How much is your minimum fuel at destination?

[Bungfai]

For wide body long-haul fleet, recently with high cost of fuel, my airline policy is to cut budget by carrying as little fuel as possible. That brings to 30min of final reserve plus alternate fuel. Most of the time the alternate airport situates only 10-20 mile away. So upon landing we will get about 50 minutes of fuel left. Is this normal for you people? And for Australia destinations with most airports far away from others, we are considering planning without alternate airport but with extra fuel and good wx conditions.

[Intruder]

What airplane, what routes? Redispatch or not?

I can only hope that your Captains will closely monitor the fuell planning, weather, and anticipated traffic...

In our 747 fleet, we plan on landing at the alternate with no less than 7.0 Tonnes, which is 1.5 tonnes more than the Boeing- and FAA-directed limitation of
MINIMUM FUEL FOR LANDING
No flight should ever plan to land with less than 5,500 kgs.
The 7.0 gives us a MAXIMUM of 2 go-arounds at the alternate.

We also plan on landing with 10.5 Tonnes at the destination, if fuel to alternate is not more restrictive, which realistically gives us 1 hour until flameout.

I have recently landed twice at 5.5 after delays (both at JFK; once in clear weather, but with extended low-altitude vectoring due to traffic).

[kijangnim]

Greetings,
we have two Alternates, technical usualy close to the destination, when weather is fin and no notams then we select it. Commercial alternate usualy much further aways fri=om the destination we pic it p we weather, delays. notams etc... exist.
in any case we cater for delays if its a known problem at destination (LHR, FRA, MNL,...)( around 20 minutes) and if enroute the fuel drops below reserve we land and refuel, no questions asked :ok:

[mustafagander]

This morning, B744 into LAX from SYD, min fuel over destination 4000Kg MFR + 2000Kg approach. BTW, we had a little bit more, but that is min fuel.

[Capt Fathom]

min fuel over destination 4000Kg MFR + 2000Kg approach

Such big fuel tanks ... so little fuel!

Good Luck!

You're going to need it one day!

:bored:

[fokkerjet]

apu/taxi fuel + trip fuel + alternate fuel + 1+15 minutes

[javelin]

A330 - 7 tonnes plus, plus !


That means weather, or situation, or things !

1200kgs for a go around concentrates the mind :sad:

[Trogdor]

In the E190, 4000 pounds which is enough for about 45 minutes to an hour. This is, of course, only domestic flying.

[Arfur Dent]

Landing with 5500Kgs (Roughly 1400 Kgs per main tank!) is an out and out Mayday in a 747 because you are out of ideas/options/alternates and, of course, Fuel!!
Don't do it without declaring an emergency (unlike the 707 into JFK that ran out of fuel while calmly chatting to ATC about 'short cuts' - everyone died - of course).
Obviously, the present crisis concentrates the mind but it should never be acceptable to carry less fuel because it's more expensive to buy it. If you need it - put it on. If you don't have a good reason- don't take extra. 'Twas ever thus wasn't it??

[SNS3Guppy]

Right now we seem to be landing most of the time with about 40,000 lbs on board (747).

[Denti]

We just got a note we should plan to have at least 1900kgs remaining fuel to avoid having to do the low fuel check list, 737NG (classics 900kg). Ours are not modified and therefore we have the ETOPS low fuel warning, changing that costs money and we rather carry the fuel. Apart from that we can land with down to final reserve fuel if we can use commitment to stay.

[TopBunk]

Right now we seem to be landing most of the time with about 40,000 lbs on board (747).

Blimey, that's about what, 18 tonnes:eek:, or 2 hours fuel. We typically land with about 10-11 tonnes unless we're tankering for some reason (like Lagos, for example).

I'm interested to try to understand the thinking behind that fuel amount; is it company policy, price related, or is it loaded as a comfort factor?

We work on about 4.5 tonnes reserve (30 minutes fuel) + div + statistical contingency, and would shout 'mayday' if we know we will land with less than reserve, and 'pan' if we think we may.

[Henry VIII]

As all of you know to land without declare emergency fuel we need final reserve at least. On my acft about 2 tons.

Planning with decision point procedure and 2 altn or std fpl and single alternate.

In flight, approaching decision point, manage the altn (if needed) in order to respect the minimum required fuel over the decision point. If impossible to respect the required fuel due to various reason (wx, atc, etc.) divert an refuel.
Til now never happened.

On approach manage altn as above and according the different scenario (reason for any delay, rwys on destn apt, wx, etc.).

Usually land with remaining fuel in a range from 3.5 tons (worst situation) to 5 tons after flights 9 to 14 hrs long.

[NigelOnDraft]

UK (and elsewhere?) is clear - 30mins holding @ 1500'.

May land with less = Pan... will land with less = Mayday.

The variables of how you might get to that point are down to various company and personal policies, and if the point is pressed, will bring out all the usual arguments and finger pointing :{

NoD

[Intruder]

Nigel:

Is that for PLANNING purposes, or is there a specific CAA rule that says that is the OPERATIONAL minimum?

[NigelOnDraft]

Is that for PLANNING purposes, or is there a specific CAA rule that says that is the OPERATIONAL minimum?My The variables of how you might get to that point are down to various company and personal policies was to indicate you are very unlikely to "plan" to land with that at an early stage... and indeed not permitted in, say, the briefing stage. However, that was not the question asked, and I will try to resist being drawn into further debate since we've been down this route 100s of times on here :ugh:

NoD

[SNS3Guppy]

For a simple Atlantic crossing, we need enough fuel for the trip, plus ten percent of the total fuel burn for the Class II portion (the Atlantic portion, and any time when Class II is our primary nav), plus fuel to the alternate, plus thirty minutes holding at 1,500'.

Simply arriving at the destination with only 30 minutes of fuel at the destination is insufficient and not in compliance with the regulation under which we operate.

Captain's discretionary fuel, which used to be five thousand pounds, has been taken away. If we want more than what's flight planned, then we have to justify it. We plan on three thousand burn for the taxi (which is easily eaten up waiting for departure out of JFK or Newark).

Considering that arriving at one's destination and going missed can burn up ten thousand pounds in the act, having forty thousand on arrival isn't really all that much to play with, considering one might need to go missed, go to an alternate and fly an approach, to say nothing of any holding that might need to take place.

I don't think in terms of Kg, but 40,000 lbs really isn't a lot of fuel in the airplane. If you consider that after a full fuel jettison, 28,000 lbs plus change is left at the standpipes, that's not a big margin above everything that's dumpable in an emergency...it's just not that much fuel. It may be an hour and a half at altitude (figure twenty five thousand pounds in cruise at altitude), it's not nearly that amount of time at lower altitudes.

I'm looking at a flight release from a few months ago, between Luxembourg and Lagos, which shows us as having 219,000 lbs takeoff fuel, with an estimated fuel burn of 170,000 lbs. That's a 49,000 lb difference. That includes nearly twenty thousand to go the 41 minutes to the alternate, and 14,000 for holding, plus a calculated 15,000 that's strictly reserve fuel. So...while we're landing at the destination with 50,000 lbs of fuel if all goes according to plan in that case, it's really not that much...considering alternates and options.

Most of the time presently we're seeing about 40 left when we arrive, and that's fine by me. If it's been a ten hour oceanic leg and the alternates are few and far between, and we've been dancing from one ETP alternate to another, then having extra fuel when we do arrive is a big plus. It's a lot at altitude, but it's not much when you're going missed and seeking other options.

[411A]

Oddly enough, the company that I work for has no stated minimum fuel for landing.
Strictly left up to the Commander.
The usual remaining in tanks?
Eight tons.
Type, L1011.

[Intruder]

Type, L1011.
We never woulda guessed! :)

[Max Reheat]

In this Asian outfit its 30 minutes reserve plus alternate fuel. All rounded up with some recommended extra such that we are never planned to land with less than 1 hour at destination.
We also carry full 5% contingency (except ULH, when its a slightly reduced figure but still considerably more than Nigel).
In 12 years with this outfit I have never had to use In Flight Reduction of Fuel Required (ie 'bin the alternate').
Additionally,I've never been carpetted for taking more than the plan either.:ok:

[411A]

I've never been carpetted for taking more than the plan either
I was, one time only, by a new Chief Pilot.
I went directly to the airline Chairman and told him about this nonsense.
Color CP...gone.
Made my day.:)

[TopBunk]

SNS

plus ten percent of the total fuel burn for the Class II portion

I think that is where the major difference is between our different ways of determining fuel required.

We used to use a fixed % which 5% for short flights and 3% for long range flights with en-route alternates.

We now use Statistical Contingency Fuel based on gathered data for that route and flight number. That means that some flights get a generous amount of CF (maybe up to 10%) whereas some flights get less - typically long range flights arriving at quiet airfields or before the LHR rush.

As an example, I came back from the Far East into LHR recently on a B744 with a 10 hour flight time, we had trip fuel of 103tonnes + 2tonnes contingency (95%SCF) +3.9tonnes div +4.4tonnes reserve +0.7taxi.

We landed with 8.3tonnes (~18250lbs for our US colleagues) having burnt the contingency fuel holding at LHR, equating to 49 minutes fuel in tanks. So it all worked out nicely on a cavok day. Loading extra fuel would have been my call, I would not have needed to give anyone a reason, but on that day I was happy.

[Note: not trying to point score, just for amplification and interest]

[doubleu-anker]

Reading a few of these posts, has been a frightening experience.

Try flying around parts of Africa with those sort of reserves and you may come unstuck very quickly indeed.

It amuses me when an alternate is chosen depending on weather. What if an a/c lands, burst the tires and the runway is closed. Then where will you go?

One outfit used to fly into Khartoum years ago the closest alternate then was Jeddah, so commercial pressure took over and they amended the arrival fuel to "Island" hold!! What a lot of BS.

The legal minimum fuel quiet often is not enough, in the 3rd world, very often it is not enough.

[757jetjockey]

Hey Guys, I have been reading this thread and i'm amazed at how much fuel some of you guys are landing with.

We landed yesterday evening from a Medium-Haul Destination (flight time 5.20)

and shut down with 3.4 Tonnes. (0.7T above MFR)

Which comprised of
1.Fuel to Alternate
2. 30 mins holding @ 1500'
3. remainder of 3% contingency fuel

a/c B757-200

I think that in this day and age, we should all of course be giving due consideration and respect to factors such as weather, notam's, time of day, etc etc....

But I think the days of a ton for mum and the kids has well and truly been left behind now

JetJockey

[TopBunk]

uu-anker

You have to read it in context as to where you are flying to.

Flying to JNB we would carry Durban or even Cape Town fuel as alternates. Flying to Bombay we may well have Chennai or Delhi but to JFK we may just carry EWR. In those former instances the planned landing fuel would be even more than the 40,000lbs referred to earlier.

Horses for courses, but then again coming from Dubai I don't suppose fuel cost is really a consideration:hmm:

It amuses me when an alternate is chosen depending on weather. What if an a/c lands, burst the tires and the runway is closed.

What do you suggest then. Presumably you always carry fuel for two alternates or an airport with two independent runways. What happens if they both have problems? Do you carry fuel for a third alternate. At the end of the day it comes down to risk management, and you cannot get rid of the last incy-wincy bit of risk unless you stay on the ground. Maybe you should:p

[weido_salt]

TopBunk

The day I am dictated to as to how much fuel I will carry when I am PIC, is the day I will stay on the ground.

Yes I am fully aware it costs fuel to carry fuel. However you only need one diversion (expensive) and all that saving plus some, is lost.

12 months ago if you flight planned to Mumbai for eg.,with 30 mins holding fuel, you would have a 50/50 chance of a divert.

You are right, it is horses for courses.

[Henry VIII]

However you only need one diversion (expensive) and all that saving plus some, is lost.It's a statistic question. If no one diverts on a basis period (it depends from company size, fleet, etc.) company gains, if not it looses.
12 months ago if you flight planned to Mumbai for eg.,with 30 mins holding fuel, you would have a 50/50 chance of a divert.For these reason some destn have specific extra fuel accordingly to particular environment, atc, arrival time, etc.

It does not mean that we can continue to carry on tons for dad and mummy as in the good old times.
I agree, and i used to work as, with 757jetjockey.

[OBK!]

Landed in NCL with 3.2T, 757 the other day having taken paper work fuel.

Interestingly enough it says in our OPS MAN that alternate fuel should comprise of the fuel required in order to go around, execute entire missed approach procedure to holding point, then complete worst case expected departure routing enroute to worst case expected standard arrival at alternate to the IAF, followed by worst case procedural arrival.

Our alternate routing certainly doesn't consist of this. More like most direct route to alternate airfield with enough to get you overhead the airfield with final reserve....what about other airlines?

[Ndicho Moja]

I have been flying for airlines, some big and some quite small, for over twenty years. Fuel policies, overall, are fairly similar; fuel to destination + 5% ( used to be 10%)+ full missed + alternate + 30 minutes. Having said that and to add to some previous posts, I recently chose to carry extra because with local knowledge I was doubtful of the weather forecasts at the time. Within days I was called in and asked to justify myself.

For me that was a first. Needless to say, I was not impressed.

To satisfy the curiosity it is in S.E. Asia.

[Mach trim]

Good Question.

For me there is 1) What is legal ?

2) What is safe ?
There is common sense, experience,route experience and local knowledge.

3) One usable runway at destination. OR
Two or more seperate runways. If one is blocked it will no

4) How accurate are your flight plans ? Jeppensen ?
Is there a fudge factor with extra fuel built in or not /
Performance factor ?

Rome FCO I take traffic contingency fuel I may have to justify this by taking fuel to a more distant 2nd alternate.

Quite often when weather is good ( JAA) Final reserve + GA + Alternate.
I take 6-10 minutes extra holding fuel

Now if I have to hold traffic delays at destination ( less than 6 hours ) and the destination has two separate runways and VMC-good WX


If I have to, rather than going to Alternate. I look at No Alternate fuel
Approach can be made from MSA in VMC.
I say landing at destination is assured.
Dont like it but it is better than unnecessarily going to alternate.

If it were to come to expect on landing destination Final reserve + 400kg (A-320 ) I would declare a PAN PAN

[SNS3Guppy]

Reading a few of these posts, has been a frightening experience.

Try flying around parts of Africa with those sort of reserves and you may come unstuck very quickly indeed.

It amuses me when an alternate is chosen depending on weather. What if an a/c lands, burst the tires and the runway is closed. Then where will you go?


Hard to say if you're suggesting that weather is an inappropriate criteria, or if you're suggesting one should always designate an alternate. We choose the latter; we always designate an alternate. However, obviously the alternate is designated based on weather...it does very little good to designate an airport for an alternate which will be unuseable due to weather. Therefore, weather always plays a factor. We designate more than one alternate, where the situation requires. Questionable destination weather, or long overwater legs with multiple ETP's are examples.

I don't think it's reasonable to make assumptions on the miriad of possibilities which could occur at the destination or alternate; surely someone could blow a tire, but then you could come under attack from flying saucers or both have thousands of streaking nudists take the runway, too. The safe solution then, is to always have an alternate, and that's out policy.

Our normal fuel is fuel to the destination plus ten percent of that amount, then to the alternate, then 30 minutes holding at 1,500'. We do have island fuel allowances which are to the destination and then 2 hours, in cases where one just doesn't have alternates. By and large, we always have an alternate. We have an allowance which reduces the margin of reserve slightly, which allows us to take the ten percent value and reduce it to ten percent of the class II time. This occurs on the premise that when not Class II nav, we have a greater selection of alternate fields from which to choose.

We also do re-release, with ten percent of the fuel to the re-release point. Within two hours of that point we recalculate along with the dispatcher for the remaining leg. If we can do the remaining leg with ten percent of that leg plus the required alternate and reserve, then we go on...if not, we divert to the re-release point field.

In either case, we still carry ten percent overage on the enroute portion, plus the full alternate diversion, plus holding fuel at the alternate.

The area that really can bite us is the Equal Time Point fuel, which is figured at a minimum of fifteen minutes fuel remaining at the ETP alternate, in a worse-case scenario. I think it would be a rare situation for that to occur, but that's the legal minimum. Based on our regular fuel loads, I think invariably we'd arrive at the ETP alternate with substantially more...but then more can occur that places the aircraft outside the planned ETP envelope (one ETP for two-engine drift down, a different one for depressurization, etc...but what about two engines out and depressurized...that's not a profile that's planned, and that changes things).

The company has no desire to carry more fuel than necessary; we figure an approximate 5% overburn for tankered fuel, so it can certainly be costly and wasteful, yet at the same time we have no desire to park an airplane in the sea.

[doubleu-anker]

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/345689-low-fuel-forced-italian-md-82-land-closed-runway.html

The above is what I try to avoid. Maybe if the Captain was allowed to take a little more fuel, this would not have happened.

Believe me when I say we will read about more incidents of this nature in the future.

Fortunately the outfit I work for, money is no object (at present and long may it last), so I am encouraged to take fuel I am comfortable with, within reason.