20' cont. fuel in and out of UAE airports

[unipilot]

Is it true that the UAE AIP states that flights in and out of UAE airports have to be planned with 20' cont. fuel at least?The same applies with airports in the UK.Can somebody verify this please?

[pool]

No.

Check GCAA AIC 04/2006:

5. It is important, therefore, that operators
and crews should take a realistic view of
the amount of fuel required, to satisfy the
minimum fuel overhead destination
requirements.
6. Crews should plan to arrive overhead a
destination aerodrome with, at the very
least, fuel sufficient to:
a) Make an approach to land; and
b) carry out a missed approach; and
c) fly to an alternate aerodrome, carry
out the subsequent approach and
landing; and
d) hold for 30 minutes delay.

So if contingency is less than 30' and you accept the standard flightplan,
you are basically illegal flying into UAE airports.

[Wiley]

Naughty children! Our large-as-possible-black-bottom-line-at-all-costs leadership will not like you advertising that. Captains might start carrying their own version of minimum fuel.

It's not just Dubai. Dontcha love the CFPs they give you out of Auckland for Sydney/Melbourne and Brisbane? For Sydney, the Notams clearly state 20 minutes traffic holding for destination and all too often, ten minutes or more for the alternate (MEL), but the CFP never allows for it. (Contrary to what many believe after reading the OM-C, unlike on a ULH arrival, on the Auckland shuttle, we are not excused traffic holding for Australian ports.)

And on the way to Auckland, do the same CFPs allow for the RIC departure, which usually involves tracking 20nm or more to the west before ATC deign to allow you to allow you to turn back towards the coast? Overhead YSSY, 4 tonnes or moere expended before you've even set course.

[fatbus]

Is that Aeronautical Information Circular still current?

Pool- you still need 30min of fuel + this 20 (you get this 20 from cont not used, extra and committing to dest) most would not commit and plan to use their cont prior to arr in dxb, im sure you can figure out the rest

[40&80]

Possibly on should not forget the several tons of unuseable fuel in various tanks (read about it all in the aircraft flight manual) that the CFP assumes are useable.

[MR8]

Wiley, I don't completely agree with your extra track/fuel calculation out of Sydney.. Although you might be flying the 40 extra miles compared to the flightplan, you can't look at the fuel you have OVERHEAD Sydney to calculated what you lost. After all, you did climb the odd 15.000 ft?? So basically, if ATC lets you climb, what they do in Syd, then you're just looking at an extra 40 track miles as it would be in cruise... So nothing near to 4 tons.

MR8

[Far Rider]

So if contingency is less than 30' and you accept the standard flightplan,
you are basically illegal flying into UAE airports.

Baloney:ugh:

There is NO legal requirement to carry fuel over and above alternate plus 30 mins.

The options we have are to commit to destination if conditions permit or divert if holding is beyond contingency fuel remaining.

This applies to every airport in the world, with few exceptions.

[Wiley]

Thank you for the Fuel Burn 101 lesson, MR8.

The FACT remains that because of Sydney ATC procedures, traffic departing for Auckland, to the EAST of Sydney, is forced to track up to 20nm to the west, more than often to stop climb at 5000' for a few minutes, before being allowed to turn back towards the field. In the real world, by the time you'd burned 4 tonnes, you'd be 40nm east of Sydney, not overhead the field.

...and my question remains. Do the EK CFPs make allowance for this?

[woodja51]

Same applies for the BNE - SIN leg - cfp only gives direct fuel to ibuna but you always get the departure that goes toward the east - and end up over the threshold - yes at about 6000' but having burnt a bunch heading in the wrong dirn. So much for the carbon credit crap that pollies are trying to promote..

BUT ... if you ask for and use the phrase 'require' they will give you the radar departure and then you get to track direct eventually.. saves heaps of gas but after the latest productivity axe I am not keen to be proactive myself anymore really.. just carry the extra fuel for the longer departure as it is not in the FP ..
then it is available to travel at .85.. to make up the lost time in the turn of course!!

Same goes for carrying LMO as an alternate for Perth - that is a constant waste of about 8 tonnes per PER flight as personally I either carry gas for ADL if the weather is bad as LMO is a disaster ( logistically that is) waiting to happen if you divert.. I basically commit to destination on departure DXB on that trip and always land with about 15 - 18 tonnes.. totally unneccesary when there is a perfectly serviceable runway 25 miles north at Pearce that you could divert to if someone crumped on the intersection.. but that is what i would do if i was paying for the gas .. but I am not so why worry..

Just these suggestions alone probably cover my salary for the month I reckon!

Woodj

[Visual Procedures]

The FACT remains that because of Sydney ATC procedures, traffic departing for Auckland, to the EAST of Sydney, is forced to track up to 20nm to the west, more than often to stop climb at 5000' for a few minutes, before being allowed to turn back towards the field. In the real world, by the time you'd burned 4 tonnes, you'd be 40nm east of Sydney, not overhead the field.

EXACTLY. A few mins at 5000' (usually till you hit 12DME SY), essentially means your climb is not limited. So you're doing 40 extra track miles over the course of the trip. At 9 NM/min, thats 5 min(ish) so about 600kg. :ugh:

And as for the 20min holding fuel at SYD/MEL/BNE.. These rules are designed for all Australian carriers. Australian carriers are not required to hold fuel for an alternate. So every QF and DJ jet that you see flying into Sydney (and around the world), has more than likely 'commited to destination', weather permitting of course. There is a couple of extra rules, but generally as long as the weather is good enough, (no TS, weather above alternate minima), there is no requirement to carry an alternate.

By carrying an alternate, you satisfy the Australian regulation of 20' holding fuel, just as the 'company notam' says.

As for the UAE, I am not so sure.

[pitoss]

This is to Pool.
I hope your are not approaching your upgrade or that you don't have to exercise your fuel planning as a captain or F/O during your ALC. The item 5 in your post is covered by what is called Alternate fuel and Item 6 by final reserve. Have you heard such words before??? Contingency fuel calculations (for planning) vary depending on a number of factors such as if you have an enroute alternate,... Check the FOM Chapter 11 mate!!!:ugh:
If you want more fuel, it will be considered extra fuel.

[pool]

Well pitoss ....
I hope YOU don't plan that way on your ALC.

Reread point 6.

6. Crews should plan to arrive overhead a destination aerodrome with, at the very least, fuel sufficient to: a) Make an approach to land; and b) carry out a missed approach; and c) fly to an alternate aerodrome, carry out the subsequent approach and landing; and
d) hold for 30 minutes delay.


If you still want to trade your final reserve to "d) hold for 30 minutes delay" .... then good luck.

I myself will keep FR untouchable for upgrade or ALCs.

[pitoss]

Well Pool,
the 30 minutes delay in the text refers exactly to the 30 minutes final reserve. It doesn't mean that you need 30 minutes delay plus the final reserve. Do you see anywhrere wlse written that after this 30 minutes delay you need a final reserve to hold for 30 minutes at 1500 ft? I don't. Personally I'll keep the final reserve untouchable as you "suggested", but I won't say that I'm not legal to go with the flight plan. I'm going to take EXTRA FUEL to preserve the final reserve.

Good Luck!!

[Big Buddha]

But as fatbus said, is this still current?

It was in the NOTAMs. recently for a short time then disappeared, any ideas?

[fatbus]

Thanks for that, will come in good use next trip

[heywood u bleume]

The GCAA's AIC, concerned with fuel inbound to Dubai, has an uncanny resemblence to this one from the UK AIP:

http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/pink/EG_Circ_2008_P_083_en.pdf

By the way, has anyone out there ever been given an EAT into Dubai?

HUB

[Khaosai]

Hi,

that recent Dubai notam was nothing to do with the GCAA AIC 04/2006.

It all comes down to interpretation of the circular. I interpret it the same as some others above.

On the initial question, you dont need to be planned with 20 mins contingency.

The 30 mins mentioned in paragraph 6, by my interpretation is covered by the FRSV on the FPL.

If you plan on arriving in Dubai during a busy period, then you may have to hold. You might be informed by ATC "no delay expected", but that means you could hold for up to 20 mins. Same as the UK. Worst i have experienced in Dubai is 25 mins during nice weather conditions.

As it says, take a realisitic view of the amount of fuel required.

The EK fuel policy works well, so long as you apply a commonsense approach. The company have given us the option to take more fuel if we can justify it. Equally, we could operate the flight legally with the FPL produced, min ramp fuel thus min cost max payload.

All crews have to decide on a day to day basis. Experience and route knowledge help in the decision making process. If unsure then ask. There are lots of good resources around.

My only advice is to circle the extra fuel reason on the FPL (req'd) and write a brief explaination adjacent (not req'd, but helps).

Rgds.

[pool]

The 30 mins mentioned in paragraph 6, by my interpretation is covered by the FRSV on the FPL

Everyone is entitled to his interpretation.
Mine is, that this AIC specifically deals with delays, and not basic fuel requirements.
To me Final Reserve is exactly what it means: Final


Dictionary: FINAL
allowing no change: conclusive and allowing no further discussion



This no further discussion means no interpretation, to me again this means untouchable and not tradable. You need it when touching down and not for delays or contingencies. Because:

Dictionary: CONTINGENCY
something set aside for unforeseen emergency: provision made against future unforeseen events


Here you get the emergency term. That is the place for provisions of the unforseen and emergency and basically what this AIC is aiming for. It wants us to cover 30 minutes THERE and not in the Final Reserve.

[Marcellus Wallace]

Wiley said
And on the way to Auckland, do the same CFPs allow for the RIC departure, which usually involves tracking 20nm or more to the west before ATC deign to allow you to allow you to turn back towards the coast? Overhead YSSY, 4 tonnes or moere expended before you've even set course.

I have to agree with MR8 - if you do the RIc departure in Sydney it just means you reach your cruising level earlier on your way to Auckland - all things being equal if you start your descent at the same point for Auckland - you just burn the extra time you spent at cruise level - at cruise consumption.

Similar for arrival - were you to flight plan for 30L landing arriving from the south - and somehow the runway is 12L in use - you start your descent later i.e. you spend a few minutes longer at cruise level and burn extra few minutes at cruise consumption.

How much more? Just compare the track miles of the SIDs and the STARs and work out roughly 8nm/min - so 40nm difference = 5 mins extra fuel at cruise.

As for the UAE AIC - it's the same thing as UK - if you are given no delay - it could mean 20 mins hold - so if you could make the 20 mins fuel from contingency or savings or if they gave you a further alternate and you dont foresee to use it - you could renominate a closer alternate - make the 20 mins or commit to destination and still be alright if you landed with 30 mins in tanks - then you don't need any extra.

If you foresee inclement weather or longer ATC delays and need more holding fuel then take by all means.

[EGGW]

Rights folks, can we get this thread back on subject as its drifting over the Tasman sea at the moment :ugh:

If not its gonna be closed.

EGGW

[pitoss]

Pool,
besides of the joke I made in the previous post, I honestly believe that you are not getting the things right. The final reserve is the 30 minutes that the GCAA talk about. This 30 minutes appears in the circular after your divertion, not before, as it does in the FOM. "Delay" is simply because one would land as soon as he could after the divertion; so if he doesn't (another ACFT in Emergency, time required to remove workers from longest RWY if desired...), he still have the 30 minutes to play with.
Don't take me bad, but if you leave cargo behind just to put 3 ton of EXTRA FUEL in order to comply with what your are calling as "30 minutes mandatory contingency fuel +Final Reserve"; you will be called to the office.
If you have a good reason (WX, route, alternate,...) by all means take the fuel and leave the cargo, but your interpretation is not correct and may put you in trouble.
I won't make any further comment. This one was just to be sure to myself that I tried to help you.

Pitoss

[MR8]

Wiley said: Thank you for the Fuel Burn 101 lesson, MR8.

If I gave you a lecture on Fuel 101 ,Wiley, it is because you need it... But you DO seem like a slow learner. :E

As for the 30 minutes, I agree with the general consensus that this is our Final Reserve Fuel.

For the 20 minutes holding fuel, this is most of the times covered by comitting to Dubai if the weather is good.

MR8

[fatbus]

Pool, if you are anywhere near a upgrade you better get in the books and if you are coming up to an ALC you better know the FOM/AOM fuel policy, simple as that.

[NO LAND 3]

The advisory is poorly worded and open to interpretation. Personally I don't believe the intent was for you to carry thirty minutes holding on top of every thing else. Many major international airlines do not carry an alternate and I tend to think this is aimed more at them.
Practically speaking its just not necessary and I highly doubt you could create a legal case from the wording.
EK has a good conservative fuel policy and, although they strongly encourage good economy no-one is ever punished for using their best judgement.

Try to balance your interpretation with a little reality - all of us in the left seat have to admit we are paid more to operate with some regard to commercial considerations. No-one is going to give you extra points for being a pain in the arse!

[Fubaar]

A really enlightening thread to read. It seems there are as many opinions on what constitutes minimum fuel in Emirtates as there are pilots in the company.

MR8, your responses were particularly interesting. Your profile says you're an FO. Is that with Emirates or on your MS Flight Sim? A regular contributor asks what I at least would consider to be a reasonable question. You (apparently?) misunderstand what he says and accuse him of being a slow learner in need of further training because he asks if a manoeuvre that uses up more than 50% of your contingincy fuel for that particular sector has been factored into the flight plan. (You yourself say it would cost approx 600kgs/5 minutes when the contingency fuel for that sector, from my experience, is usually 800 to 900kgs, or 7 to 8 minutes.)

So have I got this right? You're quite happy to depart knowing that you'll definitely burn most of your contingency fuel immediately after takeoff and someone who suggests that that may not be a good idea needs further training?

I've re-read the first post mentioning this and I don't read it as saying that the track west costs an extra 4000 kgs, as you and others seem to think it did. Your posts remind me of a printout a friend used to have on is fridge: "Notice to teenagers: leave home now - while you still know the answers to everything."