BM FUEL PROBLEMS??

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

This morning during very busy EAT situations at Heathrow two BM aircraft indicated that they were effectively short of fuel. One wanted to ensure that his spacing from the one ahead was enough to avoid a go-around and the other gent got a bit tetchy when his EAT slipped by a couple of minutes.

There were problems today caused by a strong easterly wind resulting in a reduced landing rate and a go-around also lost us a slot. However, for two fairly short-distance flights to enter the realms of fuel shortage is something we ATC wallahs don't understand.

Is there something you'd like to whisper to us, chaps?

[Chalky]

I'm not aware of any new clamp-down on the amounts of fuel being carried, so it sounds like one of two problems:

1. They under-estimated the likely delay.

2. They were management pilots trying to demonstrate that you don't need to carry "extra" fuel into LHR!

[DouglasDigby]

CAA have just published a Special Objectives Check on Fuel Planning. It is available from CAA website

www.srg.caa.co.uk/documents/srg_fops_fuel_soc_focus1.pdf (http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/documents/srg_fops_fuel_soc_focus1.pdf)

& also on the CHIRP website www.chirp.co.uk. (http://www.chirp.co.uk.)

It sounds like the guys concerned need to read it!! As it says in the latest IPA magazine, the ONLY time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire!


[This message has been edited by DouglasDigby (edited 01 May 2001).]

[take ECAM action]

If there were EATs being given out then I guess that the holding delays were over 20 minutes. Just how long had they been holding for?

[THINALBERT]

Short distance flight means low fuel burn. Contingency fuel is 5% of fuel burn, or in this case 5% of not much.

OK, they should have their holding fuel at LHR factored in to their fuel plan somewhere, but one hold more than they planned on, or even an extended pattern, and that tiny bit of fat has all gone.

[Aluminium Importer]

Delays were between 20 and 25 minutes for most aircraft from the moment we walked in at 7am, until we walked out at 2pm. Some would have got slightly less than 20, some slightly more than 25.

Don't most companies plan fuel loads for aircraft inbound to Heathrow based on a normal delay of 20 minutes (i.e. any delay of 20 minutes or less equals no delay as far as fuel-planning goes)?

AI

[This message has been edited by Aluminium Importer (edited 01 May 2001).]

[fireflybob]

Oh dearie me, do we really need all sorts of "PC" working papers/parties to decide whether and how much excess fuel we should carry into LHR??
It does not take rocket science for anyone with any common sense on an aircraft with stacks of performance and the luxury of loading on as much fuel as you like to make a decision to carry extra fuel!!
Just how long will it be before somebody runs dry and one thing is for sure, jet engines do not run very well on air!

------------------

[jeta1]

This has been a problem in Midland for a long time. Ask any non-management, and sensible, pilot at Midland they will tell you that they are pressured to carry only the fuel on the jet plan with no more contingency than is required by law. Any personal adaptations to Flight plan fuel have to be justified - to the last Kg!

When I left Midland 5 years ago this was becoming a huge morale problem. It was not unheard of for individuals that routinely carried 1000k to be called in to the office for a political chat.

When I flew with management pilots it amazed me that they would always try to reduce the flight plan fuel as much as possible to prove a point. I have been in the hold at LAM with these people with no more than 10 minutes hold fuel - and that is after using diversion fuel (i.e planning to land with about 1500kgs on a 737!!!).

I know it costs money to carry fuel. However, the cost of just one diversion would ruin many months of cost saving activities.

I would not plan to land at LHR, in a 737, with less than 3000kgs - unless we were really scratching around for performance.
This is a safe figure. Anything less is potentially hazardous - especially at Heathrow! Not to mention potentially very disrupting for the likes of Heathrow Director. Heathrow is a seperate entity with fuel planning. There are too many vagaries! Imagine If all the aircraft going into LHR carried bare minimum then a couple of go-arounds, blocked runway, etc, occured. Then do you really think Heathrow Director would get every one down safe in time????

I'm sure he would do his best but airlines like Midland would not have contributed to any success!

Does anyone out there actually have the figures for cost of aircraft carrying 1000kgs greater than jet plan compared to the savings of not. Then how much would a diversion cost - including all periphery costs (i.e. coaching pax, crew duty etc,etc,etc - everything)

[fireflybob]

Very interesting jeta1.
If what you say is true then this must mean that their relevant Ops Manual does not reflect JARS etc.
It is a while since I checked but the instructions to holders of AOCs stated that instructions should be included in the Ops Manual that crews should carry extra fuel when planning to operate in "congested airspace". I think you could argue that the whole of the London Airspace is "congested".
So the next logical question is why the CAA are not enforcing the rules?
I am not saying that there is never a case for just taking "flight plan" fuel but, as I said before, this is surely not rocket science.
Has the authority of the our aircraft commanders been usurped to an extent that flight safety is compromised?
One thing is for sure - there's nothing economic about running dry!

------------------

[snooky]

Thinalbert is slightly wrong about contingency fuel. It is 5% of burn but additionally is 15 minutes fuel holding at 1500' at the planned landing weight.
Sooner or later someone is going to get caught out into LHR. It is routine to commit to landing there from the hold, and I can think of many occasions over the years where the airport has shut completely at short notice. (eg mortars, accidents). I always carry extra there, and have on a few occasions been very glad of it. Much more fuel is wasted in inefficient flying (badly planned or high speed descents) than is burned by carrying a little extra, in short haul at any rate.
IMHO the management dogma of min. fuel carriage is one of the greatest threats to flight safety at present.

[FLEX42]

jeta1, agree entirely. Luckily my company doesn't interrogate those who wish to carry more than plog fuel. Some of us do, and some don't - there are many considerations on the day, and as DouglasDigby has pointed out, the recent SOC by the CAA highlights most of these.

As for your question : For a 3:45 trip to Canaries today on A321 at 85,000Kg, each extra 1000Kg of fuel carried cost 90kg in extra burn. So I imagine on short sectors in Europe it must be equivalent to the square root of not a lot !! I don't suppose the bean counters would see it in the same light, but then they've never been up there when delays, unforecasted wx changes etc. happen all over the UK at the same time. You know, one of those days when the extra tonne gives you 20 mins breathing and thinking time.

[Tag]

No-one at bmi is ever put under pressure to carry sector fuel and very few to my knowledge do.

Contingency fuel is 5% of trip fuel or a certain minimum according to type which equates to about ten minutes holding time.

bmi fuel policy is determined by JAR-OPS rules and this includes the option to dispense with your alternate airfield and burn that fuel - in this case STN (approx 40 mins holding) if certain criteria are met, one of which is the issuing of an EAT (or that no significant delays are likely)

I believe it is fully justified to operate to JAR-OPS rules (that is what they are there for) and further that an early warning to ATC about an impending problem is far better than waiting for it to happen.

[normal_nigel]

snooky

Its generally 5% or 15 mins whichever is greater, with other complications on longer flights such as en route alternates reducing the figure. However, what happened to throwing away the alternate? In the hold we only need 1 runway along with EAT etc.If the BM's threw away the alternate and were tight after 20 mins that may raise some questions but I wasn't there.

NN



[This message has been edited by normal_nigel (edited 01 May 2001).]

[Max Angle]

I have to say that I have been a skipper with BMA (sorry BMI) for quite a few years now and have never felt under any pressure not to carry extra fuel. I put whatever I want on and rarely bother annotating the fuel plan as to why. I have never been questioned by the management and unless I started carrying tons extra every flight I won't be. They are to busy keeping their heads above water to worry anyway!. From what I hear BM are pretty laid back about it compared to some others. BM have a lot of faults as an employer and as an airline but putting pressure on Captains about fuel is not one of them.

When operating into LHR I tend to put about 15 mins extra fuel on. By the time we get to the hold this usually means about 20mins fuel remains before you have to start thinking about ditching the alternate and continuing to hold. All the stuff about mortar attacks, blocked runways etc. is a total red herring. These things can happen at any airport including the one you have diverted to which is why JAA fuel planning allows you to dispense with your alternate if the delay is known and carry on holding.

[Electric Sky]

Max Angle

Well said ....

The Captain is responsible for the safe operation of the flight and is therefore at liberty to put on whatever fuel is deemed necessary.

[Arkroyal]

Thinalbert and snooky,

both wrong actually, contingency is 5% or 5 mins at 1500ft.

As Max angle says, one of the things bmi does not get exercised about is a bit of fuel for the wife and kids. The extra burn is so small that you'd spend the rest of your career trying to save the cost of one diversion by carrying sector fuel.

When it does go pear-shaped it's nice if the fuel gauge doesn't become the primary flight instrument too!

[snooky]

Maybe that's the problem.
Where I fly it's 15mins. clean at 1500'.

[M.Mouse]

Now let me see, for all of the 15 years that I have been in commercial aviation I have been hearing that it is such a huge threat to safety etc to be carrying flight plan fuel.

Whatever happened to good judgement? I carry flight plan fuel routinely unless I see very good reason to take more. If I take more I make it a worthwhile amount.

My company's policy is FP fuel unless good reason to take more. If I have to divert due low fuel then it is because this policy has failed me. I have not had to divert for low fuel in those 15 years. I do not know many that have.

Not exactly short of boltholes in the south UK either are we?

Sure I would feel great having an extra 15 minutes on every arrival. But it is a little like each crew member only taking one minature per nightstop it adds up to much more if we all did it routinely.

I feel no pressure to take less than I am comfortable with.

[THINALBERT]

Thanks for the input Snooky & Ark Royal.

Contingency is just 5% of burn in our mob. There is a default setting of 10 minutes fuel at cruise altitude factored in to the automatically generated fuel plan but this can be ignored if various criteria are met. Its in the Ops Manual, approved by our operating authority and accepted by the CAA.

Is it sensible? Well thats a whole different matter. Good thing in our company is that you dont get flak for making a sensible decision re LHR fuel. I fly a wide body twin and I can't remember when I last arrived at my holding fix for LHR with less than 10 tonnes.

[snooky]

My "red herring" earlier about comitting to LHR is something which requires a little thought, though I don't deny that to do so conforms to JAR ops.
Many people use their diversion fuel into LHR as effectively extra contingency fuel, routinely comitting themselves to a landing there. Almost 100% of the time this is fine, and they land safely. The problem arises when LHR is suddenly totally closed whilst they are at a late stage of the approach. I know that this happens very infrequently, but if diversion fuel is routinely used as contingency fuel, then over the years sooner or later someone will have a problem.
It is not true to say that this is the same scenario as being comitted to your diversion following a go around, since the chances of both getting the diversion and then finding that airfield closed are very remote.

[M.Mouse]

snooky

<<It is not true to say that this is the same scenario as being comitted to your diversion following a go around, since the chances of both getting the diversion and then finding that airfield closed are very remote.>>

Would you like to explain your statement statistically.

Arriving at your alternate having used your diversion fuel to my mind equates to the same thing. The chances of making an approach with minimum fuel and being faced with sudden airfield closure, although unlikely, are similar I would suggest.

If you diverted to LTN, LGW, STN the chances of a blocked runway preventing you landing are greater than remaining at LHR.

I would also suggest that inbound to LHR, leaving the hold at OCK or BIG and getting down to the level of approach and reserve fuel only, would still give you a choice of LGW with similar track miles to touchdown. Similarly in the BNN hold LTN and in the LAM hold STN.

[BOAC]

What is causing a little confusion here is that while 'contingency' is 5% of planned burn for jets (well always WAS!) and 10% for piston, some airlines, eg BA, have a modified 'contingency' of 5% or 15 minutes at 1500', whichever is the GREATER.
All very comfy on a short sector., but not so fat on an ATH or TLV..........

[scanscanscan]

Anyone ever told the captains the potential liability cost to the captain if he runs out of fuel and servives over central London?
A captain is legally liable to the extent of his worldwide wealth if he causes a death or damage to persons or property.Therefor a pilot maybe should not own any assets personally and have wealth in a trust.
Fuel rules will quickly change when the first airliner runs dry over London.
Some airlines east of Dover are unaware of the LHR 20 mins. They get Cfp fuel from the USA and generally the zero fuel weight passed has errors ( the wrong way ) sometimes as much as 4000 to 7000kgs.
When a passenger buys a ticket are they made aware you plans include having only 15 mins befor the engines quit after touch down?
Why not an extra 2 hours hold fuel?
These are civil passenger airline ( suposedly safe) operations not military war ops.
After a civil airliner runs dry over LHR the airline management will be sacked in the blink of an eye and fuel loads will change.
It is called Tomb stone flight safety.
Why make your Tomb stone befor your time?
If you want the comfort factor of extra fuel take it, but do not expect the managers to give you another 3 year contract of employment when yours expires,this is managerial pressure and their idea of CRM.
A captain must be prepared to walk or be sacked every time he takes a stand and insists upon his safety requirements being actioned and be prepared to live by these rules.
Today the stress and pressure on captains is getting higher and attempts are continuous to undermine the authority and status of the captain.
People not onboard the flight who seek to influence and minimise the fuel load to be carried are guilty of "Interference with the flight" and the "Captains authority".
Authority delegated to him by law of the state, as a Captain Peacock posted.
Questions, What or where is the state back up of its commanders? Has this back up ever been actioned?
Question,Why are the arrival fuel figures not recorded by the Caa at Lhr and reviewed with the same concern as the noise abatements and SID flight paths?
The fact is nobody is "Guarding the guards."
Today the state is not concerned about fuel loads over their capital city.
Another fact? I check the news every night to see if has happened,and say a prayer it never will.
Pray with me lads its all you have got left, nobody who can do anything about this is interested.
Do not let them kill you and be brave and be real captains (not dead ones) and put the fuel "you" want on.


------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?

[AffirmBrest]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">After a civil airliner runs dry over LHR the airline management will be sacked in the blink of an eye and fuel loads will change.</font>

What makes you think airline management would get anywhere near the disaster when they are able to transfer all of the blame, sorry responsiblity, to the Captain who failed to take enough fuel - the Ops Manual clearly says take extra if you need it...

Some of same Captains who will adjust the Jetplan fuel down for underload and then pick a cruise level for a 25kg saving in predicted burn are those who will do a full 8nm ILS at a quiet airfield in CAVOK conditions. It's a laugh, innit? :)

------------------
...proceeding below Decision Height with CAUTION...

[scanscanscan]

Yes!!
One really must try and laugh, after the body bags it really is all about the legal get out of jail bits.
We are both unlikely to run out of fuel as you seem positive and appear to know what you are doing, and I am retired.
Nowadays after a crash, if it is expensive enough, then the management will be also looked at and then replaced and their policies changed.An accident report is also to be avoided or heavily edited if possible.
I feel the insurance companies will eventually have a role to play in flight safety as the payouts start to really hurt. Presently they seem to have some influence in non performing company management in companies they have invested and wasted our money in.
Hope you have legal visual reference if proceeding below, even with caution!! Is that a legal get out??

------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?

[jeta1]

Once I was foolish enough to succumb to accepting min jet plan fuel!

Asked for gear at 2000 feet on the ILS with 2100kgs remaining on my 737-300 (this amount would be normal if on min fuel). Behold only two greens!!!!! Go-around flown then after checks, gear recycled - still two greens!

The F/O checked the nose gear and mains through the looking glass. Nose gear was OK but the main wheel glass was dirty or obscured. Fuel now 1300Kgs!!!!! Mayday declared and NITS to CC for emergency landing - no time for a fly by! Attempted to recycle one more time and behold 3 lovely green lights.
Immediate approach made and landed with 900Kgs.

Our arses were somewhat tight on that one!

My point should be obvious! More fuel and we needn't have rushed and would have had more time to be sure. If we didn't get our three greens then drastic action would have been necessary!

At least we wouldn't have burned though!!!

Never again!

[shades]

Yep!

It isn't much fun burning the last 1000kg you get that sort of "things closing in on you" feeling.

[Nightflyer]

If I recall wasn't there an incident in Air 2Bob when a 757 landed at LGW with 1000 kgs and that was after a Cat 3b approach due to fog. I gather he got sacked. Bugger them--carry what you feel is right. If it all goes wrong, you won't get any support from the management.

[fireflybob]

Jeta1 - you took the words out of my mouth.
All the theory (and practice) says that accidents are not just caused by one thing but a "series of events" - aka "the error chain" or "poor judgement chain".
I think the vast majority of aircraft commanders are sensible and assertive enough to take whatever fuel they deem is safe and sensible. On certain occasions this might be flight plan but, in my opinion, to plan to operate to busy places such as LHR on min fuel on a continual basis is courting disaster, eventually.

------------------

[M.Mouse]

jeta1

Pleased to hear that your rather unpleasant experience ended safely.

Had you taken holding fuel for the just in case event or diverted you could have been faced with the same problem and still had the same low fuel state. Indeed you may have held and then been on a CAT 3 approach and suffered an autopilot failure or two. The range of possibilities is endless and at some point a sensible judgement has to be made

What some seem to be saying here is 'lets take extra fuel every time just in case'. Whether we like it or not commercial considerations are important and one has to decide where to draw the line. I have said previously I take loads of extra when I feel I need it.

Nightflyer

Why was the A2B flight so short of fuel when it was foggy? Surely it was forecast and he should have taken extra.

Out of interest my company policy is that a flyby rarely achieves anything with unsafe gear indications.

[jeta1]

M.Mouse - Good point, but I don't think anyone is suggesting going mad - sensible corrections to fuel are required. It is sensible is to always plan a sensible contingency, applying professional judgement, above jet plan fuel. When performance allows it an extra 30 minutes is a sensible figure, I would say . I am not saying go silly - just be prepared, as situations like the one I had do happen. 30 spare minutes would have shown that I had excercised my professional discretion and had been prepared for unplanned possibles!

Yep! Quite agree that a fly by is a waste of time, generally. The technically untrained eye of Tower folk (no disrespect Heathrow Director)would be unwise to risk saying that it looked ok when it turned out not to be. To get an engineer to the tower with a good pair of binos is a better idea. It is still very unlikely to be of any real help, especially if the gear is down but not locked. It could be used as a last resort to help reassure one that the wheels are at least pointing roughly in the right direction though!

One small point! I have rarely seen LOFT exercises practicising such emergencies on min fuel!

[Spoonbill]

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif I have no sympathy with any airline who (allegedly) operates in this manner. I think the majority of UK ATCOs are well aware of the cost penalties of holding and fuel etc, but we have enough to worry about without the sort of crap that HD and his colleagues had to endure.
Whilst we're not anything like as busy as the London airports, we do our best to give expeditious routings to operators, but a queue is a queue, and unless you call Pan or Mayday, you wont get to the front until it's your turn.
,

[NigelOnDraft]

LHR Director (who started this)

I have brought this subject up with some of the ATCOs who j/s with us - and they are usually surprised.

Our Fuel Policy is to try and carry Flight Plan, with usually 15mins hold above Div Fuel. If our "stats" show that the holding at this time / day are less than or equal to the 15mins, we are encouraged not to take extra. Hence the Policy is that most Flights into LHR should carry only the 15mins.

When we get to the hold, and find we have used some already, or the holding is greater, we get to a point where we would have to divert (not enough to go to LHR then divert). We can then "commit" to e.g. LHR, down to a level where we plan to land with 30mins @ 1500' (which is not far off a go-around [high fuel burn] and tight radar / visual circuit). Only when the "plan" shows not making this do the PANs start coming out!

Of course, what ATC do not know is how many aircraft in the hold have "committed". The first you may know is the "hint" the BM aircraft gave you. It may be all the aircraft in all the holds. (Maybe a one-off call to Director that we have now "committed" may help?)

Once you have committed, and then left the hold, were the tower to be evacuated, a runway blocked, or ATC to "instruct" a go-around and / or diversion, the aircraft is still commmitted to land at LHR, with or without clearance.

All fine, except that the example in our manual goes on to state that committing can be carried out allowing for plausible single ground or air failures, and implies that such a failure could reduce CAT 3A to CAT 2 i.e. we can commit to land in CAT 2! (Not that many would...)

It works for now, because quite a few aircraft are carrying extra, not everyone will have to commit etc. The "fun" will start on a day with not so good weather, long holds, and a sudden decrease in runways available. Of the 5 aircraft of finals, it might be that 3 or more are absolutely committed to land off that approach, or after a tight circuit...

NoD

[Warped Factor]

NoD,

Only problem I can see is that if you all start telling us you're committed to landing at LHR because of your fuel state, we'd probably feel obliged to increase the spacing to make sure you get landing clearance.

Consequently the delays for those still in, or just arriving at, the stacks go up. More people tell us they're committed etc etc.

Bit of a Catch 22 that one.

WF.

[M.Mouse]

jeta1

Now there's a thought a LOFT with a nasty such as unsafe gear indication with low fuel. It would make the pressure of the emergency much more intense.

Seems a good training scenario to me.

[Max Angle]

Don't give em' ideas!

[snooky]

M.Mouse

I cannot as you request explain my statement statistically, however perhaps I can make it a little clearer what I am trying to say.
Arriving at your diversion having used your diversion fuel does not equate to the same thing as using your diversion fuel as effectively contingency fuel. My reasoning is that when you arrive at your diversion this is a fairly unusual event, and therefore happens infrequently, so the chances of your diversion being closed having diverted are very small. Committing to land at Lhr gives you the same chance of it being closed (i.e. very remote) but because some people do this on a very regular basis the chance of someone getting caught out is very much higher.
In 20 years of operating to Lhr I have only seen it happen twice, but if it even only happens every 10 years, and many aircraft are committed someone will sooner or later get caught out, and this is unacceptable.
Good points about the tech. problem situation and the impact of a low fuel state.

[doggonetired]

This is a most interesting thread.
It seems to me (a complete novice at this game) that it encompasses so many disciplines, most, if not all of which make our job so rewarding and previously highly regarded.
We all (as far as I’m aware) have SOP’s, in varying degrees better or worse than others and most of us (one or two always slip through the net) have a brain (although the current CAA filtering system does not allow for THIS fact).
We are trained for the most part, to reasonably high standards and are encouraged to share our wealth of knowledge, ideas and thoughts with those around us (both inside and outside of) the aircraft. So it is fantastic that we have this medium with which to discuss the issues that we are faced with on a daily basis.
It is I think, both fortunate and unfortunate then, that those very same SOP’s that protect us usurp most of our abilities and although hinting at a measure of free thought, in the hands of the (equally?) well-trained lawyers will surely condemn us in our hour of need if we do not follow their “advice”.
Those of you who have managed to stay thus far with my ramblings are now treated (?) to my plagiarised wisdom.
KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID.
The “book” is clear in my outfit. It EVEN gives us a flow chart!! The choice isn’t really ours to make, given “System controls are in the normal configuration for the phase of flight prior to the initiation of a non-normal procedure”.
Why is it with so much emphasis on CRM,
HD says; “two BM aircraft indicated that they were effectively short of fuel”
Are they, aren’t they? This sounds like skirting the issue.
We are taught to communicate.
How many times has the comment between pilots been “where’s s/he sending us now”?
And how about from ATC “could you let us know before you slow down/speed up” (not personally, honest!)
Whilst I agree the over burdened airwaves could well do without more superfluous R/T a few well chosen words could enlighten both agents as to the train of thought and intentions of those concerned.
A wise old (80 something and still instructing) CFI told me what we all know; “The trick is in avoiding a situation where we need to use our skill to extricate ourselves from that situation”.
I don’t know if there is a right or wrong answer but we at least have the ability to discuss it and this must be good, if only so we have more experience to call on in our judgement and decision making processes.

In my company, as far as I am aware, nobody is “invited for tea and bickies” for carrying a “reasonable” extra.

P.S. I’m not a statistician but your comment Snooky about repeating an unlikely event I don’t think changes the odds of the event (tossing a coin is always a 50-50 chance no matter how many times you do it)

[snooky]

doggonetired

I agree that this is a great way to exchange views on topics like this.
I also agree about the odds not changing. My point was that whilst there is the same chance of finding a diversion closed after a go around as there is of the original destination closing, it is a situation which is seldom experienced and therefore the exposure to those odds is rare. Regularly committing to a particular airfield, as is very often the case carrying planned fuel with at most 15mins contingency into Lhr exposes the pilot far more often to the possibility of an airfield to which he/she is committed closing.
I seem to remember that some years ago the CAA issued a circular advising pilots operating inbound to Lhr and Lgw to carry at least an extra 20mins. fuel for unforseen holding in order to prevent the kind of events described by Heathrow Director.

[fireflybob]

doggonetired, I am not a statistician either and I think your comments may be right but I think what Snooky is getting at is that most of the time there isn't a problem but you only need to throw in some extra "random" event (such as an aircraft malfunction) and the potential for a catastrophe is much greater.
I accept that we cannot base everything that we do on the worst happening but, as a pilot, I do know (from hard experience) that when you are getting low on fuel one's ability to make rational reasoned decisions tends to decrease.
At a much more fundamental level we have to ask what the purpose of business is? If the answer to that question is just to maximise profit (for example by carrying less fuel and "saving" money) then we are surely ignoring the bigger picture. For example, what is the cost to the "nation" if passengers do not arrive at their chosen destination? Some might say, so what? But I would say that what goes around (pardon the pun!) comes around.

We need to take a much more "holistic" view - for example, it might be argued that if ATC is subject to more "stress" because of a couple of aircraft crying a bit low on fuel that they might be more prone to error and miss something else which is more important.

Finally, it concerns me as pilot (and a passenger) that many of us are constantly working in "overload" - we can do this "occasionally" when necessary but if it's every day, then eventually something will give and there will be a catastrophe.


------------------

[40KTSOFFOG]

Airports talk to each other! When one goes, they all go. If you are not Cat3b, the chaos when the majors go out is quite fun. Try it some time!

[dayoff]

I've a good idea! Let's all stay on the ground and not go anywhere!!

You're paid (mostly) a lot of money as Captain to make decisions like this.

Load the fuel that suits the occasion; I do, and I've never been questioned by my (bm!) management!

[CaptainSandL]

Great thread, interesting to see how the views are polarising into those that usually take the nav log fuel and those that usually take at least 15mins extra, regardless of airline.

To put the record straight on BM’s fuel policy, we are full JAROPS and our Nav Logs compare very favourably with the article in this months Focus magazine about how various UK airlines calculate their fuel requirements. Management have kept plots of extra fuel carried, but I am 99% sure they have never lent on anybody as a result of these. No manager/trainer will ever begrudge you taking extra fuel – if you can justify it. They/we are just trying to make the crews aware that it need not be an automatic “500Kg extra” simply because it is LHR. A Cat III aircraft operating into SE England in CAVOK has enough flex in the fuel policy as outlined elsewhere in the thread.

So much for company policy. On the line, a quick look through any tech log will show arrival fuels averaging 3000Kg on the 737, occasionally down to 2500Kg and rarely as low as 2000Kg (myself about once every few years approaching 2000Kg). For those not on the type, we burn about 2000Kg/hr in the hold and our final reserve fuel is 1250Kg. I very rarely hear of anybody having diverted, calling Mayday or even hinting of a low fuel state (sorry HD), which surely means we have got it about right.

BTW, bmi issue telexes to crews downroute with information about significant holding delays with the clear intention being to increase fuel. They also append their nav logs on certain flight numbers, typically into GLA, AMS & LHR with warnings to carry extra fuel. These are not the actions of an airline with a tyrannical attitude to fuel.

S & L

[doggonetired]

Dayoff
Nice try, lets stay on the ground. If they could improve the view and get us up to decent speeds SAFELY I'm all for it.
Also Capt's are paid more money and rightly so, partly the benefit of wisdom with experience and predominantly to stand for the liquid refreshments for the poorly paid life savers in the cabin! I'm sure the urge to sit on the left and take responsibility would be a lot less keen if it were not so.
I'd also like to think that whilst in the eyes at least of the lawyers the captain carry's the can it may be with respect to any and all assistance that teamwork affords.
FFB good points, well made, it was told to me only recently that co. policy is to derate engines whenever safely possible to prolong their lives and TBO. So when do we derate crews?
Snooky, no criticisim intended just a very dull wit! I do not operate into LHR so I do not encounter this particular problem but from what I understand of the standard of controlling you have a much better chance of the commitment being met, I wish I could say the same from my neck of the woods!

[This message has been edited by doggonetired (edited 03 May 2001).]

[M.Mouse]

Fireflybob

'I accept that we cannot base everything that we do on the worst happening but, as a pilot, I do know (from hard experience) that when you are getting low on fuel one's ability to make rational reasoned decisions tends to decrease.'

'Finally, it concerns me as pilot (and a passenger) that many of us are constantly working in "overload" - we can do this "occasionally" when necessary but if it's every day, then eventually something will give and there will be a catastrophe.'

I am sorry I cannot agree with those two statements. I make fuel decisions based on company operating policy, common sense and experience. If we have unexpected holding independently with my co - pilot we work out and agree our minimum fuel before committing (if sensible) and our minimum fuel before we would have to declare a low fuel state (in my company that would mean likely to land with less than reserve fuel). If the weather is marginal then we would agree a figure at which we would divert. If getting near that point we would inform ATC in good time.

I am afraid that with a well thought out plan of action, and possibly loading the diversion route and approach into route 2 of the FMC I do not feel under unreasonable pressure or that I am working in 'overload'.

I have no doubt that if I loaded say an extra 15 minutes fuel every sector there would probably be no comeback from my management but I do not feel it necessary or sensible. Most of the scenarios people have mentioned in previous postings on this thread are highly unlikely and if they did occur an emergency would be declared and rather rapid diversion would occur.

[Max Angle]

M. Mouse,

As you say a well thought out plan of action is what is needed. For me, pre-flight, that plan DOES NOT include burning our alternate fuel to carry on holding. A 15-20 minute delay comes out of nowhere at LHR these days and despite Ops. doing their best one very rarely gets good info. about it on the ground. With delays so common it seems to me that if you set off with sector fuel you are PLANNING to use your alternate fuel to hold and that seems to me, to be not in the spirit of the JAA fuel policy. As it says in our OPS manual and I am sure the wording is fairly standard:

Extra fuel, at the discretion of the commander to allow for foreseeable contingencies, including:

Extra fuel to allow for expected ATC delays.

The key words here would seem to be "foreseeable" and "expected". A 15 minute hold at LHR anytime between say, 06:30 and 21:30 is both of these things and a bit of extra fuel would seem to be prudent. Could you really put your hand on your heart after diverting or landing with low fuel and say that the hold that caused it was unexpected.



[This message has been edited by Max Angle (edited 03 May 2001).]

[snooky]

Max Angle

Well put. Could'nt agree more.

[Fluckbynight]

Mickey Mouse by name, Mickey Mouse by nature.

[fireflybob]

&gt;&gt;I am sorry I cannot agree with those two statements. I make fuel decisions based on company operating policy, common sense and experience. If we have unexpected holding independently with my co - pilot we work out and agree our minimum fuel before committing (if sensible) and our minimum fuel before we would have to declare a low fuel state (in my company that would mean likely to land with less than reserve fuel). If the weather is marginal then we would agree a figure at which we would divert. If getting near that point we would inform ATC in good time.&lt;&lt;


M. Mouse - I am not sorry that you disagree because that way we learn something new!

Everything you say above is how professional pilots should operate. What I was trying to say is that when you are getting relatively low on fuel, then even with the best professionals in the world when something else crops up you are then working under a lot more pressure. I agree that all this may well agree "technically" with the company fuel policy etc. and may well be "legal" but is it good airmanship? (By this comment, I am not accusing you or anyone else of bad airmanship, by the way!)

It is part of a professional pilots remit to operate economically but has the pendulum swung a bit too far aware from the flight safety direction? I guess every pilot would have a different answer to this question and things on a particular day are not always as black and white as we would like them to be!



------------------

[M.Mouse]

Fluckbynight

Would you be kind enough to explain how that comment adds to reasoned discussion?

[Fluckbynight]

Sorry it doesn't.
Have you ever considerd why VIP flights fill the tank's up? It's because cost is not the object, safety is. I don't have that luxery, but beleive that we should err on the side of safety and not worry too much about the small cost of carrying a bit extra if conditions allow, and an extra few minutes is only a small cost, but as stated previously, could be priceless if the **** hits the fan.Common sense and experience should make this obvious, company sop's probably don't.

[M.Mouse]

Fluckbynight

I do not think VIP flights are relevant. I presume you mean dedicated flights anyway? I have flown members of the Royal Family and more than one cabinet minister and not taken extra because I didn't need it (in my judgement.

You say we should err on the side of safety. I agree I always do. Where do you believe my company's fuel policy is unsafe?

So with approaching 300 aeroplanes in the fleet in the air for say 15hours a day each taking an extra few minutes 'is only a small cost'. Can't say I agree with that.

I do apply common sense and experience. It is what I am paid for.

[Fluckbynight]

The point re. the vip flights,yes dedicated, is that the only reason for not carrying extra feul is cost, not safety, so it is totally relevant to this discusion, as you state yourself you don't carry the extre feul because of cost, even though the extra cost compared to diversions or an accident is small, even with 300 a/c flying.The point is that the extra feul increases thinking time and the options open to you and it seems foolish to willingly reduce your options without necessity.
You stated previosly that most of the scenarios mentioned are highly unlikely, and thats the point, it is the unlikely that will catch you out, and that is why one should carry the extra fuel to cover the unlikely. In the sim we cover time and time again unlkely scenarios, to follow your argument we should stop this as they are unlikely, and think of the huge cost savings, which would be negated if the unlikely happened and we are not prepared, trained, to deal with it.Sadly the unlikely does happen.

[jeta1]

Well said Fluck

[Son Of Piltdown]

Thank you, HEATHROW DIRECTOR, for starting this thread.

Just how much does it cost to carry extra fuel anyway?

This is basic guesswork but I'll kick the ball off:-

The cost of fuel per tonne is kept from us for reasons of commercial secrecy. I will guess at £250 a tonne as an average (don't take me to bits if this way off please). Assuming it costs (perhaps) 20kg to carry an extra tonne on a one hour sector then the cost of carrying that extra tonne might be £5.00 Now, if an airline has 300 flights a day and every aircraft carried an extra tonne into Heathrow the annual extra cost might be around £500000 per annum. Vary that figure either way either way due to changes in fuel policy and the cost differences are not huge when condsidering the total fuel budget.

So, why make a fuss about carrying extra fuel when it is safer?

If anyone has a better idea of fuel costs then lets refine the debate.

Whoops, awful Pun.

[Row 12F]

There is web site for US fuel costs

http://www.instant-info.com/ff/cc-sec.htm

But the range of prices for Jet A seems very large - from $3.75/gallon to $1.48/gallon. No doubt the airlines get better discounts to those obtained by private flyers.

If UK internal flight safety is enhanced by, say, £5 extra fuel per trip or even £20, so that those inevitable extra circles in the sky before landing don't leave the tanks with nothing but rumours in them, the passengers would probably be happy to split the cost between them before the flight starts. It's probably too late to have a whip round over Windsor or St Thomas' Hospital.

[fireflybob]

I was trying to resist entering this thread again but here we are!

Divide that figure of £500,000 by the total of all passengers flown - I imagine it's a few pence per pax. Would those people be happy to pay a little more for a greater margin of safety? I know I would!

------------------

[f40]

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Once again a thread that makes clear a bit of what goes on "on the other side of the door".
Informative, thank you all.
flapsforty



------------------
Singularly Simple Person........

[BmPilot21]

Can anyone put a figure on how much it costs to carry extra fuel (eg - £/litre or £/Kg).
Talking to an Aer Lingus crew the other day and apparantly they have something like that on their Nav Logs to help determine whether to tanker or not. We simply have a fuel price index (referenced to LHR = 100). The chart gives that and a YES/NO as to whether to tanker.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I had no idea that my simple message would start such a discussion and its all been very interesting and enlightening (I do fly occasionally). I would merely emphasise what has already been said - 20 min delays appear at LHR as if by magic nowadays and because of commercial pressures the time will come when we won't be able to "help" guys who are short of fuel and they'll have to divert. If I was a pax travelling from Manchester to Heathrow and was told that we were having to divert due to fuel shortage I'd probably question the ability of the bloke up front!!

My last comment is this - how many of you incredibly fuel-conscious chaps drive gas-guzzling cars??!! (NO, don't bother to answer!)

[jeta1]

Now there's an idea for a new thread!

What car do you drive?

[wooof]

Heathrow Director

"time will come when we won't be able to "help" guys who are short of fuel and they'll have to divert."

You've missed the point, it is possible that many of these aircraft have already commited to LHR i.e. only have fuel from hold to touchdown and final reserve fuel remaining at the time they declare a Mayday. However I would drop a few hints prior to finding myself in this situation ;)

[flt_lt_w_mitty]

Even worse - they could have 'committed' themselves to LGW and then have to go to LHR with not a lot of gas when the runway closes at LGW!

PS Do not live anywhere on the straight line between the 2 airports!

[Wig Wag]

Having worked for a few companies I detect a common thread linking those Captains who operate on minimum fuel. Invariably these types are trying to impress management with their 'superior' judgement. Older heads on the line have seen it before and wait with amusement for the inevitable diversion and/or landing on the bare minimum fuel. First Officers loathe these Captains because of the extra pressure they put on the day.

It is a pointless practice as the savings are minute when compared to the airlines other expenditure. Not least is the cost and havoc of a diversion.

The point I am making, and I don't know whether it applies to the airline mentioned in this thread, is that fuel policies are very sensitive matters. Just one little hint that the company would like you to save fuel and some ambitious type will chance it by showing he is better than the rest of the fleet.

Many years ago, having loaded extra fuel for a trip to the Mediteranean, we were caught out when sea fog obliterated our destination at the intermediate approach stage. The (unforecast) sea fog took out our alternate whilst diverting. Obviously the situation resolved itself otherwise I wouldn't be writing this thread.

I will never bow to any corporate silliness about 'the need to save' fuel. Try sitting up there with tanks running dry and nowhere to land. Its quite to most umpleasant experience imaginable.


[This message has been edited by Wig Wag (edited 06 May 2001).]

[scanscanscan]

Mighty mouse please may I ask?
At what "fuel endurence remaining time" do your "company procedures" require you to confess your combined judgements were incorrect and require a full Mayday call to the Heathrow director and to which airport will you proceed. Destination or alternate or nearest suitable or any?
If this is not actually written down, then your companies intent, by ommision, could be, to have your judgement which had already been proven wrong on your fuel load, again regarded as wrong as you obviously delayed too long the mayday call, and the whole crash was yours and "pilot error."

------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?

[Max Angle]

Scanscan,

I think you will find all JAA operators have to have at least "final reserve" fuel remaining at touchdown. This is 30 minutes (holding mind, not G/A's etc which would eat it up much faster) endurance. I have never been close and hope I never do. This applies to destination and alternate. If at any time it appears that you might land with final reserve only you MUST declare a full mayday, so in the hold at LHR this would need to be at around 40-45 minutes remaining to allow an approach to be flown. Like I said, hope it never happens to me.

[Caractacus]

A few years ago I was in the hold at Heathrow with about ten minutes to run before committing to final reserve or diverting. A BA B747 had an engine fire on finals and blocked RW 27L. Shortly afterwards a BA B757 called up stating he was '5 minutes to a fuel emergency'. The ILS was not radiating for RW27R and the B757 was offered an SRA. However . . . the cloudbase was below his minima.

For a couple of minutes there was an aircraft with insufficent fuel to divert flying round an airfield at which he could not land.

The pitch of the RT conversation rose noticeably whilst they switched on the ILS for RW27R. The holding traffic was given 'Delay not determined' which means no landing with final reserve.

JAR allows you to commit to landing at your destination. Whilst Heathrow has 2 runways it also has more traffic than any other airfield in the UK.

If operators plan on anything less than 20 minutes holding at Heathrow one day we will have a big problem. Sh*t happens despite the most cleverly crafted rules.


[This message has been edited by Caractacus (edited 07 May 2001).]

[scanscanscan]

A 767 with 35 mins fuel remaining is already in a min fuel QRH situation.
Thus Boeing expect ALL fuel pumps on and crossfeeds open as this is an emergency fuel situation.
Boeings emergency checklist (non-normals) also cautions against accelerations and nose up attitudes i.e. go-arounds.
However they also have a directive requesting crews to switch off centre tank fuel pumps below 500 kgs remaining in centre tank, and to turn off the cross feeds.
It appeared to me that these two requirements were in conflict unless in a full fuel emergency then forget about possible impeller sparks blowing you out of the sky, and take a chance all is ok, as a greater emergency ie the engines stopping exists!!!
Should your fare paying passengers on the B767 be computer flight planned fueled for this situation as a sop??
Because of my confusion over this and nobody being prepared to commit to providing an acceptable explanation I fueled the 767 so that it bought me to the Boeing stated min fuel emergency load and checklist at the "end" of the thirty mins hold at 1500feet.
I would be grateful for any 767 pilots opinions on this aspect of 767 ops.
How it is explained by their trainers and the legal reasoning behind the decision to plan fuel into the emergency fuel checklist as a sop.
Is this a practice that would be fire proof in an accident investigation and subsequent court case? Or simple pilot error?

------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?

[mabrodb]

Sounds as if it would be helpful if LHR and other UK airports provided such data:

http://www.atcscc.faa.gov/AADC/aadc.html

Makes it fairly simple to plan proper hold fuel.

[max nightstop]

Since an ATCO started all this can i turn the discussion around a little. When i am sat at MAN about to launch for LHR with a slot delay on the ground why is it not possible for either...

ATC to give me an accurate prediction of the delays at LHR

Or, preferably, a slot at BNN to make to minimise the holding.

We have the technology to arrive at a given point at a prescribed time....

It seems ridiculous that a 30 min flight can experience 20 min delays on arrival. Particularly after being given a departure slot.

[Scando]

Company orders: 30 minutes of extra fuel to LHR or STN due extensive traffic. I rarely carry anything less when flying to any major european airport. Why?
Have you ever been heading for BRU when the wind changes to easterly (not forecasted) and they start landing on 02, and departing on 07R? I have.
Have you ever been on your way to FRA, with only moderate winds on the ground, but wind at 2000 ft is more than 50 knots? And they increase separation? I have.
Have you ever departed for PAR or AMS, and the forecasted 5000m in mist suddenly turns out to be 300m RVR in fog, fluctuating? I have.
Ever flown into LHR when the forecasted westerly winds change to SW at 50kts+, and they start landing on 23? I have.
Ever flown to LHR where they have 2 nice, long runways, thinking an accident on one will not stop operations on the other, only to find it does. Because all the rescue services are tied up with the accident on the blocked runway. I havn't, but my colleague did.
Ever flown to OSL only to find unexpected FZRA has closed the airport completely? I have.

JAR allows us to replan enroute, committing ourselves to a landing at destination, when certain requirements are met. One of them: The ATS situation indicates that a landing can be made without excessive delay.
You are in the hold, already used your contingency fuel because of inbound delays. How do you then defend your decision to commit yourself to a landing at your destination?

When managment starts to interfere with the commanders right to carry the fuel he wants, what do you get? You get MH flying on fumes into LHR. But hey, they never crashed, so they must have conducted their flights in a safe and economical manner. Or?

I'm lucky to fly for a company where we do not carry a voyage report, or a log detailing the spesifics of the flight. We need not specify why we carry extra fuel. No teaparties at the bosses office. Precisely the way it should be.

When things suddenly go from good to bad, and from bad to worse, I'm sitting quietly sipping my coffee, looking at all the lights blinking in the sky around me, listening to the squealing mice.

It may cost 20 $, but it's worth it.

[KADS]

Scando - Well said!
...and you have now idea how lucky you are flying for a company where you don't have to justify everything to the management, leaving all your decision making to efficiency and safety instead (as it should be).

[snooky]

I'm delighted but surprised to see that most people do see beyond meeting the basic rules regarding fuel carriage, particularly when operating to very busy and unpredictable destinations such as Lhr.
I agree with Wig Wag that some individuals carry too little fuel in order to impress their superiors, and in addition to this some relatively junior fleet managers apply pressure on their crews in order to climb the greasy pole to more senior positions.
If this thread has made even one min. fuel merchant reconsider their actions, it has contributed to long term flight safety.

[Hugh Jorgen]

Can anybody throw some light on the actual cost of carrying one ton extra for one hour. I heard it was around three quid!! Ok a lot when mulitplied by 50,000 flights but surely there must be easier ways of saving money on flights. I know of one ops person who claimed it was 'Those damn Pilots carrying all that fuel' for the financial state of the Airline' If I made mistakes that cost as much as ops decisions - I would have been sacked long ago!!!

[Scando]

It will cost apx 4% of the amount carried extra pr hr. Thats the general rule (jets) as I've heard it. 1000 kilos extra for a 1 hr flight will then cost about 40 kgs. Fuelprice vary from one destination to another, so the cost will vary. Here in Oslo, I belive it will cost you roughly 15 US.

[Warped Factor]

max nightstop,

If MAN ATC were to phone us (TC Heathrow or TC Traffic Manager) up, we could give them a very accurate picture of current delays, and a sensible forecast for the next 45 mins or so (that's about as far as the EAT PC looks ahead) assuming nothing happens to affect capacity in the interim.

As for a slot at BOV, if you're represented in The Airline Group surely you'll get no delay :)

Having a pool of traffic in the holds is the best way for us to maximise the landing rate. For one it allows us to group similar types and keep the final topped up all of the time.

It's not the easiest thing to try and explain in detail on paper so I won't, come in and have a look sometime instead.

WF.

[M.Mouse]

fluckbynight

To be pedantic I didn't actually say I didn't carry extra fuel because of cost I said that I don't carry it unless I need it because of cost.

If the unlikely happens then we should all stop ETOPS and start flying 3 and 4 engine jets across water again!

The point I am making is that risk management is a fact of life. My company has a sensible policy that works and has no problem with any of us taking extra if we feel we need it. But if we don't feel we need it then we take the minimum safe fuel.

Wig Wag

I have never come across anybody taking flight plan fuel to impress management. My management supply us with the information to make our own reasoned judgement (one of the few areas that I have no complaint!).

You say FOs hate Captains that take flight plan fuel. That is not the case in my company. I have had many sensible discussions with the FOs that I fly with (and of course I was one too) and broadly speaking they are happy with our company's fuel policy.

scanscanscan

Our company policy is that if it seems likely to land with less than thirty mins fuel remaining on touchdown a PAN call must be made and if it is definitely going to be the case a MAYDAY must be made.

Caractacus

If the 757 was in the hold for LHR he had several places to land apart from LHR depending on which hold he was in.

KADS

We do not have to justify our fuel decisions to management but we are asked to use our judgement and carry flight plan fuel when sensible.

If carrying extra fuel was not a significant cost issue why do all major airlines make such a big issue of it?

I recall my company adopting the practice of shutting down one engine on the '400 during taxy in. It saved £250,000 pa. Small saving in the overall scheme of things or prudent policy?

[Caractacus]

M.Mouse:-

'If the 757 was in the hold for LHR he had several places to land apart from LHR depending on which hold he was in.'

The Speedbird B757 called up "5 minutes to a fuel emergency" because he had insufficient fuel to divert having committed himself to landing with (not less than) final reserve. Thus all alternates were no longer within reach. This was several years ago and presumably the BA fuel policy allowed landing with final reserve fuel only.

The signifigance of this being that the BA 757 thus had to wait for the airport to be available and hope that there was not a further deterioration in the situation to compound his problems.

How much more comfortable to have the extra fuel and hang the small cost of carrying it.



[This message has been edited by Caractacus (edited 09 May 2001).]

[static]

Interesting subject....

I have to say I agree with M.Mouse.
In my company we carry alternate fuel, final reserve fuel and an extra amount of fuel, depending on flight number, with minimum 15 minutes. This extra fuel is a statisctically found number. The company monitors all flights and per flightnumber it is then decided how much extra is enough. This works very well. For instance, most flights to LHR carry about 25 minutes extra.
In this scenario a sudden runway closure or bomb thread on the tower is not catered for.
Nor should we cater for that, IMHO. Thing is, if you have to divert, TAKE THE DECISION. Don`t wait for all eternity in the stack untill there`s no alternative.
If your EAT is way past your limit, call it a day and carry the consequences of the fuelpolicy. Don`t let it become a safety issue.
Generally speaking, I take more than flightplan fuel in only 5 percent of the flights. I cannot recall the last time I actually needed it.

No, I`m not trying to brownnose myself behind a desk.

[M.Mouse]

Caractacus

To elaborate. In the BNN hold LTN is nearer than LHR. In the OCK hold LGW is approx the same distance if not closer than LHR. In the BIG hold ditto. In the LAM hold STN is nearer than LHR.

Same situation exists in the LANAK hold on the way to GLA - GLA, EDI and Prestwick are about equidistant.

[packsonflite]

I think S&L made the point quite accurately regarding bmi fuel policy. We are required to arrive with alternate fuel plus final reserve fuel, which is 30 minutes holding at 1500'. With regard to Extra Fuel, our fuel policy states, and I quote:

"Extra Fuel, at the discretion of the commander to allow for forseeable circumstances, including:-

1) extra taxy fuel
2) extra fuel to allow for expected low level or off-optimum-level flight or extended ATC departure or arrival routeing.
3) extra fuel to allow for expected ATC delay.
4) extra fuel to allow for use of anti/de-icing systems."

The policy further states that delays of less than 20 minutes will not be promulgated.

My personal interpretation of that is to always take 20 minutes holding fuel as extra fuel unless a greater delay has been promulgated.

Having had a command with bmi for over 20 years, I have never had a fuel decision questioned by management.

It's up to the Captain on the day to make appropriate and sensible decisions regarding fuel.

Incidently it is also a company requirement to declare an emergency if at anytime a flight is expected to land with less than final reserve fuel. To my knowledge no bmi flight has ever declared an emergency for that reason!

Packsonflite

[Caractacus]

N.Mouse I know where you are coming from but elaborate fully:

We were in the BIG hold appraching our EAT. The Speedbird 757 was on final vectors for RW27L. The runway became blocked by a B747 which had an engine fire on short finals. At that late stage the crew put out a call 'We have 5 minutes to run to a fuel emergency' They did not specify diverting as an option - presumably because they judged their fuel to be insuficient to reach Luton, Gatwick, Stansted ot Southampton at that late stage being (apparently) 5 minutes to final reserve fuel. Heathrow offered them an SRA to RW27R. The crew then replied that the cloudbase was below their minima. 'Delay not determined' was then broadcast as there was no suitable landing aid available. RW09L was mentioned but rejected by the 757 crew. The ILS for RW27R became available a few minutes later and the panic was over.

As I judge the BA 757 crew were operating fully in accordance with JAR having thrown away their alternate based on a known delay. Fate conspired against them and they were faced with using (some) of their final reserve fuel whilst the airfield sorted itself out. Fine. BUT . . . If we all operated to such tolerances there would be more instances like this for sure.

Of course, Heathrow has two runways and the chance of a double blockage is very small. However it also has more traffic than the single runway alternates so that has to be thought of too.

In extremis the BA 757 crew might have used their Final reserve fuel for a straight in to the nearest suitable airfield under a Mayday.

Reagards,

Caractacus.

P.S. I have to keep in with my Boss else he'll take away my nice Villa off the Via Appia.

[snooky]

This comes back exactly to the point that I made earlier.
It is entirely safe to sit in the hold with the various airfields mentioned available and possibly closer than Lhr, so should something catastrophic happen there resulting in complete closure there is an escape route.
When the danger arises is when an aircraft has committed to Lhr and left the hold when the total closure occurs. Then there is no alternative remaining.
I accept that this is a most unlikely scenario, but it does occasionally happen, and if aircraft are arriving in the hold with only ,say, 20minutes fuel before committing on a regular basis then when it does happen, and if holding preceding it has exceeded 20minutes then someone eventually will be caught out.
I accept that in long haul there is a relatively high cost in carrying additional fuel, but in short haul the costs are relatively minor. In fact a short haul aircraft carrying extra fuel is able to exchange EATs with a company long haul aircraft and thereby prevent a costly diversion, good value for your extra $20.

[Warped Factor]

Snooky,

If LHR suffers a total closure for any reason there could be upwards of 20 aircraft in the stacks all looking to get somewhere else fairly quickly.

Add them to the aircraft inbound to the other TMA airfields which everyone is planning to divert to from LHR, and that escape route starts to look rather congested.

WF.

[snooky]

WF

That's a good point.
Just been re-reading this thread, and I'd disagree with the policy of some airlines that add a statistical average amount of fuel when operating to Lhr. The holding is totally unpredictable and can vary enormously day to day even in similar weather and at the same time of day.

[Caractacus]

Warped Factor; You have picked up my point nicely.

A total closure at LHR with EAT'S being issued would cause a bottleneck in the South East whilst aircraft start diverting. You have to take into account the likely traffic situation when commiting to land with final reserve fuel anyway.

Statistical surveys of likely holding delays and the extra fuel required are advisory only. The ANO states that the Commander shall carry such contingency fuel as he sees fit. Any Airline that challenged that legal that leagal statement would be undermining the Authority of the Commander to make a safe decision.

[Wig Wag]

Here is the relevant extract from the ANO:

Pre-flight action by commander of aircraft

43 The commander of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall reasonably satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:

(e) in the case of a flying machine or airship, that sufficient fuel, oil and engine coolant (if required) are carried for the intended flight, and that a safe margin has been allowed for contingencies, and, in the case of a flight for the purpose of public transport, that the instructions in the operations manual relating to fuel, oil and engine coolant have been complied with;

QED



[This message has been edited by Wig Wag (edited 10 May 2001).]

[The Zombie]

http://www.ais.org.uk/filestor/egll.txt
Makes interesting reading if you read the one about peak congestion hours at Heathrow.
Notam A504/01

http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/
Makes intereseting reading if you read the SOC Fuel Review recomendations about likely holding fuel being TRIP FUEL not Reserve Fuel.

Also some airlines do not add on the required holding fuel into London but plan to use part of the Reserve Fuel ie. Contingency Fuel to cover this. They say it is not 'certain' that holding will happen into London so extra fuel should not be added.(eg. BRITISH AIRWAYS).
If 'signifacant' inbound delays occure then a message is quickly sent to all stations to load extra fuel!!!!!!!!!

I have seen many examples of events conspiring against pilots into London.

After reading this thread and flying many thousands of hours into and out of Heathrow,
IMHO 20 mins holding fuel should always be included as extra TRIP FUEL.

Rememnber that your licence is from the CAA.
Take enough fuel....!
Remember that your job is from the airline.
So don't take too much.....!!

[sweeper]

i agree with zombie..
if you don,t have 15/20 mins fuel thinking time in the egll/egkk area ,you should not be there...
i love the idea of "upwards of 20 a/c looking for somewhere to go if egll goes all stop"
since when did egll stop taking usual traffic???

[InFinRetirement]

HD, I guess you would have to be the one to bring this subject up. Especially as it appears that there is a fine line being drawn somewhere between what is required and safety, and what you describe seems awful close!

I would always have taken an extra 30 minutes worth as my bit "for my kids" because one day what might happen is that which we don't like to think about. Getting so short that a field might be the next stop.

The Captain has the final decision and if he cuts it fine, or worse still gets it wrong, will the company get blamed? I don't think so.

[M.Mouse]

Caractacus

Thanks for the explanation. I agree not a pleasant situation.

One further thought.

You take 20 mins holding fuel into EGLL. Holding is 40 mins(not unheard of). You prudently divert after 35 mins (your extra holding fuel and contingency gone). You are then on the approach into EGKK and the runway becomes blocked.

Where do we draw the line?

[Caractacus]

N.Mouse:-

I thought you might say that!

The answer is I don't know. If your destination goes to full closure and your alternate has a blocked runway then you can only do your best.

All these situations are made more problematic, of course, if everyone is on a tight fuel policy.

Where do we draw the line?

I personally feel that the savings made through company fuel policies are not part of the big picture. Many more important factors affect profitability.

Without revealing my employers name I am happy to say that I enjoy a culture that allows me simply to work the fuel I need without pressure. We still make a profit regardless. I would hate that to change.

[This message has been edited by Caractacus (edited 11 May 2001).]

[The Zombie]

If the expected holding delay fuel is NOT loaded as Trip Fuel then you are ingoring the advice from the CAA and starting with some of your Reserve Fuel pre-assigned.

Why start with one hand behind your back?

This should never happen but does on most BA flights into London!

edited for spelling

[This message has been edited by The Zombie (edited 11 May 2001).]

[Warped Factor]

sweeper,

I'm not sure what you're asking about LHR, want to try again?

Interesting one at EGKK this morning.....

Major UK airline inbound, domestic sector, no delay/holding and vectored straight downwind into the sequence advised it would declare an emergency if it had to make a missed approach.

On asking why, was advised it was "a bit tight on fuel".

Cutting it a rather fine considering it had only come down from lowland Scotland? Wonder what he/she would have said if told 15 minutes delay?

WF.



[This message has been edited by Warped Factor (edited 11 May 2001).]

[scanscanscan]

W F Probably say "It was not the pilots fault but a "statistical anomaly" and our company will be adjusting their figures at the next manual reprint in 2002, meanwhile we are a bit poorly placed, so is there an airborne gas station facility available, and what does one normaly do in situations like this?"

------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?

[sweeper]

warped factor
the idea of at least 15/20 mins fuel obvious..
the idea of a busy airport goeing all stop ,and you only have to join a que of 20 a/c is strange...

[Warped Factor]

sweeper,

Right......well there could be twenty or so at the inner stacks to sort out asap.

Of course there'll be plenty more behind, either in/passing the outer stacks or further out, but they are not the immediate problem, those at the inner stacks are.

Then there's the traffic already in the queue to the airfields the initial 20 odd are wanting to go to.

Twenty was a ball park figure for the traffic holding at BOV, LAM, OCK and BIG. Add in the rest and it's not pretty.....

WF.

[snooky]

M.Mouse

You ask where do we draw the line.

I would suggest that we draw it at carrying an amount of fuel into somewhere busy and unpredictable like Lhr that is sufficient to make committing to a landing there unlikely.

In the scenario which you describe above, if you have taken the sensible route and diverted from the hold, the runway becoming blocked at Lgw would not be too big a problem.
The reason for this is that from the hold (any around Lhr) the fuel burned on the approach will be similar for either Lhr or Lgw. At the point of go around due closed runway therefore, you will still have enough fuel to safely divert to one of the many other airfields in the vicinity, maybe even the one that you were originally destined for. Because this would only take place very infrequently, it is most unlikely that that airfield too would become closed.

The danger is only there from people regularly comitting to an airfield, meaning that the very unlikely scenario of closure will eventually catch them out.

[M.Mouse]

snooky

Sorry to labour the point but what is the difference between the following:

Taking 10 mins extra to LHR, holding for 25 mins (so burning your 'extra' and contingency) and diverting to say LGW to find the runway blocked when established on finals.

Committing to LHR and finding the runway blocked when established on finals.

The point has been made that,finding the destination suddenly closed with many aeroplanes committed to landing at destination,chaos would ensue with all the aeroplanes low on fuel. This would of course imply that all the aeroplanes started holding at the same time with identical diversion fuel for the same alternate.

I really think this debate is going round in circles, no disrespect intended to the contributors to this unusually courteous discussion.

I take lots extra when I feel I need it, my management don't chastise me for it. This would seem to be the case with most of the contributors.

On a lighter note. Shortly after joining my present company I flew with a Captain that I had only just met. On the front page of our flight plans next to the extra fuel figure you put a circle around ATC or WX or write your own reason. He seemed a little serious and when he asked me to put a capital letter 'B' on the extra fuel line I did so without question. A little later in the flight when it was apparent that he was in fact very approachable I asked what 'B' meant. His reply was 'Because I want it'. He claimed, and I have no reason to doubt his word, that in several years of entering 'B' he had never been asked by management what it meant!

[Capt PPRuNe]

Found this in my mail this morning:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">By Vanessa Houlder
Published: May 13 2001 21:26GMT | Last Updated: May 13 2001 21:53GMT

The company culture of some British airlines could be prompting pilots to reduce the fuel taken on commercial flights, according to a report by the Civil Aviation Authority, the air safety regulator.

The review said it was conceivable that the application of excessively tight fuel policies could add to the perceived mental pressure on pilots, leading to poor decision-making and increased risk of accidents.

The survey of 14 operators found no evidence that company fuel planning processes contravened official requirements. It said it was harder to measure the impact of company culture on questions such as whether pilots should accept extra payload in place of slightly more generous calculations of contingency fuel.

It said that although none of the operators had specified unreasonable guidelines about the amount of fuel with which commanders might depart, this was difficult to reconcile with some reports that had been received from flight crews.

It urged companies to address "the manner in which flight crews interpret their company culture on fuel planning". The review said some operators were reported to use "league tables" that ranked commanders who took more fuel on flights than stipulated by computer flight plans.</font>

------------------
Capt PPRuNe
aka Danny Fyne
The Professional Pilots RUmour NEtwork

[L337]

At the place I work, we have fuel league tables. Anonymous, but we all know who is who. A significant proportion of pilots carry less than "Plan" calls for. Indeed with two indipendent runways, no need for an alternate!

I wonder if the chief pilot will be interviewing Pilots for carrying too little fuel... :)

[INKJET]

plan for the expected(Wx-holding-lower FL`s )but please think and plan for the unexpected
eg: inbound to ABZ from KOI, cavok told to hold over ABN (NO OTHER TRAFFIC?) reason:staff shortage in ATC!
2 into Blackpool, dog on airfield
3 into LBA asylum seekers on runway
4 into EGJJ (during airshow) nosewheel colapsed on light a/c during spot landing competion!
5 again into egjj delay due downgrade of fire cover whilst appliance attending forced landing on beach.

IF IT CAN IT WILL, ITS ONLY WHEN, SELBY RAIL CRASH,PARIS CONCORDE,TORY PARTY RETURNED TO POWER(OK WELL MAYBE THATS STRETCHING IT A BIT,BUT YOU GET MY DRIFT)

[Wig Wag]

From todays Daily Telegraph:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000155773445836&rtmo=rQFFDDXX&atmo=tttttttd&pg=/et/01/5/15/ncaa15.html

Take the fuel you want. If your 'manager' even raises an eyebrow then squeal to the CAA and your airline may have to cease trading.

[Max Angle]

L337,

Not quite correct about not needing an alternate if you have two runways. It is only allowed if payload/performance precludes loading alternate fuel AND two independant runways exist ie. LHR.

[DouglasDigby]

Similar discussions at:
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/013882-3.html

Why allow yourself to be put into a "pressure" situation?? Take 15 - 20 minutes extra gas, & relax when you get that extra holding!!

[Willie Eckerslike]

This thread was started with a reference to bmi. I would like to point out that at bmi the plog fuel figure is the minimum fuel to legally conform to JARops with no delays expected, no weather problems, etc. Crews are then expected to think about how much extra fuel they need based on all prevailing factors & take sufficient.

The only person who has ever been questioned about his fuel figures is the guy referred to on page 1 of this thread who took an arbitrary 1000kgs regardless of conditions.

I understand that bmi is currently evaluating delay statistics for all it's routes so that it can issue advice on how much extra fuel should be routinely carried on individual flights. The option will still be there to carry more but it is hoped that overall fuel figures will be "optimised" to avoid fuel worries without excessive fuel bills.

[Belgique]

On this page
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/013695-6.html

The Zombie said:
"http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/
Makes intereseting reading if you read the SOC Fuel Review recomendations about likely holding fuel being TRIP FUEL not Reserve Fuel."

Cannot find anything via search at that site. Any ideas or a URL?

[NigelOnDraft]

4 quick points...!

1. Seems bmi & BA very similar fuel policies (unsurprisingly)

2. When bmi get "stats" for route / day like we get in BA, they are very unreliable! As anyone into LHR knows, the problem is how unpredictable the delay is...

3. I really think just adding 20mins fuel is a cop out. The delay might be an hour! It is having your own strategy on exactly what you are going to do at set fuel states, and what you are going to say, that determines the level of safety.

4. Given the example quoted here (BA757), it reinforces my belief that to "commit" to an airfield means you can find it, and land on it, with no external assistance (i.e. without ATC / Nav Aids)... and set your wx minima for committing to that...

NoD

[Capt Homesick]

I know that I tend to take more fuel than the plog calls for- add a margin (usually 20-30 mins), then round up the total to a nice round number when asking the ramp office for fuel. I've never had a problem with too much, but on the odd day when something weird happens (like an A330 burying itself in the grass turning onto the runway at MAN) we've been able to hold for a long enough time to let the airfield reopen, saving our company the cost of a diversion- after we heardn all our competitors divert to Liverpool! Schadenfreude... :)