Virgin 901 25th Nov - fuel!

[scroggs]

Just a quick thanks to the chaps at Scottish and London who allowed us to stay high on our arrival yesterday. We were aware that the usual positioning for the LAM3A has us descending to F280 well before we'd ideally go down, and we were a little tighter for fuel than we'd like, so we asked through Scottish if we could stay at F400 'for fuel reasons'.

It seemed, though, that one or two controllers interpreted that as just short of a fuel emergency, and were anticipating us calling a Pan, or worse, on the way in. Well, thanks chaps, but it wasn't that bad! We like to arrive at the final holding fix with 10 tonnes of fuel, and we anticipated being a tonne below that if we accepted the early descent. That would have potentially been a problem had we needed to hold for a significant period - which was forecast. Being able to stay at F400 allowed us to arrive at the hold with the desired 10 tonnes - and, of course, the delays evaporated as we entered the hold!

Thought the explanation might help - and it was nice to know that you were ready for us if we'd been as low on gas as you feared!

[Paracab]

Hope you don't mind me asking, but what circumstances lead to you being tight on fuel ?

Please ignore me if I am opening a can of worms!!

[Madrigal]

Thanx for your reply Scroggs, it’s nice to be appreciated. I was one of the controllers involved (127.82). There was probably a minor case of Chinese Whispers as the message was passed down the line. Combined with the fact that fuel is so rarely used as a request for special handling, it was probably best to be prepared for “Houston we have a slight problem”. Giving you info re holding time etc, hopefully kept you in the picture and aided with your decision making.

Giving us plenty of warning like that is greatly appreciated. It was far easier to try and fit you in than it would have been to deal with a sudden diversion or emergency. However it sadly can’t always be done and declaring a pan may be your only option to getting a preferred route or profile.

Glad to have been of assistance.

[Scott Voigt]

Madrigal;

Come over here, they use it all the time... <sigh>

Scott

PS. Doesn't get them much sympathy <G>

[scroggs]

Paracab

nothing unusual, just slightly less cooperative winds than forecast over the previous 12 hours en route from Narita. To put it in perspective, our minimum diversion fuel to Gatwick or Birmingham from the LAM hold would have been about 7.5 tonnes. The A346 burns gas quite greedily at lowish level, so arriving at the anticipated 15+ minute hold with 9 tonnes would have caused a little sucking of teeth which could have been - and was - avoided by asking to stay high for a little longer. As things turned out, we not only arrived at the hold with 10 tonnes, we landed with 9 or so. A damn fine result, made possible by some useful early information and cooperation. Once again, thanks.

Scroggs

[StillDark&Hungry]

Again hope I'm not stirring the same can of worms opened by para - But did you really feel that much happier arriving at the hold with 10 tonnes than you would have felt if the dial had read 9?
Understand your comments about using 7.5 for the div etc. just appears strange to me (the uneducated ATCO) that your comfort zone seems so strict, or is that the company line?

[126,7]

StillDark&Hungry
Think about it. The bus and every other plane burns fuel at a rate you dont seem to understand. One ton can make the difference between landing at destination or having to divert. Not sticking to the rules in this business could mean landing short of the runway. Maybe its just in the undershoot area and everybody is ok or it could be further short and nobody is ok.
Rules is rules, if you want your career to last that is!!

[Unwell_Raptor]

Speaking as a mere passenger - hang on to that extra ton lads - my wife and kids may really appreciate it one day.

[Quokka]

...scroggs stayed within the rules quite nicely by early communication and negotiation. A good result.

A B727 cargo flight into Perth a while back learn't this lesson the hard way... three approaches and a landing on the third approach... engines winding down...

A landing on vapours is not an acceptable outcome for anyone.

[scroggs]

Still Dark

yes, I did! That tonne only represents about 6 minutes' flying at normal holding levels and speeds, and that's 6 minutes' thinking time I'd rather hang on to than throw away needlessly. As far as I'm concerned, it was far better to do a bit of early negotiation than it would have been to spring a diversion once in the hold. The diversion fuel figures I mentioned are minimums. There is no sense in backing yourself into a corner if you don't have to!

Scroggs

[BALIX]

Scroggs

Just out of casual interest, when you order the fuel do you take into account the increasing number of likely level restrictions you are likely to encounter once you hit UK airspace? One of the ones you managed to avoid yesterday was FL310 level by LARDI, designed to get you below London Sector 11 into Sector 10. Great idea from an ATC point of view but not a great help to your fuel burn figures.

In an ever increasing traffic environment these restrictions are becoming more frequent and whilst every controller I know would be happy to help you out if you suffer greater than anticipated headwinds, if the practice starts to become commonplace the goodwill will evaporate.

[scroggs]

There is a flight planning issue here which we are trying to address through our ops organisation. Obviously, if our planners are aware of routine level restrictions, these will be incorporated into the computer flight plans. For some reason, that wasn't the case the other day, and at the moment I don't know why not.

Unfortunately, the crews rarely do a particular route frequently enough to become familiar with regular ATC restrictions so, if they aren't notamed or otherwise notified to the crew, there's no way of anticipating them when deciding on the fuel load. On this occasion, we were aware that there may be level restrictions, but we had no definitive indication as to what they would be.

We do, of course, build into the fuel planning a contingency factor, but this is easily used up in the cut and thrust of level changes over the great Russian FA (which is procedurally controlled with large gaps between same-way levels), never mind the vicissitudes of the wind and weather! That contingency fuel equates to 15 minutes' holding at destination. If it's been used en-route, there isn't a lot of flex before a stay/divert decision is pressing.

Scroggs

[ghost-rider]

Speaking as an ops / ATC Cell bod, the problem we have with these regs, and incorporating them into CFPs is that the majority of them are tactically introduced as opposed to notam'd or forecast. Factors affecting their usage could be as diverse as staff shortages, wx, aircraft demand, radar unserviceabillities etc etc

It depends a lot on how much time in advance your CFP is produced from your report time as to when the info on ATC tactical regulations is available.

the easiest option would be to increase your 'holding fuel' allowance, but again that depends on company SOPs etc etc.

But from a flight planning dept perspective, it's not easy to give you accurate info to that degree unfortunately.

[BALIX]

Thanks for the reply Scroggs (and ghost rider). I guess it comes as more of a surprise to you long haul chaps. The guys who fly the domestic routes are well aware of the restrictions, having to fly them day in, day out. In fact many of them try pre-emptive strikes: 'Is the MARGO restriction in force?' is a common question from the Scottish TMA inbounds. (It usually is BTW)

I believe these expected restrictions are published on the STAR charts even though we ATC types will apply them all the time, some of the time or not at all. Of course, some restrictions are applied well before the commencement of the STAR so might not be as apparent to pilots or ops guys.

[scroggs]

On the LAM3A arrival, the only restrictions published - to us at least - are at Logan and Saber (off the top of my head) at F250 and F150 respectively, which are actually slightly above the ideal descent profile for an A346. We, and probably most other long haul operators, have quite a few canned routes from the Far East, and there's no way of knowing which one you're going to get until you turn up at the aircraft. As you say, any other tactical restrictions aren't published to the crew, and the CFP is obviously going to be generated up to 18 hours before our arrival in the area in question, by which time everything may have changed anyway!

We can and do generate higher fuel minima for factors which we know will cause problems, and certain arrival times at EGLL fall into that category, but we'd be reluctant to make a ruling that we should carry extra fuel in case tactical restrictions exist. You could generate reasons for extra fuel ad infinitum, and it costs a lot to carry the stuff 6000 miles to find you don't need it!

In any case, whatever rules or procedures you make, there will always be an occasion where some flexibility is needed. All we can do is plan for, say, the 95 percentile scenario, and trust the crews to use their experience and charm to cover the other 5% when the plan doesn't work as advertised. It will always be thus, I fear!

[Paracab]

Scroggs,

Thanks for such a decent, direct answer, covered a lot in one go.

Cheers, Paracab.

:ok:

[StillDark&Hungry]

Please don't misunderstand me guys, was just curious.

Was approximately:O :O aware of your fuel burn rate but by adding specific figures you seem to be enhancing the point I was trying to make:confused: :
ie. How much happier can any person on board feel arriving at LAM with 60 mins fuel as opposed to 54? All I'm saying is, that in % terms it doesn't seem that much different.

[scroggs]

Still

don't worry, I haven't taken any offence!

The fuel we arrive at the hold with has to be sufficient not only to hold for a while, but to make an approach, go around, then divert to our No1 diversion, hold for 30 minutes, make an approach and land. I can't reduce, or use that fuel, which amounts to about 6 or 7 of the 10 tonnes I'm planning to have on arrival at the hold. Therefore, that 1 tonne saved (in this case) represents about 25-30% of my absolute maximum available holding time. In practice, I'd be taking a lot on trust if I went down to the minimum fuel for the arrival/go around/divert etc. before I made those kinds of decisions, so, realistically I've probably got 2 - 2.5 tonnes to play with (which is the 15 minutes' contingency fuel I referred to in an earlier post - which may have been absorbed by unfavourable winds or levels). Therefore, that tonne saved may represent as much as 50% of my available hold time - which may well make the difference between arriving at destination, or diverting. That's why I feel happier having it on board!

Scroggs

[250 kts]

Doesn't this thread just highlight the need for ATC and pilots to get together as often as possible-preferably in the form of official fam flights for ATC and regular visits to the ATC centres and towers for the crews.

[scroggs]

Absolutely! :ok:

[ghost-rider]

In an ideal world, the software gurus who implement flight-planning systems would actually speak and listen to : (in no particular order )

a) CFMU,
b) flight-deck,
c) ATC & Ops staff

and design said systems that give flight-deck ACCURATE CFPs that resemble real world info with regard to ATC restrictions and fuel burn.

Surely in this day and age it wouldn't be an impossibility ?! :confused:

[StillDark&Hungry]

The light bulb in my brain illuminates!!!

Ta!

[Chokdee]

Hi Scroggs,
just out of interest what does your CFP allow regarding fuel from TOD on this particular sector.
Rgds.

[BOAC]

Firstly a big OK! to Scroggs and the ATC guys and girls for thrashing this one out. It really does restore faith in pprune after all the c**p we sometimes get on other forums.

What would be really useful would be a list of waypoints and altitude restrictions that are NOT published in our documentation - we all know about 260 Margo (we only ask because it is normally below economic height there!), 200 Tebra etc, but there are a stack of others that Thales/Aerad (or whatever they are today) do not print.

Europe has its own luxurious set of 'secrets' which you get to know after a few goes (eg level 290 30 before TOP) into Italian airspace). It would be nice to get those too!

Perhaps our friendly forum mod could put up a 'sticky' for contributions?

As Scroggs says, saving 1T out of a total of 10T sounds like nothing, but as he points out, it is a big chunk of what we actually have to play with, and an idea of the various restrictions would give us a little hammer to hit the planners with as they get ever tighter and tighter on our reserves?

[BALIX]

we all know about 260 Margo (we only ask because it is normally below economic height there!)

Hmmm, interesting. It undoubtedly is below economic height but not by much if the 'when ready' descents are anything to go by. Of course it differes from type to type, airline to airline but also within airlines on the same type. However, most of the time we give an unrestricted descent to FL260 we see the a/c leveling off just a couple of miles after MARGO anyway.

Now, 260 level by Newcastle for Glasgow inbounds is a different matter...

[javelin]

Good thread, and brings the point about cross skill cooperation to the fore. In the good old days, we did a lot of fam flights and all the guys in MAN and LBA appreciated them, espescially the descent profiling and the capabilities of the little 'Bus to go down ! It still irritates me that some of the trap heights that are applied to us are not published obviously, things like the 290 by DUB or LIFFY when coming off the ocean and the early descents from the west into LGW. If we depart Dom Republic or Jamaica and get a random route up through New York airspace, level allocation can be a lottery. You may have planned and filed 370 but when they say you have 280 'til 30W it can really upset dinner ! I have had to get rather firm with NY before and eventually we got 330 after 2 hours. Now we are 'encouraged' to be fuel effective, so we were being good boys. By 30W, I am looking at less than a tonne over minimal diversion and we are estimating LGW in the morning rush. I did a similar thing to Scroggs and called early, we were sequenced very effeciently, no one else held because of us and we landed about 700kgs over diversion minima. Now to put things into perspective, 1 go around on a 330 will use at least 2 tonnes of fuel, even if you just do a visual circuit - been there, seen it ! So when we say we feel more comfy with a tonne thinking time, perhaps that helps.

Bring back Fam flights :ok:

[scroggs]

Chokdee I can't remember what fuel the CFP on that sector allowed from TOD; I'm on a Delhi tomorrow night and I'll see if I can sneak a look at the last couple of days' Naritas to see what the ballpark figure is. I suspect it's around 2 tonnes or less.

Of course, other VS901s may well not have had the same inbound routing as we had, but they almost always end in a LAM3A, so the figures should be comparable.

Scroggs

[Speedmaster]

Scroggs - I am just curious as to what sort of block and trip fuel the Airbus would use on a Narita-EGLL flight?

[tired]

I think Scroggs is off earning his living (bloody right too, give the rest of us some time off :) ) so I'll answer for him. My last NRT-LHR had a trip fuel of 100T and a Ramp of 111T. That was in September, when the winds over Siberia are quite light, - the average wind component on that sector was -17, it can be significantly higher in winter. (And that sector was on a A346, the -300 is about 20% less, from memory.)

[Chokdee]

Thanks Scroggs.

[scroggs]

Back from DEL!

Yep, TOD to LHR is usually below 2 tonnes burn - 1 tonne for an A343. My last NRT (A346) had a component of -46 and the ramp fuel was around 118 tonnes at a TOW of 355 (I think - don't have the CFP any more).

[Chokdee]

Cheers Scroggs. So from that, the flight plan will be very accurate up until TOD @ LHR, where potentially it goes haywire for the 10-15 min's holding. Here's hoping the 5% RRSV is still avail.

[scroggs]

Ah - I think your understanding of the way our CFP is put together is slightly wide of the mark. It starts from a calculation of the fuel required to fly the flight plan to arrive at the end of the landing run with zero fuel. At each waypoint en-route, a 'min fuel required' number is included, which allows us to calculate from the fuel on board what we are likely to arrive with.

So, when I say that the CFP allows 1 to 2 tonnes from TOD, that is the calculated minimum fuel required to fly the planned arrival. It makes no allowances for ATC restrictions unless they are known to the planners at the time, or for holding which is allowed for (to a degree) in our minimum overhead fuel requirement and our route reserve fuel - which is 5% only if no En Route Alternate is specified (very rare), otherwise it is the 15 minutes' fuel I referred to in an earlier post.

Scroggs

[scroggs]

Yes, we have a higher minimum fuel for some schedules, which acknowleges the inevitable holding at their planned arrival times.

[ATCOJ30]

Scroggs - very interesting post. Although we don't see A340s doing long haul out of my airport, I'm sure the folk who fly B737s, B757s, E145s and various smaller 'buses to /from us have equally valuable operational issues that they could pass on to ATC, who may be blissfully ignorant of them.

I heartily echo the views of 250kts and BOAC re. pilot/ATC contact - we need more of it, as an industry. I know it's difficult with max. rostered hours/SRATCOH duty time etc but it's got to be the only way to understand each others' jobs, responsibilities and issues and improve the overall safety- and service levels for all, long-term. Thanks again.

[scroggs]

I heartily agree that direct contact is the best way to educate each group about the other's problems. However, no one route experience or ATC visit will highlight all the problems that exist for each side of the equation, so question-and-answer sessions like this one can fill in many of the gaps.

I believe that my airline has an ATC liaison pilot who deals with air experience, though I know little more than that. I will try to find out more; the latest DoT rules make it explicitly clear that you ATC peeps are 'permitted personnel' on UK flight decks, so there is no regulatory reason why you shouldn't come with us - we just have to persuade the bean counters that we can afford the hotel rooms for you (not to mention the beers, food, beers, entertainment and - oh yes - beers).

Scroggs

[Scott Voigt]

Scroggs;

Personally I think that prior to Capt. upgrade all pilots should go through a days training on ATC and what really goes on <G>... I have had both newbies and multi thousand hour Capt's. in my classes and it is amazing at what some pilots think ATC can or should do <G>.

If the UK doesn't have something similar to our Operation Raincheck classes, they should think about having them. There is one Scot who was on here a while back who has been to one of our classes and he can best report as to what he thought. Like you said, we can't answer all the questions in an eight hour day ( sometimes longer) but we can put a very good dent in it, and show you in such a way that just typing about it on here can not even compare with...

That said, we also need to have controllers in the jumpseat as well as in the sims to see what is happening in your neck of the woods. Well most of them, we do have some ATP rated folks here flying jets too...

regards

Scott

[West Coast]

I understand its mostly the FAA that is blocking the fam program (or something like it) for controllers. You guys are still in my manual as being legal to fly. Pretty high on the list at that. There is also a pilot program(yeah, its funny) to allow offline JS activity. It also includes ATC.

[VectorLine]

Lots of visits going on at LACC now.

All pilots welcome. Check with your ATC liason pilot if you have one.

We also now have a pilot on liason at our emergency training - which has been found to be very useful (on both sides I think).

Fam flights available on BA and GB. I believe Britannia are also working on it.

BOAC : Re unpublished standing agreemments.
Inbound EGBB/EGNX from south Via BIG FL260/40DME BIG. Via MID FL250/35DME MID

Inbound EGFF/EGGD/EGTF via BIG FL280/40DME BIG

Subject to variation in coordination up to FL300. Reason: traffic excluded from London Upper Sectors (sectors 1+2)

VL