VinRouge, if the weather / likely traffic situation at destination merits additonal fuel over and above normal contingency then fine - that's up to the captain to decide.
The legal fuel to the alternate includes a go-around, climb, cruise and descent, to arrive overhead the alternate with 30 min holding fuel plus fuel for the approach.
My concern would be whether an assumed climb/cruise/descent profile was actually overly optimistic, in the case of bad weather and certain Mediterranean air traffickers.... For example, a certain manufacturer's table only allows for a visual approach at the alternate for absolute minimum legal fuel planning. If you're going to cut it that fine, then corrections for cruise level, ISA deviation, wind component and planned landing weight must be included in the diversion calculations.
The reported BUD event is a little confusing. It seems that the crew arrived with more fuel than the legal minimum, then commenced a diversion to their alternate after the tower suffered its fire. But after the crew had commenced their diversion, ATC seems perhaps to have misunderstood and offered them an immediate visual at BUD, thinking that the crew was in a critical situation? Which they clearly were not. Nevertheless, deciding to abandon a diversion and to return for an immediate visual takes some pretty rapid thinking.....
Last edited by BEagle; 8th Dec 2012 at 22:30.