Gents,
My previous operator used as standard contingency fuel the method of ERA3. I always wondered if this is legal or not. Below you will find an extract of EASA CAT.OP.MPA (link:
http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/d...-R.pdf#page101)
Contingency fuel, except as provided for in (b), which should be the higher of:
(i) Either:
(A) 5% of the planned trip fuel or, in the event of in-flight replanning, 5 % of the trip fuel for the remainder of the flight;
(B) not less than 3 % of the planned trip fuel or, in the event of in- flight replanning, 3 % of the trip fuel for the remainder of the flight, provided that an en-route alternate (ERA) aerodrome is available;
(C) an amount of fuel sufficient for 20 minutes flying time based upon the planned trip fuel consumption, provided that the operator has established a fuel consumption monitoring programme for individual aeroplanes and uses valid data determined by means of such a programme for fuel calculation; or
(D) an amount of fuel based on a statistical method that ensures an appropriate statistical coverage of the deviation from the planned to the actual trip fuel. This method is used to monitor the fuel consumption on each city pair/aeroplane combination and the operator uses this data for a statistical analysis to calculate contingency fuel for that city pair/aeroplane combination;
(ii) or an amount to fly for 5 minutes at holding speed at 1 500 ft (450 m), above the destination aerodrome in standard conditions.
Note: (b) refers to the RCF procedure
How do you interpret this? Do you need the highest amount of contingency fuel of either A, B, C or D. Or do you need the highest of amount of fuel if you compare the 4 situations after you've calculated them separately?
Thank you for your input.