The CAA Safety Regulation Group has but one function, and that is to improve flight safety. I think most people have no difficulty in deducing the thrust of this Special Objective Check. The Authority is trying to create an environment where aircraft using one of the busiest international airports in the World, do not arrive in a position where the routinely experienced levels of traffic result in critically low fuel states over the city of London.
Given that very simple and sensible message, I cannot understand why anyone would want to refute or subvert the intentions of the SRG. If their aim is simply to avoid the carriage cost of ‘unnecessary fuel’ I would be extremely disappointed in the value judgements of the individuals involved. As I mentioned earlier, the penalties involved are relatively small unless we’re talking ultra long haul, and for short haul is such a ridiculously small cost as to be negligible. The whole thing is an accounting exercise and I would suggest that an operator that has to result to such penny pinching has far greater things to worry about.
If it’s quotes from the document you’re after than how about these:
This AIC had been re-issued because it again became apparent that too many aeroplanes continued to arrive in the vicinity of their planned destination with little more than Alternate and Final Reserve Fuel remaining. . . .
Because Contingency Fuel is carried for events that cannot be foreseen, its use should not be planned before departure to compensate for needs that can reasonably be identified as likely to result in an increased fuel burn. . . .
Some operators were reported to have in place ‘league tables’ that ‘ranked’ commanders according to the amount of fuel they took on departure exceeding that calculated by the computer program. . . The effect of keeping a league table as described exerts a form of pressure on each Individual . . .Such perceived pressure is known to have resulted in pilots departing with less than that calculated by the computer-generated fuel plan so that their position in the table could be ‘improved’. . . .
To depart on a public transport flight with less than the flight plan fuel calculated in accordance with a program accepted by the Regulator as sound - and without good reason - is likely to be in breach of the terms and conditions under which the Air Operator Certificate was granted. . . .
Are these points pretty well representative of my employer's current fuel policy . ., and if so why?
I feel this message is clear enough for all but the most obstinate of operators, it’s recommendations should be acted upon by all commanders who use Heathrow. It seems that the many non-UK operators have no problem with this. For those that won’t as a matter of policy, I personally believe that this should be a Class A Notam.
This is the Safety Regulation Group issuing an instruction on SAFETY. Isn’t that at the top of everyone’s list?
Last edited by Capt H Peacock; 19th October 2002 at 16:04.