fuel to London TMA

[BA299]

Some days ago I had a discussion with the captain about this topic. We landed In EGKK with a few kilos above the minimun diverting fuel, after some holding.
He told me that we could get in troubles because we didn't have holding fuel over EGKK, as prescribed by an AIC. I heard something about this AIC but I always thought that is not mandatory.

Your ideas are apreciate.

[mbcxharm]

The AIC they're referring to is AIC 82/2003 (Pink 58) I would imagine. Register at www.ais.org.uk and have a look since it's copy protected and I can't copy and paste it's contents...

The most pertinent point basically says that:

'no delay expected means: do not anticipate being required to remain in a holding pattern for longer than 20 minutes before commencing an approach'

The rest is mainly to get people thinking about how much fuel they should be arriving with in a busy TMA environment without, as far as I can tell, introducing any hard and fast rules in addition to standard JAR-OPS type fuel planning. So it doesn't provide any 'rule' as such as to how much holding fuel to carry, but could be seen maybe as gently suggesting that at least 20 mins might be a good idea :)

[sleeper]

As long as you land with diversion fuel, everything is legal even if you had only a few minutes of holding fuel. However as a result, the chance of an actual diversion to alternate is very high. As said, no delay expected is anything up to 20 minutes holding.
In other words, you do not have to land with 20 min. holding fuel.

[mbcxharm]

Strictly speaking you don't even have to land with diversion fuel. The requirement once airborne is to land with more than the half hour final reserve. Once it is clear that you may arrive at destination without the fuel necessary to reach your alternate you make a 'decision' as to whether to divert or commit to your destination so as to land with more than final reserve.

Obviously an individial pilot's own 'airmanship' would dictate what they decide to do, and I've seen both ends of the spectrum there! :bored: Me? I like plenty of gas - but some don't seem so bothered...

[BA299]

We landed with alternate fuel (EGBB) + 30 final reserve + a few kilos. So from my point-of-view we were legal (probably not a god airmanship from me), from captain view were not legal.

[mbcxharm]

You're right and he's wrong, in the sense that he interpreted the AIC as being prescriptive rather than advisory.

You live and learn - a few more kilos from fuel dude next time if you're uncomfortable landing with that amount (whether I would be depends on a lot of factors not known here).

[Airbus Unplugged]

Perennial topic - don't think that your company rules are the law by the way. The law is JAR-OPS and the ANO.

[bookworm]

don't think that your company rules are the law by the way

Fuel policy is:

ANO Art 52(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;

[Cough]

You say your alternate was Birmingham. Would it have been possible to renominate a closer alternate than that? Might have bought you another 10 minutes (or more) fuel....