use contingency fuel on the ground before t/o

[micheloni]

Due to long waiting before t/o and if your destination have only one runway, do you think it is possible to use the contingency fuel

Wich consideration you will use?

[BOAC]

Captain's decision to use contingency fuel at any time. Destination runways not really relevant!

[Speevy]

Technically as soon as the a/c start taxing on its own pwr the flight starts and the inflight policy will apply..

speevy

[perthtrained]

By definition, contingency fuel is required for en-route ATC and/or A/C deficiencies. ie. If you determine you require more fuel for taxi before take off or for eng.start/no Apu etc, then load the extra fuel. Destination ground manouvres not applicable.

[BOAC]

Quite right PT, but once loaded, YOU as Captain can use it for whatever you wish. I don't think you'll find any requirement in JAROPS to rotate with it.

[Capt Pit Bull]

but if you find yourself declaring MAYDAY at the holding point, you'd probably better not take off ;)

[411A]

Only a very foolish Commander would use his contingency fuel prior to departure.
IF he does so...back to the RHS, or better yet, shown the door.
With a swift kick in the backside.

Yes, in other words, he would be shown for what he truly is...a fool.
Come to think of it, there seems to be some of these fools around these days, at least one having trouble with his...hat.:yuk::}

[oz in dxb]

So 411A, you would taxi back to your gate (if not already taken) and upload more fuel????

I think only a FOOL would contemplate going back to his gate at places like LHR, JFK and so on just because you burnt your contingency fuel.
Think about the time, costs of going back to the gate (holding to wait for another gate) refuel (wait for a refueller), taxi back out again (join the queue again) and then take-off???? The whole episode could cost you hours

You would have to be kidding!!!

I'm sure most would depart and then get the short cuts, altitudes and so on.
If then I'm short on fuel for my destination would I do a tech stop and refuel
(probably at some quiet place down the route). There's always a good chance you can make some fuel up.

I agree that there are some situations where I would replenish the tanks (short sectors with little contingency, along with bad destination wx),

411A needs to be somewhat a bit more practical.

[Flagon]

411A needs to be ??????????????// Answers on a postcard.

Capt PB - would you accept a 'PAN'?:)

[electricdeathjet]

411a
In this day and age you are more likely to be branded a hero than a fool for going plog fuel, using your contingency and landing with Company Minimum Reserve.
I remember having a discussion in the crew room with my f/o about carrying 200kgs of extra fuel for taxi (delays were expected), someone over heard us and made a complete mockery of us. Others around us joined in for a dig too.
It seems that pilots are de-sensitised about landing with min. fuel, and one seems to be the bigger man by carrying less fuel.
Shame :(

[SFI145]

I suspect that 411A does not actually understand the term 'contingency fuel' as this term does not feature in FAA fuel calculations but is a JAR-OPS requirement.
If he does then he displays his ignorance.

[BOAC]

I remember having a discussion in the crew room - as I'm sure you are aware, the 'others' were probably wrong and the 'taxy' figure on the load sheet (and in tanks) is at the Captain's discretion. I have done the same when applicable - and not a single bleat from any sheep.

[mutt]

'contingency fuel' as this term does not feature in FAA fuel calculations Are you sure about that? We operate under FAR121 using 10% contingency fuel.

Mutt

[parabellum]

I'm sure 411a knows all about contingency fuel, just the same as he knows about adding 5 tons (B744), to the taxi fuel at JFK for a late afternoon departure, don't think he believes anyone would not adjust their taxy fuel if the need was there and so not compromise their contingency fuel which they may need later.

[SFI145]

Mutt

Yes FAR 121.645 specifies 10% of the trip fuel but does not call it 'continengcy'

[captjns]

Scenario… Departure ATIS clearly states, “Expected taxi time is 30 minutes.” … which is now a known fact.

Flight plan allowance for taxi fuel is 10 minutes. At least 20 minutes of additional fuel should be uplifted to account for the known taxi time as stated on the ATIS.

Contingent fuel should not be accounted for known facts while at the gate in.

Opinions?:8

[411A]

I suspect that 411A does not actually understand the term 'contingency fuel' as this term does not feature in FAA fuel calculations but is a JAR-OPS requirement.
If he does then he displays his ignorance.

On the other hand, he is well aware of contingency fuel, however feels that to use it on the ground is very poor planning on a Commanders part, when said Commander could well have foreseen the expected taxi delays and simply added more taxi fuel to begin with.

Now, if said Commander decides to use his contingency fuel whilst on ground anyway (as a matter of course), and then (speaking long range ops here) finds that due to stronger headwinds and/or lower flight levels being available than planned...and needs to land enroute for refueling, is showing extremely poor judgement and in addition, is subjecting the company to greatly increased expense (additional landing/technical fees, etc)...when he could well have used better judgement in the first place.
In addition, many long range ops are planned to the limit of an allowed flight duty period, and therefore making a tech stop enroute could well place the airline in a rather bad position, crew duty wise...not to mention a great disservice to the paying passengers.

In other words, use your brain, and choose the best alternative.

[mvsb1863]

Congratulations 411A

I do have to say: "It's unbelievable" the guys are using their contingency fuel just because they've forgotten to uplift the FOB in order to face a probable and many times well known delay during taxi out ??????

UNBELIEVABLE

[captjns]

Oh its believable, but unfortunate, there are kool-aide drinkers out there that buy into the company's mantra that contingency applies at the start of a four sector day.

[BOAC]

I assume micheloni was asking about the day when someone reports a bird strike or possible loss of a bit and the runway closes for 20 minutes for inspection/sweep. I don't think even 411A would be able to predict that. Then it is the Captain's decision whether to return to stand like 411A or use some of the CF.

the company's mantra - which company please? I wish to avoid them.

[757jetjockey]

Hey guys thought I woulfd throw my penny into the debate...

My understanding was that contingency was to be used after despatch, for something which was unknown to the crew at the time.

I am only an FO but on my sectors if i think that we will be sat waiting on the ground longer than we envisage, then i make a point of adding the fuel on. Most of our captains agree thats good sense.

However to to back to the original thread. I dont think I would consider taxiing back in to get refueled. That would cause so many problems its not worth mentioning.

I also agree that the big men of the day seem to be the ones who take plan fuel on a daily basis, because we live in a world where the purse strings are being very tightly drawn shut, and anyone who takes more is perhaps being perceived wrongly. It will only take one diversion due to fuel and all the fuel savings that person has made will soon disappear.

Coincidentally we did a flight last year to CUN in a 757 and we actually disatched 100kg above Comp Min Req'd Fuel because thats all that would fit in the yanks. Had we been held up on the ground we were still going, as we could just have our pick of every airport along the route within 10 hours of departure to drop into and refuel, which would be much quicker and less hassle that going back in to stand at LHR/MAN... etc

ps have some of you guys never heard of the pencil sharpener, or even ECON...

[spinnaker]

However to to back to the original thread. I dont think I would consider taxiing back in to get refueled. That would cause so many problems its not worth mentioning.


Why not ask the company? Your on the ground, taxi time taking much longer than expected. Maybe even plan a tech stop. I had it happen once. A landing 747 dumped bits and pieces on the runway, so our departure was delayed. If I've burnt my start and taxi fuel and contingency is being burned and I'm still on the ground, plan 'A' isn't working, so its back on stand for a splash, or tech stop.

[Wizofoz]

Varies from state to state. States quite clearly in our FOM that it can be used anytime after the refueler dis-connects, so that includes APU burn BEFORE dispatch.

411As diatribe-

Only a very foolish Commander would use his contingency fuel prior to departure.
IF he does so...back to the RHS, or better yet, shown the door.
With a swift kick in the backside.


Shows his companies culture is as geriatric as the aeroplanes he flies!!

[parabellum]

I do believe it is necessary for us to draw the considerable distinction between, for example, departing JFK around a weekday evening time when a 30 to 45 minute taxy time is to be expected and the rather different case of being caught out by some unforeseen and unexpected event between engine start and lining up for take off.

Wizofoz: "States quite clearly in our FOM that it can be used anytime after the refueler dis-connects, so that includes APU burn BEFORE dispatch" - APU burn, (400kg/hr?), is not normally the problem though is it? It is all four burning and turning after start and before take off and I, for one, would not want to be using my contingency fuel whilst still on the ground.

[point8six]

The problem with contingency fuel, is that the FAA, JAA and CASA all have different methods of determining fuel requirements in addition to trip fuel. Under JAA, contingency fuel may be used after dispatch (and there are different definitions of dispatch!), and may be used in its' entirety before take-off. I, for one, would not be happy to depart on the basis that all my contingency fuel has already been used, but it is legal under JAR-OPS.
It comes down to individual command decisions, as it should always be. However, in these times of high oil prices, I would expect Flight Management to put pressure on Captains not to return to the gate for refuelling, if there was still some contingency fuel on board.
"You've earned that 4th stripe, now go and use it."

[Taxi2parking]

Parabellum you make a good point – using contingency fuel on taxy when the delay could be predicted might well be poor judgment. However, there are reasons, as BOAC said, when the delay is unexpected and more thought might be required as to the merits of getting airborne or taxying back. Things in aviation are rarely clear cut.

However, typically, life is very black and white for 411A and predictably, he delivers his usual unthinking and simplistic type of answer…..

[411A]

However, typically, life is very black and white for 411A and predictably, he delivers his usual unthinking and simplistic type of answer…..

On the other hand, 'ole 411A has never run short of fuel and had to declare pan/mayday, quite unlike at least one quite large British carrier that comes to mind...on several occasions.

Few options remain, having used up contingency fuel, before takeoff.
The paying passengers deserve better.
Further, I find it rather strange indeed that some 'more modern' pilots, engaged in 'team building' and CRM etc, would then be prepared to throw away one of the most essential requirements for a safe arrival of their assigned flight...fuel in tanks.

Strange indeed, and very foolhardy.

[C433]

Hello gentlemen, yes the favorite discussion about fuel! Everyone has a valid point and answer to how much fuel one should carry. Some times it is due to experience and local knowledge, and other times it is purely down to putting on extra fuel with no justification at all, just because I want extra fuel. My feeling is the last reason is totally unacceptable :ugh:

Lets have a look at a standard minimum fuel policy.

1: Taxi fuel.

2: A to B plus approach.

3: Contingency.

4: B to C plus visual approach

5: 30 minutes hold

6: And in some cases APU burn.

The requirements at flight planning and departure are to have at least the regularity or company minimum fuel which ever is the greatest. You can't dispatch with a lower fuel figure. Once you are under way and this includes while still on the ground, the Captain has to have sufficient fuel to land safely at a airport with 30 minutes fuel remaining or declare a fuel emergency.

So in reality what the Captain should be looking at is the weather at destination going to be at the time of arrival above landing minima? How many runways does it have if one was to close? Could I safely land at a closer alternate if I had too? This is the more practical approach to have I got enough fuel to safely land at my destination. How many times have you divert for a runway closure which is not expected? Of course if the weather was forecast to be marginal you would have carried extra fuel and yes sometimes there are unexpected changes in the weather. But with fuel at the price it is today and climbing I think a more practical approach is required, carrying minimum fuel is not a compromise on safety at all, it just requires better judgment and management of the fuel onboard and not the old lets fill it up and go mentality of the past when fuel was cheap. At present I believe the cost of fuel to be approximately 50% of the total running costs of the aircraft. If you want to keep your job I suggest you reevaluate the amount of fuel you carry in the safest and efficient manner.

[FE Hoppy]

If you've use cont. fuel due to taxi delays he is my secret to success.

1. no de-rate take off. save a hundred kg
2. max climb thrust. save another 3-4 hundred kg

Job done.

remember cane the engines save the fuel.

[Ashling]

You can burn contingency when you dispatch so in my view no big issue.

Taxi fuel in my company is based on a statistical analysis airfield by airfield but the unexpected can and does happen. If you are aware there is an issue prior to loading your fuel then load more. If the problem is unexpected then you can hardly have been expected to forsee delays above and beyond what is normaly expected and accounted for on your fuel plan.

If your plan assumes longest departure and arrival then happy days if you are useing a shorter departure or arrival as you can correct your fuel required accordingly and maybe find a couple of hundred extra kgs that way. Same for ZFW verses the plan etc. You may know from experience that you alays get a large shortcut and end up 300 kgs up on that route in any case.

At the end of the day its a judgement call and you have to take the relevant factors on the day into account and make your decision. If the situation arises were you are burning into contingency then you will have to keep a very critical eye on things. Conserve fuel shut an engine or two down. Should you feel you may need to return to stand then it would indeed be appropriate to exercise CRM in its broadest sense and prempt the problem by chatting to your company to see what they would prefer you to do. Maybe a tech stop would work better.

As in so many things with aviation the answer is not black and white that is why we are paid to exercise judgement on the day.

[Capt Claret]

If the contingency fuel carried if for the worst case scenario, and if one eats into contingency fuel on the ground prior to takeoff, what does one then do if the worst case scenario eventuates en-route?

[Ashling]

You then action your companies fuel policy for arriveing at destination below CNR. This may involve landing at destination or it may mean diverting. Does not mean your decision to use some of your contingency on the ground was wrong.

[C433]

The reality is if the weather is suitable you carry minimum fuel, if the forecast is indicating marginal weather you carry extra fuel as a diversion could cost a lot of money and possibly run out of crew duty hours. As a Captain and professional pilot I would hope this is how the majority of people operate. In reality I know it is not as I see what other pilots load on as extra fuel and it is not required. Every time you land compare your remaining fuel with your MDF (Minimum Diversion Fuel) Normally you will see quite a margin, especially if you have loaded extra fuel.
If one was to divert when MDF was reached you would arrive at your alternate with only 30 minutes of fuel, at the most. "Fuel Emergency" I hear you all say this is my point for loading extra fuel! My point is to use your fuel correctly and professionally. If you had a slight delay on arrival at your destination which was going to put you below MDF, would you divert? This is a call to be made on the day! How is the weather? expected landing time? Number of runways? Is there a closer alternate? etc. As I said in my earlier post a Captain can use his or her fuel in any manner as long as a safe landing can be achieved with 30 minutes fuel remaining once dispatched.
Certainly in the case above you would land with more fuel at your destination by holding a little longer than diverting when MDF was reached. Yes I agree that you have now lost your alternate. From the other point of view what happens when you arrive at your alternate and that closes due to a runway closure etc?
This is why we have a minimum fuel policy like we do to mitigate against endangering passengers and ourselves from dangerous situations. The problem is that pilots come along and add their own factors and the fuel load get bigger than Ben Hur.
My closing statement is carry the appropriate amount of fuel for each flight don't just add fuel for the sake of adding fuel, can I justify the extra fuel I am carrying. :ok:

[oz in dxb]

Personally I think we are missing the mark here.
Use of contingency on ground and deciding whether to depart or top up should be based on the amount of contingency fuel you are dispatched with.

If I'm on a long flight, I will have either 3%, 5% or 20 mins worth of contingency. I have used some or most of that and I'm departing from a busy airport, I would definately consider departing and assessing my fuel situation en-route. In co-ordination with the company then decide if we do a tech stop at "not so busy" airport.

If I'm on a short flight and dispatched with 5mins contingency and departing from a "not so busy" airport, I will go back and top up again.

You just have to add up your situation and make a decision on what's the best on that day.
Making only one decision (no decision making) to return back to the gate to top up without considering the situation is not what you are paid to do!

Oz