for, additional fuel for redispatch / enroute weather / terminal weather and ATC considerations was either . .. . (a) prescribed by the company depending on sector historical data and the particular terminal environment; or. .. . (b) allowed at captain discretion (without displacing pax or payload). .. .Questions:. .. .For 747-400 or other 'long haul' crews - does your airline have provisions for loading 'extra' fuel? Is the amount prescribed by the company for each sector? If so, what factors are taken into account? . .. .Conversely, if 'extra' fuel (beyond the regulatory required fuel)is not prescribed, does the commander have authority to specify additional fuel? . .. .Does the amount of additional fuel (or the reasons for loading it) have to be justified, and - if so - to whom? . .. .Lastly - are there potentially adverse consequences to requesting "too much fuel' too many times at your company? . .. .Is the alternative of a possible precautionary divert for fuel considerations better than the certainty of an interview with your chief pilot or flight manager over 'excessive' fuel use? . .. .What would the consequences of such a precautionary divert (to an on-line or off-line station) be at your company?. .. .2) "...Lengthy holding over LAM resulted in the aircraft leaving LAM with an FMS-predicted fuel on landing of 5200 kg..." . .. .For 'long haul' crews familiar with the UK operating and regulatory environment - would you under similar circumstances (predicted landing fuel approaching minimum while holding at LAM) make a 'PAN' call indicating an urgent fuel situation? . .. .For ATC participants - if an aircraft did make a "PAN' call during the hold, what would the ATC response be? . .. .Would the indication of an urgent fuel situation "...ensure priority handling..." as the Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC) indicates, or would the 'real world' response have to be something different - and why?. .. .3) "...Shortly after leaving LAM, the EICAS message “FUEL QTY LOW” came on, having been triggered by 800 kg fuel remaining in tank 2M..." . .. .Clearly, any 747-400 crew will know by this time they will have less than recommended minimum landing fuel of 5,500 kg over the threshold.. .. .Depending on landing weight, an aircraft in this circumstance is now approaching the absolute regulatory minimum of 30 minute holding or "Final Reserve" fuel.. .. .Questions:. .. .For 747-400 skippers out there - with your ability to execute a go around now a question, would you continue without indicating the aircraft actual fuel state with the expectation - based on your experience operating in the LHR environment - that it will turn out fine? . .. .Or would you "fess up" and make a 'PAN' call as a precaution at this point? . .. .If you did make the 'PAN' call, would you expect any regulatory consequences (as in a 'MAYDAY') in the UK?. .. .For ATC types - with the aircraft already having departed LAM, would a 'PAN' call at this point have been useful or productive? . .. .Or would the response have to be something like "...understood, expect no further delay, currently number XX for landing...". .. .4) "...SQ ### landed in LHR with 3900 kg. The final fuel remaining on shutdown was 2900 kg...". .. .For the sake of discussion, let's pretend that "Murphy" has a heyday, the unthinkable happens, and preceding traffic fails to clear the runway or an unexpected runway incursion forces the tower controller to instruct a missed approach...what would you do?. .. .Is it time for a 'Mayday' call declaring an emergency? What next?. .. .For 747-400 crews - mindful that Boeing says it takes 3800 kg to keep 'em running through a go around, approach, landing, and rollout, would you regard 3900 kg (indicated) remaining as insufficient fuel to comply with the missed approach instructions? . .. .If so, would you elect to continue to a landing either on an adjacent taxiway or on the available runway (in front of or beyond the offending traffic) as the least dangerous option?. .. .Or would you breath a prayer and go around, declare the emergency, and request (or execute pending ATC approval) the close pattern and 2 1/2 mile approach described above to get the aircraft on the ground before running out of fuel?. .. .ATC controllers knowledgeable in the LHR environment are specifically invited to comment at this point. . .. .If an aircraft (which had not previously indicated an urgent fuel situation) suddenly declared an emergency and responded as described above, would you be most comfortable in . .. .(a) an extremis landing on the longest unobstructed length of concrete available in front of it , or . .. .(b) your ability to provide adequate traffic separation while a 2 1/2 close pattern was flown?. .. .5) Lastly - Safe at the gate with 2900 kg (or less) and a happy ending to the story - that is, until the paperwork has to be done... . .. .MTOW wrote:. .. ."...If that ‘genuine’ emergency is a shortage of fuel, you declare a Mayday, get the priority to land that this affords you, and you and your company can then explain to the British CAA the circumstances that led you into the emergency situation – [and take your license with you, ’cos might be required to leave it with the CAA when they’ve finished interviewing you]...". .. .The last question:. .. .For 'long haul' captains (at SIA and elsewhere) - how do you think the hearing with the CAA (as well as your chief pilot or flight manager) did (in the case of the 'real' story) or would (in our fictitious example) go?. . . . <small>[ 12 March 2002, 22:57: Message edited by: 747400CA ]</small>