stranger,
taking only minimum in diversion-high-likely scenarios is unsafe!
So some have said allready, but why? What makes it unsafe? It does make it not very commercially sound, nor will it please my wife if it means coming home later, but unsafe?
The ace-card mayday only helps and protects you because still in todays high competition environment a lot of other operators and skippers do not take minimum, therefore have the ability to let you in before.
I have never used that card (except for a engine fire on ground). I have however, on a flight with CAVOK forecasts for both my destination, as well as two alternates, decided, when some seafog rolled in more or less closing my destination to divert some minutes before I reached my altn fuel plus 30 minutes, so I arrived at my alternate with some minutes above those 30 minutes in case of unforseen circumstances at that airport.
Now tell me, how unsafe was I?
Now lets say I knew about the fog and again I left with the same amount of fuel (minimum) and at the same point I diverted to the same CAVOK (inland) alternate, landing with 30+ minutes in tanks.
How is that unsafe(r)?
(again, since a lot of people fail to keep those apart, it would not be smart, since diverting costs more then some extra fuel, but smart is not the issue here).
It is an airmanship and gentleman thing for me. We are all out there together, so we should all behave sensible, as in such situations, the behaviour of one crew influences the situation for another crew. This is of course nothing to be put into rules, as it is far more complex and greyish for simple paragraphs.
Again, safe and smart are mixed together. Is it smart in some circumstances? Yes! Is it unsafe if you do not? No, not always.
If now one airline makes good experience with a defacto minimum fuel policy, it doesn't mean it is safe. It just means there is (luckily) enough slack in the system that it does not immediately collapse. To abuse this fact for the own economical benefit is in my opinion disgraceful and irresponsible.
How would diverting a little more than other airlines be abuse? It just means more cost for the airline and more income for other airports.
It is the same kind of behaviour that led to the financial crisis. Everyone just optimising his own little garden without considering the bigger picture. We would all agree that the banksters are not a good model for ethics and professionalism. So we should avoid acting like them.
I fail to see the way they are the same.
To be clear, I do NOT condone the use of a mayday/panpan/priority as a standard to safe fuel. I make sure I ALWAYS land with 30 minutes of fuel left (or more), regardless if I divert or not.
That makes it safe, not taking extra fuel.
Fuel is not a substitute for brains, nor safety. Fuel is a substitute for time. It gives you more time to decide, but so do earlier decisions.
My company wants me to flight with a little fuel as possible,
within the margins of safety. That last part is up to me and to me, that does not always equal taking more fuel, but it does come down to making sure I land, wherever, with 30+ minutes of fuel left.