View Full Version : UK Fuel Policy
Offchocks
21st Oct 2009, 09:48
I used to work out of the UK many many years ago, briefly the fuel policy we had then was to arrive at destination with:
a. 30 mins holding fuel......to be in tanks on landing.
b. any fuel you may think you need to cover possible ATC holding.
c. diversion fuel...... only to be used for diverting, not to be used to extend your holding.
Note our destination and alternate had to be above landing minima.
In the years that have gone passed, have the requirements changed any and since CAT III has become very common has this changed things?
c: That fuel can now 'legally' be used to extend your holding.
Tail-take-off
21st Oct 2009, 13:07
Alternate fuel is not always required:
At least one destination alternate must be selected unless:
1. The duration of the flight does not exceed 6 hours or, in the event
of in-flight replanning, the remaining flying time to destination
does not exceed 2 hours; and
2. Two separate runways are available and useable at the
destination.
3. The appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination
aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate that for the
period from one hour before until one hour after the expected time
of arrival at the destination aerodrome, the ceiling will be at least
2,000 ft or circling height + 500 ft, whichever is greater, and the
visibility will be at least 5 km.
4. Additional holding fuel is carried Holding for 15 minutes at 1,500 ft in standard conditions at maximum structural landing weight.
(Source a UK airline's Ops manual part A)
Tail-take-off, your quote is valid for planning purposes. Once airborne the only amount of fuel required landing anywhere is FINAL reserve. No restrictions on the weather. :ok:
punchus
21st Oct 2009, 13:34
Alternate fuel is not always required:
At least one destination alternate must be selected unless:
1. The duration of the flight does not exceed 6 hours or, in the event
of in-flight replanning, the remaining flying time to destination
does not exceed 2 hours; and
2. Two separate runways are available and useable at the
destination.
3. The appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination
aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate that for the
period from one hour before until one hour after the expected time
of arrival at the destination aerodrome, the ceiling will be at least
2,000 ft or circling height + 500 ft, whichever is greater, and the
visibility will be at least 5 km.
4. Additional holding fuel is carried Holding for 15 minutes at 1,500 ft in standard conditions at maximum structural landing weight.
(Source a UK airline's Ops manual part A)
Whats the Plan B if this two runway airport closes due to say a fire Eg Eddl a few years ago or LHBP if you want one with an alternate a bit further away.
All the eggs in one basket???
Again the question was about ARRIVAL fuel not PLANNING fuel!:ugh:
Tail-take-off
21st Oct 2009, 14:25
9G & BOAC
You are absolutely right, the question was about arrival fuel.
What I neglected to point out was having departed without alternate fuel you are unlikely to arrive to find that you have it thereby reinforcing that you don't need to arrive with alternate fuel. (Note the use of the word unlikely, as if there is a nearby alternate the extra 15 mins holding fuel plus any contingency remaining along with fuel saved by direct routings or more favourable winds you might just have enough for an alternate.)
However you are totally correct that the minimum fuel state for landing at destination is 30 minutes of fuel.
Tail-take-off, the rule implies landing at any aerodrome not only at destination.
Of course common sense suggest to uplift extra fuel whenever LVO is forecasted. Regardless of the weather forecast UK requires any operator to arrive with additional 20 min holding fuel on top as it's considered as no delay in the UK. Well with the contingency fuel it's a story of it's own. If you arrive with it in the tanks good on you however in unfavorable circumstances you might have burned it even before you got airborne. Different companies have different fuel polices. :ok:
Human Factor
21st Oct 2009, 15:10
Whats the Plan B if this two runway airport closes due to say a fire Eg Eddl a few years ago or LHBP if you want one with an alternate a bit further away.
The plan B revolves once more around the difference between planning requirements and in-flight requirements. Once you're in flight, all bets are off and you are required to land with more than RESERVE. The fuel policy provides suitable guidance to minimise the chances of this happening on more than an occasional basis.
For example, if I were to fly to LHR, commit to the destination in accordance with the fuel policy and it subsequently shut on me because someone had an incident on 27L, a Mayday would in all likelihood open LHR again for me to land on 27R. Hence the two-runway requirement at the planning stage.
Once you're in flight, depending on the company policy, you can find yourself in a situation where you may be able to commit to a single runway airport given certain provisos.
However, another good example (back at the planning stage) would be flying to a remote island where it is impractical to have an alternate airfield. In that particular case, you will carry extra fuel known as "Island Reserve" which will give you sufficient holding time for them to bulldoze the wreckage of the previous arrival off the runway. :uhoh:
Offchocks
21st Oct 2009, 20:09
Thanks everyone for your replies.
With regards Tail-take-off's reply, am I correct in thinking that if you were in flight under the following conditions you would require an alternate:
a. within 2 hours of destination
b. destination has 2 runways
c. weather is forcast below 2000'/5K
I know this is pretty basic stuff but I was interested to see the different requirements between CAA and the rules we operate under.
Offchocks, not quite I'm afraid, presuming we're taking EU OPS here. In case of re-planning in flight same terms and conditions apply. An operator shall ensure that in-flight re-planning procedures for calculating
usable fuel required when a flight has to proceed along a route or to a
destination aerodrome other than originally planned includes:
1. trip fuel for the remainder of the flight; and
2. reserve fuel consisting of:
(i) contingency fuel; and
(ii) alternate fuel, if a destination alternate aerodrome is required (this
does not preclude selection of the departure aerodrome as the
destination alternate aerodrome); and
(iii) final reserve fuel; and
(iv) additional fuel, if required by the type of operation (e.g. ETOPS);
and
3. extra fuel if required by the commander.
requirements for an alternate are as follows:
An operator must select at least one destination alternate for each IFR flight
unless:
1. both:
(i) the duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing or, in the
event of in-flight re-planning in accordance with EU- OPS
1.255(d), the remaining flying time to destination does not exceed
six hours, and
(ii) two separate runways (see EU - OPS 1.192) are available and
usable at the destination aerodrome and the appropriate weather
reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any
combination thereof, indicate that for the period from one hour
before until one hour after the expected time of arrival at the
destination aerodrome, the ceiling will be at least 2 000 ft or circling
height + 500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility will be at least
5 km;
Funny enough if you call it re-planning in flight you risk to fall short unlike if you simply divert in which case Final reserve is all you need. :ok:
Tail-take-off
23rd Oct 2009, 11:26
9G
Regardless of the weather forecast UK requires any operator to arrive with additional 20 min holding fuel on top as it's considered as no delay in the UK
Playing devils advocate here as we are talking theory rather than practice;
It could be argued that if the weather conditions, aircraft sevicability & ground facilities permit the use of alternate fuel to extend the holding time you have your extra 20 minutes (alternate & contingency fuel) & then some. Discuss:ok:
UK requires any operator to arrive with additional 20 min holding fuel - I don't think that is correct. I think it was phrased as 'should' or something like that, not a strict requirement otherwise we'd be seeing a few 'prosections' (if we were lucky.)
Out of interest, there is nothing I can find in EUOPS about fuel re-planning in flight in terms of using dropping the div ie using div fuel as destination holding. Your quote refers to "to a destination aerodrome other than originally planned includes:" (my bolding). The bit about "if a destination alternate aerodrome is required" is not amplified. I guess it is left to the 'personal preference' of the Captain, but the bit many airlines have in the book about suitable weather, no failures to preclude landing, within 2 hours etc etc is not there - at least I cannot find it. Your second quote is in regard to 'Planning'. I guess that leaves it open to the foolhardy to use up div fuel at a single runway, 'low vis in progress' airfield. Deep joy!
well spotted BOAC playing the words is the name of the game. here is the link
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/pink/EG_Circ_2009_P_045_en.pdf Practise suggests to have it. Not entirely sure what exactly you"re trying to say but I'll try it again:
alternate aerodrome can be skipped in both cases planning prior dispatch and re-planning in flight as both of them are considered as planning provided the conditions described before are met 2 RWYs less than 6 hours etc.
Once you got airborne or NO re-planning EU OPS 1.375 (b) is applicable
The flight must be conducted so that the expected usable fuel remaining on arrival at the destination aerodrome is not less than:
(a) the required alternate fuel plus final reserve fuel, or (b) the final reserve fuel if no alternate aerodrome is required.
However, if, as a result of an in-flight fuel check, the expected usable fuel remaining on arrival at the destination aerodrome is less than:
(a) the required alternate fuel plus final reserve fuel, the commander must take into account the traffic and the operational conditions prevailing at the destination aerodrome, at the destination alternate aerodrome and at any other adequate aerodrome, in deciding whether to proceed to the destination aerodrome or to divert so as to perform a safe landing with not less than final reserve fuel;
(b) the final reserve fuel if no alternate aerodrome is required, the commander must take appropriate action and proceed to an adequate aerodrome so as to perform a safe landing with not less than final reserve fuel.
The commander shall declare an emergency when calculated usable fuel on landing, at the nearest adequate aerodrome where a safe landing can be performed, is less than final reserve fuel.
That doesn't mean airlines can't impose additional restrictions mentioned by you like weather etc. I guess re-planning could be used in case the NEW destination is farther out than the originally planned one. Sometimes it's safer to land CAT III on the major one rather than to try your luck at the secondary with marginal CAT I. It's getting more interesting if both your destination and alternate are single RWY only. Isn't that why we sign route and aerodrome competency paper sheet?
Cheers:ok:
rudderrudderrat
25th Oct 2009, 21:54
Hi, What's the definition of "useable fuel"?
The Low Fuel contents ECAM procedure guides the crew to select the Fuel X Feed Valve "Off" (Closed). If single engine, this would isolate about 700 kgs fuel in the other wing tank and there is no mention in FCOM or QRH to ignore this ECAM.
So despite the FOB showing 1400 kgs, if single engine you would only have 700 kgs available to feed your good engine.
How do we stand legally?
usable fuel must be the counterpart of unusable one which is System fuel is the weight of all fuel required to fill all lines and tanks up to the drain point of the tank. The unusable fuel is the amount of fuel in the tanks which is unavailable to the engines under critical flight conditions as defined in FAR Part 25.959. AS FAR AS FAR CONCERNS. EU OPS will have it somewhere as well. Legally single engine you're entitled to call out MAYDAY any time and deviate from any given rules and procedures in the interest of safety.:ok:
well spotted BOAC playing the words is the name of the game - yes, but unfortunately, like it or not, the 'words' are important - it is not a game. You said 'require' - there is (sadly) no 'requirement'. It is purely 'advisory' and nowhere do the CAA say you should 'have 20 minutes'. They did not have the balls to make it so and airline management play on that.