I'm just expressing my opinion as a line pilot Penko, trying to have a discussion. I don't claim to have the data required to determine what is neccessary regarding fuel planning. I'm just presenting my views on what I see on various plogs. What I see regarding trip fuel is very accurate, what I see regarding alternate fuel is in my opinion questionable flightlevels and routings. But we don't fly these routes normally so I really have no idea, I sometimes just wonder if it isn't a bit overoptimistic. On the other hand I have also seen some routes that seem overestimated.
With regard to 20 min holding, the AIC regarding this fuel in the london tma has been removed and reinstated several times over history. This gives me the idea that the CAA assumes that this information has been filtered into the airlines fuel policies.
The information that this AIC is based on, is still present in an ATC document, so I don't think that withdrawal of the AIC means the information that was contained therein is no longer valid.
You ask why an engine failure should or should not be considered, you yourself mentioned a flap/slat malfunction on a short runway. Possibilities are endless and can never be planned for completely. But everyday we take engine failures into account, be it takeoff alternates, overweight landings and briefings. Is it really such an abnormal thing to consider?
On top of that when I divert to an alternate with a VOR approach, I imagine I would fly a bit more conservatively then I maybe normally would as fuel is approaching final reserve.
Just my 2 cents.
Last edited by 737Jock; 1st Jan 2013 at 18:54.