Has anyone posting here actually read the applicable FCI? The very limited flights they're introducing this measure on have a history of zero use of contingency fuel, and the two flights into Dubai are coming in during periods where Dubai is not "Heathrow-on-Sand", (as I admit it is for much of the day).
I've dispatched on re-clearance flight plans in the past and not felt any discomfort using the procedure. It's just one more decision - a no-brainer 'divert?/continue?' one - based upon the fuel on board when you reach the descent point for the enroute alternate.
Apart from that, nothing really changes - if you're put into the hold at your destination, (unlikely, given the stats for the flights EK has nominated for the first trial of the procedure), when (or before, if you need a comfort zone) you reach your min. divert fuel, you divert. I accept you'll have a shorter period in the hold, but that shouldn't make any difference to your comfort level - you just bug out earlier.
If, after assessing the situation, (which I hope to God everyone does prior to every descent!), you consider committing to destination is acceptable, you commit, and if ATC for some reason can't deliver on on their promised EAT, you declare an emergency, (just as you would have done had you been carrying more contingency fuel, if some minutes later) - but with exactly he same amount of fuel remaining.
With Dubai, unlike many other destinations, there's always a cop-out. If they delayed your promised EAT, from BUBIN or DESDI, even after committing to destination, you'd still have sufficient fuel to divert from the hold to one of three, possibly four nearby airfields.
NOTHING changes except that you'll have less time in the hold should holding become necessary - and statistically, for the flights they've nominated, holding has never been an issue.
Sorry gents. On this one, I can't share the outrage.
-----------------------------------------------------
maxAB, saw your post after I posted my message. I agree that the vectoring from the holds into Dubai is ridiculous. But if there's an EK captain out there who doesn't allow for this in calculating his min. diversion fuel and his min. commit fuel, he shouldn't be a captain. The remote holding points should be replaced by close in holds that would allow ATC to to give aircraft a clear, continuous descent without the need for an interminable cross country tour and the far too early extension of flaps (which happens all the time under the current crazy system). This would allow crews to plan with some confidence how much fuel they will burn between the hold and touchdown.
This point has been discussed at length here some years ago. Apparently, the problem is empire protection, in this case, from Abu Dhabi ATC, who refuse to accept that the current system is utterly crazy and costs enormous amounts of wasted fuel and unnecessary diversions.
Last edited by Wiley; 13th Jun 2009 at 07:13.