Originally Posted by Meikleour
As a grizzled old F/E said to me once - "the fuel tanks are for fuel, old boy, not for air!"
- was he perhaps the one that died in the AF Concorde crash where 'no air in the tank' was a major contributory factor? "grizzled old FE/s" are not always right.
The real issue is the pressure then applied to crews to "commit to destination" at a single runway destination in the event of delays
- this is contrary to EUOPS which gives the commander the discretion to do so - but not as a regular planning event, and only (my bold and underline)
"2. however, if, as a result of an in-flight fuel check, the expected usable fuel remaining on arrival at the destination aerodrome is less than:
(i) the required alternate fuel plus final reserve fuel, the commander must take into account the traffic and the operational conditions prevailing at the destination aerodrome, at the destination alternate aerodrome and at any other adequate aerodrome, in deciding whether to proceed to the destination aerodrome or to divert so as to perform a safe landing with not less than final reserve fuel".
No mention of 'insufficient' holding fuel. Where is this 'pressure' coming from? If from the company, point out the regs to them. Incidentally, I frequently arrived at LGW on a nice day at a quiet time with no requirement for any holding. The odds are you would be vectored 'straight in' and not fly most of the arrival.