SIA Low Fuel at LHR

[sia sniffer]

First we had Malaysian, and now its SQ, both running their tanks on dry to LHR. The latest incident took place towards the end of last year, the SIA 747-400 landed at LHR with 2.3 tonnes of fuel remaining. Although this was reported back to SIA management (SIA engineering), at the time, the offending captain was cautioned, but otherwise survived unscathed. The "Malaysian" Singaporean captain, who has a history of foul ups, still flies the line on a regular basis.An accident waiting to happen?? I think we all need to give SIA a miss, or it may it hit you hard.

[Magplug]

Perhaps one of our Fleet Street (sorry Wapping!) friends would like to ponder the consequences of one of these operators running out of fuel over central London.

Probably somewhere down a straight line between Wapping and Kew actually! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[G.Khan]

Great little story, considering it is completely out of context!

Could we have the rest of the details please Sniffer, (I am assuming you have them, otherwise why post), then we can all make our own minds up about who we fly with. Seem to remember Concorde landed VERY short of fuel once at LHR, did you suggest we all left BA alone then?

[John Barnes]

Sniffer could you give us some more information and more details on your story.I have heard several variations on it, some with even lower final fuel figures quoted.

[2high]

"I think we all need to give SIA a miss, or it may it hit you hard. "

Sniffer, what sort of claptrap is this. You have a grudge against them - failed the interview or something along those lines???

Luckily most (not all) of the readers of this can see your not giving all the facts. Get a grip.

[thegypsy]

Yes this was true. The excuse was he was given early descent and hold and instead of good airmanship dictating he divert to Stansted because like the Captain of SQ6 he was afraid of bucking the system and afraid of facing those on the 4th Floor who under De Vaz and now ex Generals use fear and intimidation which makes SIA an inherently unsafe Airline but of course the passengers love the IFE etc etc.

The culture of loss of face rules.

Just look at how the CEO still tries to justify losing $2Billion on reckless investments in Virgin and Air New Zealand saying they must not let this loss affect future minority equity stakes in other Airlines which have proved disastrous for Swissair and now SIA. Cannot lose face lah!!

[G.Khan]

OK, it was true, you say, so let us have all the facts then.

What was the weather at Dest. and Alt?

Had he advised ATC of his situation?

Had he declared an emergency?

How much fuel did he really have on touchdown?

Did it really happen?

[411A]

The business of low fuel at destination is nothing new to SQ. In 1979, the company introduced a new fuel policy which required minimum fuel on all sectors...with the predictable result that one SIN-BAH flight landed BAH and on taxi to the parking bay, two engines flamed out due to fuel starvation. The PM was on board...so the policy was changed a short while later.. .Some never learn.

[sky9]

Why do we all jump to conclusions that our fellow pilots are prats, idiots or unsafe. I cannot think of any other profession that is so keen to condemn their fellows. . .I don’t know the facts however if I had full reserves during the last hour, then was sent down early, then held provided I knew that I would go to destination and the weather was fine why not? There are 2 runways at Heathrow and a PAN is always available if fuel drops further. My company allows us to continue down to Final Reserve Fuel if a landing is assured. Provided what he did was safe I cannot see any objections.

[747FOCAL]

Doesn't the JAA have rules on IFR fuel reserves? I thought it was mandatory that an aircraft fuel requirements be made with 45 minutes of reserve fuel on arrival at the destination. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[halo]

What if the landing isn't assured?? There is no such thing as a guaranteed landing at Heathrow. . .What about factors beyond the pilots control?? If he'd come all the way down the approach and for whatever reason one of us had sent him around, then what?? Scraping bits of SIA B744 of NW London is the answer!!

I find it extremely disturbing that airlines even contemplate chancing their arm at this sort of thing. Yes, it costs them more in the long run. But which is better? The bad press from a crash due fuel shortage, or the extra cost of fuel?

Answers on a postcard!

[Minge Coiffeur]

There but for the grace of God, go we. (Due to the pressure of Management.......)

. .Fill 'em up, lads!! Gauge error, anti-ice, more headwind expected, etc. There is no excuse for not carrying extra fuel, if you can get it onboard.

[John Barnes]

I do not know the facts,still waiting to hear them from Sniffer but there is absolutely no excuse to land a 400 with 2300 kg of fuel. This is asking for very very serious trouble.

[Whiskery]

sniffer very rarely posts facts. Like his mate titan - let's just drop a couple of half truths in a futile attempt to throw mud on SQ.. ...............and these guys talk about the everlasting threads on '89!!. .. .Keep the faith:]

[NigelOnDraft]

Halo. .. .&lt;&lt;What if the landing isn't assured?? There is no such thing as a guaranteed landing at Heathrow. . .What about factors beyond the pilots control?? If he'd come all the way down the approach and for whatever reason one of us had sent him around, then what?? &gt;&gt;. .. .Our "Ops Manual" uses the very words "A landing is "assured" if,....". Were you to "send the aircraft around", and no PAN had been made to this point, the aircraft may now have just the 30 mins holding fuel aboard (to tanks DRY). The next radio call will be Mayday, and the aircraft will have the fuel to fly a visual circuit / tight radar circuit (a go around will use 10-15 mins "holding fuel" in 2-3 mins if you get my drift). An extended radar circuit, diversion or further go-around is not an option.... .. .NoD

[MTOW]

I fly into Heathrow relatively regularly. For those who don’t, two points may be of interest before you start hanging anyone out to dry:. .(1) The British CAA, (at the major London airports at least), do not recognise the term ‘fuel emergency’ – (ie, if you’re running short of fuel coming into LHR, you divert to your nominated alternate at or before you reach your min divert fuel – end of story. ATC are not interested in changing the approach sequence in what must be one of busiest terminal areas in the world unless it is for an aircraft with a genuine emergency. If that ‘genuine’ emergency is a shortage of fuel, you declare a Mayday, get the priority to land that this affords you, and you and your company can then explain to the British CAA the circumstances that led you into the emergency situation – [and take your licence with you, ’cos you might be required to leave it with the CAA when they’ve finished interviewing you].) . .(2) The term ‘no holding’ when approaching to land at Heathrow actually means ‘no more than 20 minutes of holding is expected’. (This not some airey fairy rule of thumb gained from local knowledge, but information clearly written in black and white in AIC 28/1993 (Pink 77) dated 4 March 93.). .. .With those two points in mind, and adding favourable weather conditions that allow the nomination of Heathrow’s second runway as an alternate, an aircraft can quite legally cross over threshold (note the emphasis) with as little as its Final Reserve fuel in the tanks, which for a jet is 30 minutes of fuel at 1500’ based upon the expected landing weight. In a 74-4, (I don’t fly them, and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m too far wrong), I’d be guessing that that figure would be in the order of 5 to 6 tonnes.. .. .I think any action that is to be taken against the pilot concerned – that’s if he broke any rules, which has not been definitely established yet – is up to the CAA and Singapore Airlines management, and not us in this very public forum.

[7times7]

Is it possible that they were held on the ground for a long time after landing resulting in 2.3tons at chocks in?

[NigelOnDraft]

MTOW. .. .&lt;&lt;ie, if you’re running short of fuel coming into LHR, you divert to your nominated alternate at or before you reach your min divert fuel – end of story&gt;&gt;. .Not so for us... Provided you meet the Ops Manual (approved by the CAA) criteria for the Captain to decide "Landing is 'assured'", then as you fly around the hold using fuel, you do not have to divert, but can "commit" to destination. By using the "Diversion Fuel" you can continue to hold for a longer period.. .. .When the Fuel gets to a state where you may now land with less than "Reserve" (30 mins holding), you make a PAN call. When you will land with less than Reserve, it becomes a Mayday.. .. .&lt;&lt;adding favourable weather conditions that allow the nomination of Heathrow’s second runway as an alternate&gt;&gt;. .2 corrections (for us).... .1. &lt;&lt;adding favourable weather conditions &gt;&gt;. .The example in the Ops Manual quotes CAT 2 conditions as being sufficient to "commit" to your destination airfield.... .2. &lt;&lt;nomination of Heathrow’s second runway &gt;&gt;. .Once "maximum delay known" or an EAT received, you can "commit" regardless of the number of runways i.e. to a single runway destination.. .. .That is what the Ops Manual permits. My experience is that not many Captains would "commit" to land (i.e. give away the option to divert) at a single runway destination in CAT2 conditions.... .. .NoD. . . . <small>[ 03 March 2002, 15:40: Message edited by: NigelOnDraft ]</small>

[Warped Factor]

The AIC mentioned by MTOW has been re-isssued.. .. .You can read the current one <a href="http://www.ais.org.uk/Uk_aip/pdf/aic/4P170.PDF" target="_blank">here</a>.. .. .WF.

[G.Khan]

Halo - for your info. I know of at least three major long haul carriers who, as a part of their fuel policy, allow the pilot to make decisions based on number of runways available, weather above certain minima at ETA, no anticipated delays on arrival in the TMA, (but including the 20 mins. at LHR), etc. etc. and if every box gets a tick then the aircraft will continue to destination, this decision will be taken at the point at which a diversion would otherwise be required in order to have sufficient fuel to reach the alternate, hold and land.. .Obviously some companies are juggling with the diversion to alternate and holding part of that fuel and an unexpected hold over twenty minutes will certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons.. .It comes down to decision making at the time and place in question.. . . . <small>[ 03 March 2002, 22:37: Message edited by: G.Khan ]</small>

[halo]

This is all well and good, but its not unknown for us to lose both runways at Heathrow. What happens then?? Although you may state the non-landing runway as the alternate, this is not always available for use. There is no point us finding this out at anywhere less than 6 DME because the departure controller will then be committed with his current line-up and the second aircraft will undoubtably be across the CAT 1 holding point so that he can squeeze in tight behind the preceding aircraft.. .. .I am purely trying to find out the situation on behalf of all the controllers so that we know what to expect.. .. .NigelOnDraft... Thanx for your info ():-) I think I met you a while back!! Hope everything is going well

[exeng]

Hi Halo,. .. .Our Nigel on best bitter made his point well. I'd just like to say that there would be no point in diverting when you will end up in exactly the same fuel scenario as you would when 'committing' and landing at LHR. I have experienced this on two occasions many years ago as an ENG on the Classic. Big question mark over my head whilst making an approach into EMA on minimum fuel.. .. .Your point, &lt;&lt;There is no point us finding this out at anywhere less than 6 DME because the departure controller will then be committed with his current line-up&gt;&gt;.. .. .My sincere hope was that the departure controller will abandon his line up if I declare a MAYDAY because I now KNOW I will land with less than 'reserve fuel'. (30 mins. at 1500 ft.) An unlikely scenario at 6 DME I grant you, but nevertheless possible.. .. .Our instructions are a 'PAN' if you think it is possible that you may land with less than reserves, and a MAYDAY if 'KNOW' you will land with less than reserve fuel.. .. .It's good to talk about these things. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> . .. .We are all counting on you. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . .. .Regards. .Exeng

[halo]

Thanx for your speedy reply exeng. I totally understand your points. What I tried to get across (admittedly not very well) is that if we suddenly lose the runway that you are making an approach to, and you are extremely tight on fuel thus necessitating a mayday call then even despite the nature of your situation it may not be possible to land on the other runway. The reasons for it are as follows.... .. .- If you are inside approx 6 DME the departure controller may NOT be able to make the runway available for use. With one on and one across the CAT 1 bar it will take at least 2 minutes to get the runway clear. This can be achieved by one of two ways. Either he clears the first one for take-off and then clears the next one as soon as the preceding aircrafts wheels are off the runway, or he clears the first one for take-off and taxis the second one down the runway to vacate. Both of these take at minimum of two minutes to do and at approximately 3 miles a minute on the inbound this will make for a very late landing clearance at best.. .Both of these situations are also conditional on other things as well.... If the preceding aircraft to the one on the runway is on the same route then the controller will either have to wait for a 2 minute route separation (at which point he can cancel the line up of the following aircraft) or he can launch it and attain separation using radar vectors. If however there is a wake vortex issue then this is not an option. The wake vortex issue is also a problem with European operators following 757s and they often ask for an extra minute on the runway (most of them wait until in position before informing us). We are obliged to give it to them. All we can do is explain your situation and hope that they are understanding. . .. .All these situations hinge as well on the second aircraft for departure not being across the CAT 1 bar. If they are then the runway is occupied. Obtaining a speedy vacation is very difficult to do particularly on 27R where the first permissible turn-off is at Block 16.. .. .So, although you may declare a mayday due fuel shortage, and we will pull out all the stops for you, it still may not be possible to make a runway available for use.. .. .The best solution I can think of is to declare a pan as early as possible and give us sufficient time to plan for any eventuality. If you are interested in a visit then please drop me an e-mail. We would be more than happy to show you our operation ():-)

[exeng]

Halo,. .. .Excellent stuff! It is really great to get an insight into your side of the equation.. .. .As you say, &lt;&lt;The best solution I can think of is to declare a pan as early as possible and give us sufficient time to plan for any eventuality.&gt;&gt;. .. .I've never had to do it yet (within 2 mins once and keeping all my fingers and toes 'X'ed) but of course I would, and you would probably recieve the call from one of the holds.. .. .Just a suggestion here, but if an aircraft is on a 'PAN' then perhaps departures should be suspended til the 'offending' aircraft lands. I appreciate that it makes a total mess of the departure rate, but isn't that better than making a total mess of Hounslow? On second thoughts don't answer that. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .. .Let's demolish Cranford etc and build 27RR; while we are at it Feltham is history for 27LL!!. .. .Regards. .Exeng

[halo]

*laughs*. How I wish that could be true!!. .. .I totally agree with you about suspending departures but unfortunately airline management don't. There is constant pressure put on us by the airlines through the crew to get aircraft away as quickly as possible. The unfortunate upshot of it at Heathrow is that aircraft that aren't getting off the stands for departure means that aircraft inbound aren't getting onto stands (leaving us with the problem of where to put them in the meantime). This in turn leads to them not getting away on time again and so the whole process recycles throughout the entire day. For example, V22 with a hold first thing in the morning will nearly always be V22 with a hold at the end of the day.. .. .One possible solution though is to declare your fuel situation in the hold, and request the departure runway for landing. That way then, the departure controller can arrange his sequence so that you get a nice early landing clearance and all the necessary fire crew arrangements can be made well in advance at our end. As well as that, the airlines aren't suffering too much delay at the hold and will be less likely to moan about how much its costing them in wasted fuel.. .. .It's great to hear about these things from the point of view of the flight crew. Unfortunately, since 11th September there has been so little face to face interraction between the crews and the controllers that it has become very difficult to canvass opinions about these important subjects

[Oliver James]

Morning.. .. .Halo: Are we entitled to ask you for the departure runway in 'fuel tight' circumstances? . .. .Just last week we had a PAN on 27L at the same time as that darned crane being up on 27R. My suggestion to hold arrivals to protect the runway was ignored because of the impact on the rest of the traffic. This leads me back to the point I have made on these forums several times before: Heathrow's runways are oversubscribed. If safety really is paramount then we need to be given runway redundancy. I have been in the position of having to tell returning emergency traffic which couldn't manoeuvre properly that the only available runway had just been blocked. It felt totally unprofessional. . .. .Allowing the traffic schedules to saturate the runways so we can avoid having to make uncomfortable decisions about building a new one is, I believe, negligent. Surely we are in the business of prevention rather than cure?. .. .I am not just talking about protecting emergencies either. Even under normal circumstances, a reduction in landing capacity through wx or other puts Approach under a lot of pressure to pack traffic in tight. Pressure in our business is dangerous.. .. .Good point about crew controller interaction, we need to get that started again as soon as possible, if possible!. .. .Hurry up <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> !

[halo]

Hi 120.4. .. .I can't think of any reason at all why you can't ask for the departure runway for somebody that has declared a pan due to fuel emergency. If I'm sat in the departure seat then I will be more than happy to take the traffic, but I suspect the decision will be down to agreement between the deps controller and the supervisor. And you are completely right, things like the crane don't help at all!. .. .Having sat in arrivals on days when the weather is horrific, I am constantly amazed at how well you guys do across the road to keep the whole thing running!!

[Lunar Landing]

So where is the heathrow director located? Halo said "across the road". Is this literally across the road or nearby in London?. .. .Smooth skies

[caulfield]

Some very good points being made here.. .Having flown in the Far East,I can only say that this loss of face thing very often induces pilots(expats as well)to take unnecessary risks.Why should the pilot carry the can when he is only obeying the law laid down by the regulating authority?Its of course a very fine line and an experienced Captain knows where to draw it but if in doubt,always divert.Better to face the interview on the 4th floor and keep a clean licence,than gamble with your whole career.. .I would also add that the 757 should be considered a ´heavy´,and that it shouldnt be incumbent upon the pilots to ask for the extra minute.It should be taken for granted.I wonder if this will happen some time soon in London.

[Oliver James]

Heathrow Director (as opposed to "The Heathrow Director", who is a really lovely chap!) lives across the M4 at the "old" centre. This centre had 2 rooms, Area control and Terminal control. AC has gone to NERC, TC is due to go in about 4 years.. .. .Thanks for the compliment. I 'm sure it must seem sometimes as if we are just packin' 'em in any old how. We are under a lot of pressure to keep that rate up (I believe you can now see "the machine"?) and when striving for excellence it is easy to over do things. I am grateful for the patience which comes the other way!. .. .Caulfield: I believe that the B757 is being looked at. It is already in a special catagory but the number of cmplaints is significant. It is also slow on short final which makes it difficult to satisfy the intention of the book.. .. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> . .Point 4

[PaperTiger]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">clears the first one for take-off and taxis the second one down the runway to vacate. Both of these take at minimum of two minutes to do</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Two minutes to roll one from position and taxi the second to the first exit ? Is that the 'book' figure - seems to me it really doesn't take anything like that providing all expedite.

[halo]

Lets say for example that I clear you for take-off and you are sat on the threshold. By the time you spool up, roll then rotate and all wheels have left the runway, approximately 45 seconds will have passed. This is a minimum time and some airlines take considerably longer. If you don't believe me then time it and see.. .. .Let say for example that you are across the CAT 1 holding point but not quite in position on the threshold i.e. you are infringing the runway but still need to taxi round the corner and straighten up. If it is suddenly decided that we need you to vacate then we have to look at the options as to where we want you off. So, for the 27L departure configuration we have either 86 to the south, 86 to the north, 85 to the south and 85 to the north............ Following so far *winks*...... .Option 1, 27L vacate 86 to the south, firstly you need to power up to get moving then you need to taxi the required distance, then turn, then clear the runway. I would suggest at least 45 seconds even if expediting and you wouldn't want to expedite too quickly because ending up on the grass is embarassing. Block 86 to the south is fraught with problems though because we can't get you back to the hold by turning you left from 118 into 95 (see Air Pilot for reasons) and if there is something coming the other way from Terminal 4 then that route is blocked and we have a stand-off and the possibility of the runway not being clear.. .. .Option 2, 27L vacate 86 to the North. Same procedure as before except you will be turning directly into the teeth of other outbound traffic coming through 74. This is only a problem if the GMC controller is busy and hasn't handed the traffic to the departures controller. .Option 3, 27L vacate 85 to either the North or South. No major confliction problems BUT it is a greater distance to taxi thus increasing the time factor.. .. .okay, 27R for departure.... The first two available turn-offs are at 17 or 16 both of which are very tight reverse turns all of which take time.. .. .So, even if we have a mayday situation and need you off quickly, all these factors have to be taken into account by the controller (who at the time will also have the Mayday to worry about). These all take considerable time to achieve. I'm sure if there are any other Heathrow controllers reading this then they will concur with my comments.

[PaperTiger]

OK, I confess I'm not familiar with EGLL ops, and looking at a diagram I can see it's not ideal for expeditious vacating. Everything much too close together. Two minutes is an awfully long time though - run the movements through your head while looking at your watch. . .. .I've been off the runway in less than 20 seconds following a cancelled line-up, admittedly with a handy exit (KLAX). Cultural thing possibly as it seems European airports do things somewhat more cautiously than the US/Canada. But then you haven't had the same number of runway 'shunts', so maybe your way is better. . .. .I also think you can safely ask anyone to expedite if the need arises without worrying about us putting it on the grass.

[Feather #3]

Fascinating discussion. It's extremely valuable to hear from other operators about their policies and also from ATCO's who have to sort out the jigsaw.. .. .What upsets me about these low fuel landings [ie. less than 30min @ 1,500ft] is that [certainly in the case of long haul] you can see them coming hours away! We had a situation the other night where with minimum fuel ex-SIN [including an allowance for holding in "no holding" conditions], we lost enough enroute that the FZFG which rolled in to LHR meant we were doing some serious sums hours before arrival.. .. .In our case, dialogue with our company saw us diverting to FRA for fuel, but further fine tuning meant that [with our policy] we had EMA as an alternate.. .. .The point being [since it would appear that it's long haul operators having these low fuel problems, isn't it?] that you know well in advance how much gas you'll have on arrival at LHR or in the LON TMA, and the AIC says that you need 20min holding at ALL times [maybe not before 0600], so unless some other hassle intervenes, you should always be able to achieve the minimum fuel at touchdown!. .. .OTOH, does emergency use of the LHR departure runway for landing occur often enough that we shouldn't roll over the CatI holding point even though cleared to lineup in sequence, just "in case"?. .. .G'day <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[exeng]

Feather #3,. .. .&lt;&lt;since it would appear that it's long haul operators having these low fuel problems, isn't it?&gt;&gt;. .. .Not only I'm afraid. Minimum fuel is carried by many shorthaul airlines although obviously the Captain will uplift more if, in his opinion, the situation requires it.. .. .The problem with EGLL is that one needs an absolutely fully serviceable crystal ball to evaluate just what the holding delays will be. I'm only surprised if I am not asked to take up the hold.. .. .Regards. .Exeng

[Oliver James]

Feather#3. .These days I'm approach not tower but from my previous tower experience I would suggest that if you didn't cross the Cat1 until we were certain we didn't need the runway for anything else we would never achieve the 1 minute or visual splits which make a 45 per hour departure rate possible. In the case of 09R deps. there are multiple line up possibilities and one could have as as many as 3 aircraft on the runway at the same time. That is how the rates are achieved.. .. .I guess there is just no substitute for spare concrete... and we haven't got any! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" />

[Few Cloudy]

Wasn't there an AIC about having to have at least 30 mins additional fuel if flying to any airport in the London zone a while back? That includes STN and also LTN, where holding is not so common.. .. .Trouble with AICs is that foreign carriers usually don't get them.. .. .Another trouble is that an additional ton of fuel, transported 12 hours on a long range flight, is about 1/2 ton by the time you get there.

[Siddique]

Surely the crux of the arguament is 'its NOT illegal to use reserve fuel' its wahat it's there for! Just should nt 'plan' on using it?

[411A]

In spite of any good intensions on the part of longhaul crews, LHR does create a problem sometimes. A number of years ago at top of drop (L15, 11 hour flight) we had enough fuel for 50 minutes of holding (ATIS 4km) and after 45 minutes (ATIS still 4km) we were advised that LHR was going to LVP, RVR now 800 metres, and it would be another 20 minutes minimum before an approach could be expected. As we were number one at LAM holding, requested immediate diversion to LGW, and landed with three tons remaining. But for aircraft to intensionally land at destination with very low fuel <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> seems to me to be....not very bright. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" />

[halo]

I have timed it thousands of times. In fact I time it somewhere upwards of 40 times an hour. With all the will in the world, I know for a fact that there isn't a single crew who could vacate the runway at Heathrow from the threshold in 20 seconds. And, I've never seen anybody cross the runway in less than a minute either (and the KLM Fk50 boys have a damn good go). You are more than welcome to come and time it, but if you ask any regular heathrow crew they will tell U that ATC have their timings down pretty precisely

[halo]

And of course, ever since the BA jumbo went onto the grass last year, most crews are very reticent to taxi around at speed!

[M.Mouse]

Er..... wasn't that a strong gusting X-wind on a wet runway at a light weight during the rollout?

[PaperTiger]

Well we must be using different terminology here.. .One minute to cross the runway ? I could walk it in that time.. .But I'll concede, so we can get back to discussing fuel.

[Ignition Override]

Interesting. . .. .Could the747 Captain have easily diverted without declaring a system problem or emergency with Air Traffic Control? Would Singapore Airlines Flight Ops normally consider sharply criticizing or even punishing the Captain for a precautionary divert, even earlier in the descent towards Brussels, Amsterdam or Frankfurt etc, if prolonged vectoring and/or holding had been anticipated during the initial descent? . .. .Does Singapore Airlines Flight Operations expect, or worse, demand that any Captain not divert until the aircraft has, as is our company example for minimum divert fuel, Alternate + Reserve (figured for cruise burn at FL 250) fuel onboard? We can always divert with this so-called F.O. Manual "Decision Fuel" (I doubt that our Chief Pilots realize how many diverts take place, or what what the total fuel was when they began), but almost all of our folks would add an extra 1,000 to 1500 or even 2,000 pounds to our official theoretical minimum " Decison Fuel", for a certain twin-jet. Maybe our corporate accountants have influenced what this Flight Ops Manual fuel quantity consists of? At Value Jet, now known as Air Tran, a former Captain was required to call his Dispatcher before each and every flight in order to board ANY "Contingency Fuel"! Value Jet was too cheap and greedy to plan it beforehand. This guy is one of our First Officers.. .. .Heck, ATC often stops you from climbing to the planned altitude and direct routing during diverts and there are too many cases of thunderstorms and/or dense air traffic between you and your alternate airport. I almost always declare "min fuel" during diverts, so they will do their job better. You might get to the alternate and only have two green gear lights or a "Slat Disagreement" light, and wiith bad weather close by. If you fly the line instead of a desk, be ready to throw your book policy and theory out the window before being intimidated by Ops Policy, if safety is about to be compromised. But I've never worked in other cultures. Our Dispatchers are already warm and safe on the ground when we make the decision as to our Divert Fuel. Sometimes a company dispatcher, although they are all very valuable, has less influence ("clout") via a phone call, on ATC's decision to get you out of holding or extended vectors, than some of them realize, or they can be overly optimistic.. . . . <small>[ 07 March 2002, 02:53: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]</small>

[gengis]

I quote the following report verbatim on this particular flight as it was published in the fleet newsletter/circular to all 744 crew (dated Apr 2001):. .. .“On 14 January 2001, SQ### landed in LHR with 3900 kg. The final fuel remaining on shutdown was 2900 kg. The flight was planned on a redispatch flight plan with no excess fuel. At TOD, the FMS-predicted fuel on landing was 8200 kg. Lengthy holding over LAM resulted in the aircraft leaving LAM with an FMS-predicted fuel on landing of 5200 kg. Shortly after leaving LAM, the EICAS message “FUEL QTY LOW” came on, having been triggered by 800 kg fuel remaining in tank 2M. Fuel distribution when aircraft chocks-on was: R2 (0 kg), 1M (100 kg), 2M (900 kg), CWT (1000 kg), 3M (900 kg), 4M (100 kg), R3 (0 kg).. .. .The 100 kg fuel remaining in each of the tanks 1M and 4M was consistent with the intent of the NNC for “FUEL QTY LOW” which is to ensure that all engines are fed from whichever main tank(s) that contains fuel. The fuel feed will be shared, with the majority of the feed coming from the outboard tanks. If an outboard tank is depleted, there will be no interruption in engine fuel feed. Though this fuel would be below the level of the hydraulic system heat exchanger, during an otherwise normal flight, the aircraft would be landing well before a system overheat can occur.. .. .Fuel in CWT was reported to have reached 0kg at TOD but increased on the descent to 1000kg. Boeing has replied that the observed FQIS Indications are within the combined overall inaccuracy tolerances of the FQIS and the pitch attitude errors. In order to meet the requirement that the gauge displays zero when the tank is empty, positive errors are biased out at quantities below 5% full. Due to this negative bias feature, the display would typically under-read at low quantities (below 5% full). Additionally, in-flight conditions may have different attitude error contributions i.e. the TOD attitude would be in the range of 0 to 5 degrees pitch, whereas the attitude during the descent and hold would be somewhat different. In other words, in this particular case, there was some fuel left in the CWT even though it registered 0kg at TOD. This quantity was progressively being reflected during the descent and landing.”. . . .- end quote. .. .I further understand that the landing fuel was 3900 kg, but the aircraft was held up on a taxiway by another aircraft on tow & in the ensuing long taxi the final fuel at shutdown was 2900 kg.. . . . <small>[ 06 March 2002, 09:21: Message edited by: gengis ]</small>

[Wings]

Tow points I would like to make.. .Point One.. .A colleague of mine was Flight Safety Officer in our company, an airline in South Eats Asia. He attended a meeting of the Orient Airlines Association Flight Safety Officers, where the "Loss of Face" problem was addressed. The actual topic was pilots continuing a 'bad' approach rather than 'suffering loss of face' and going around. When my friend suggested that how about, the next time a pilot elects to do a go around rather than push a bad approach, the airline makes a big thing of it, praising the pilot as a hero / super safe flyer etc. The other airlines would have nothing of it, suggesting that the pilot should never have got into a bad situation in the first place. These are the Flight Safety Officers, - fellow pilots who are meant to be on our side.. .The point I am trying to make is that the Loss of Face / Push on Itis culture is still very strong in a lot of airlines. If a Captain diverts, he knows men in suits sitting in a comfortable office weeks after, having had plenty of time and help to assess the situation will villify him because they calculated that IN THEORY he could have continued and landed legally. In this situation, a Captain who elects to divert is putting his job on the line.. .. .Point Two.. .Our airline is very lenient and allows us to put on extra fuel for any reasonable reason such as expected lower than planned flight levels, en route wx, destination wx, local knowledge - expect holding. . .Despite this great situation we still occasionally get caught out. Headwinds much stronger than forecast making you elect to fly at long range cruise, only to have ATC require you to either speed up or descend to a (un economical) flight level.. .The point I am making is that sometimes s**t happens. We are paid to make the right decisions in these situations. Assuming we make the right decisions, it is management's job to support us, helping to make our industry safe and in turn help improve profits. No one needs bad press whether it's us here on Pprune or in the newspapers. Whether it's a low fuel or a crash, we should be working to make the industry safer, and that includes management.

[BackSeatPilot]

gengis. .. .Interesting, although it begs the question - What was the mgmt response to the outcome? (Was the the info from the manufacturer there as additional info or an excuse?) . .. .BSP

[gengis]

BackSeatPilot. .. ."Interesting, although it begs the question - What was the mgmt response to the outcome? (Was the the info from the manufacturer there as additional info or an excuse?)". .. .The report was contained in a routine newsletter to pilots in which they attempt to address matters of concern to line pilots. I personally do not believe that the company encourages this sort of thing. Who would? It is not my experience, so far, that one would face penalty for a legitimate diversion - I did one about 3 years ago with no repurcussions. As to whether the info from the manufacturer was included as an excuse or not, it is not my belief that it is. I will just say that the quote was reproduced precisely as it was published and while I am not privy to any additional information I do not get the feeling that it was written merely with an intent to justify the incident. Of course one is free to read into it what one would. Actually there was even a time not so long ago when there would hardly be any reference to an incident of their own; that they are now obviously addressing shortcomings somewhat more openly is something to be applauded.

[Aviatrix69]

Warped factor, thank you very much for the link to the AIC 36! I've printed it out and put it with my papers, info I have never seen before.. .. .And EGLL is really overcrowded, receiving the landing clearance below CAT I mim last night was a close call... without being advised of late LC <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .. .Nobody ever stated the final reserve fuel fur the 747 in this thread. As long as you land above FRF I don't see the problem. You land below, emergency must have been declared. Did they?. .. .Cheers

[Whiskery]

gengis - thankyou for the facts, at last. 8200 kgs fuel on board, TOD is adequate for a flight ex re-dispatch. SIN - LHR on a re-dispatch flight plan on the classic, you would be having a good trip to arrive TOD with 9,000 kgs.. .. .Keep trying sniffer, you'll have a win one day. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />. . . . <small>[ 08 March 2002, 08:39: Message edited by: Whiskery ]</small>

[747400CA]

I appreciate the professional dialogue on this topic. . .. .As one contributor indicated, "It's good to talk about these things. " . .. .Risking accusations by some of flogging a dead horse, may I invite further "what if?" discussion on this topic?. .. .A quick look at my company OpsMan Reserve Fuel Planning Table shows 30 minute holding fuel for a 747-400 aircraft as follows:. .. .8380 lbs. (approximately 3800 kgs) reserve at GWT 520,000 lbs. (approximately 236,000 kgs - typical passenger / combi landing weight). .. .10060 lbs. (approximately 4600 kgs) at GWT 660,000 lbs. (300,000 kgs - typical freighter landing weight). .. .If one subscribes to the view that . .. ."...when the fuel gets to a state where you may now land with less than "Reserve" (30 mins holding), you make a PAN call. When you will land with less than Reserve, it becomes a Mayday...)" . .. .then these quantities become one's absolute minimum landing fuel in a 747-400 aircraft. However, my current company OpsMan Fuel Policy also specifies [wisely, in my humble opinion] a Minimum Landing Fuel of 12,000 lb. (approximately 5,500 kg) as follows:. .. .Minimum Fuel to Execute a Go-Around 5,600 lbs. (approximately 2,600 kgs) - fuel required to execute a go-around at runway threshold, climb to 1000 feet AGL, fly a pattern, intercept a 3° glideslope approximately 2 1/2 miles from the runway, and continue to landing; and. .. .Minimum Fuel at Touchdown 2,400 lbs. (approximately 1,100 kgs) - fuel required to ensure adequate fuel boost pump coverage to keep the engines running for reversing and throughout the landing roll; and. .. .Fuel Indicator Error 3,960 lbs. (approximately 1,800 kgs) - the maximum design fuel quantity error for the main tanks. (center and reserve tanks empty). .. .Thus, a Minimum Fuel for Landing (Indicated) of 12,000 lbs. (approximately 5,500 kgs) assures sufficient fuel will be onboard at the threshold in a worst case condition with the maximum fuel indicator error (indicators read too high). . .. .This minimum landing fuel figure (albeit in varying forms) is in at least three airlines' 747-400 operating manuals, and - to the best of my knowledge - appears in most operating manuals for this aircraft found around the world.. .. .A cautious approach to a low fuel situation upon arrival (at LHR or elsewhere) might be to apply the most conservative value and make the company limit of 12,000 lb. / 5,500 kg an absolute minimum landing fuel either at destination or at the alternate. . .. .I sense, however, there may be differing opinions from forum participants with greater knowledge of the CAA regulatory landscape - as well as flight crew and ATC controllers with more experience in the LHR environment - and so invite further comment on this thread.. .. .Recognizing too that each company has a unique flight operations 'culture' that might (or must) be considered in the decisions one makes, I should like to state that it is not my intention here to promote 'second guessing' of the SIA crew involved in this actual landing - or any crew involved in a similar situation.. .. .Having said that, it is with the intent of prompting further professional discussion in this thread - from which we all might learn - that I solicit from knowledgeable individuals answers and opinions in response to the following: . .. .1) From the SIA 744 fleet newsletter (excerpt previously posted): . .. ."...The flight was planned on a redispatch flight plan with no excess fuel. At TOD, the FMS-predicted fuel on landing was 8200 kg.". .. .A 'tight' flight plan with no excess fuel is indeed economical - until one must perform a divert to an off-line airport, that is.. .. .At past companies I have worked for, additional fuel for redispatch / enroute weather / terminal weather and ATC considerations was either . .. . (a) prescribed by the company depending on sector historical data and the particular terminal environment; or. .. . (b) allowed at captain discretion (without displacing pax or payload). .. .Questions:. .. .For 747-400 or other 'long haul' crews - does your airline have provisions for loading 'extra' fuel? Is the amount prescribed by the company for each sector? If so, what factors are taken into account? . .. .Conversely, if 'extra' fuel (beyond the regulatory required fuel)is not prescribed, does the commander have authority to specify additional fuel? . .. .Does the amount of additional fuel (or the reasons for loading it) have to be justified, and - if so - to whom? . .. .Lastly - are there potentially adverse consequences to requesting "too much fuel' too many times at your company? . .. .Is the alternative of a possible precautionary divert for fuel considerations better than the certainty of an interview with your chief pilot or flight manager over 'excessive' fuel use? . .. .What would the consequences of such a precautionary divert (to an on-line or off-line station) be at your company?. .. .2) "...Lengthy holding over LAM resulted in the aircraft leaving LAM with an FMS-predicted fuel on landing of 5200 kg..." . .. .For 'long haul' crews familiar with the UK operating and regulatory environment - would you under similar circumstances (predicted landing fuel approaching minimum while holding at LAM) make a 'PAN' call indicating an urgent fuel situation? . .. .For ATC participants - if an aircraft did make a "PAN' call during the hold, what would the ATC response be? . .. .Would the indication of an urgent fuel situation "...ensure priority handling..." as the Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC) indicates, or would the 'real world' response have to be something different - and why?. .. .3) "...Shortly after leaving LAM, the EICAS message “FUEL QTY LOW” came on, having been triggered by 800 kg fuel remaining in tank 2M..." . .. .Clearly, any 747-400 crew will know by this time they will have less than recommended minimum landing fuel of 5,500 kg over the threshold.. .. .Depending on landing weight, an aircraft in this circumstance is now approaching the absolute regulatory minimum of 30 minute holding or "Final Reserve" fuel.. .. .Questions:. .. .For 747-400 skippers out there - with your ability to execute a go around now a question, would you continue without indicating the aircraft actual fuel state with the expectation - based on your experience operating in the LHR environment - that it will turn out fine? . .. .Or would you "fess up" and make a 'PAN' call as a precaution at this point? . .. .If you did make the 'PAN' call, would you expect any regulatory consequences (as in a 'MAYDAY') in the UK?. .. .For ATC types - with the aircraft already having departed LAM, would a 'PAN' call at this point have been useful or productive? . .. .Or would the response have to be something like "...understood, expect no further delay, currently number XX for landing...". .. .4) "...SQ ### landed in LHR with 3900 kg. The final fuel remaining on shutdown was 2900 kg...". .. .For the sake of discussion, let's pretend that "Murphy" has a heyday, the unthinkable happens, and preceding traffic fails to clear the runway or an unexpected runway incursion forces the tower controller to instruct a missed approach...what would you do?. .. .Is it time for a 'Mayday' call declaring an emergency? What next?. .. .For 747-400 crews - mindful that Boeing says it takes 3800 kg to keep 'em running through a go around, approach, landing, and rollout, would you regard 3900 kg (indicated) remaining as insufficient fuel to comply with the missed approach instructions? . .. .If so, would you elect to continue to a landing either on an adjacent taxiway or on the available runway (in front of or beyond the offending traffic) as the least dangerous option?. .. .Or would you breath a prayer and go around, declare the emergency, and request (or execute pending ATC approval) the close pattern and 2 1/2 mile approach described above to get the aircraft on the ground before running out of fuel?. .. .ATC controllers knowledgeable in the LHR environment are specifically invited to comment at this point. . .. .If an aircraft (which had not previously indicated an urgent fuel situation) suddenly declared an emergency and responded as described above, would you be most comfortable in . .. .(a) an extremis landing on the longest unobstructed length of concrete available in front of it , or . .. .(b) your ability to provide adequate traffic separation while a 2 1/2 close pattern was flown?. .. .5) Lastly - Safe at the gate with 2900 kg (or less) and a happy ending to the story - that is, until the paperwork has to be done... . .. .MTOW wrote:. .. ."...If that ‘genuine’ emergency is a shortage of fuel, you declare a Mayday, get the priority to land that this affords you, and you and your company can then explain to the British CAA the circumstances that led you into the emergency situation – [and take your license with you, ’cos might be required to leave it with the CAA when they’ve finished interviewing you]...". .. .The last question:. .. .For 'long haul' captains (at SIA and elsewhere) - how do you think the hearing with the CAA (as well as your chief pilot or flight manager) did (in the case of the 'real' story) or would (in our fictitious example) go?. . . . <small>[ 12 March 2002, 22:57: Message edited by: 747400CA ]</small>

[Oliver James]

747400CA, LHR Approach ATCO.. .. .As far as I am concerned, anytime anybody declares a fuel PAN before or after LAM, I part the waves. He gets a direct heading to a comfortable length final and I move the traffic ahead of him out of the way. I consider this essential if he has declared a PAN because we are past the stage of being 'tight' and real danger exists. We don't know what else might go wrong (with flaps or gear for example) and his landing has to be safeguarded. . .. .If it was the case that moving the traffic out of the way was going to be impossible due workload etc. I would stop the outbound traffic and have the departure runway sterilised for him. We don't need the PAN to become a MAYDAY.. .. .I have firsthand experience of a single runway airport being blocked as I turned a seriously mishandling aircraft onto final at 13 miles. These things tend not to happen, so we come to think they can't. Once we have got to PAN, everything else has to be let go.. .. .As far as landing with a blocked strip is concerned: I offered the above traffic the taxiway - he turned it down sharply.. .. .Point 4

[Whiskery]

There is sometimes a brief moment, when at the planning stages of a flight, the "what if" factor is considered. What distances the professional pilot from the amateur is the number of "what ifs" that get factored into the final fuel figure.. .. .Our Company fuel policy requires, at the planning stage, that a minimum of DEST to ALT plus 60 minutes FR should be in tanks on landing. If the destination does not require planning for an alternate, then the landing fuel may be reduced to not less than 60 minutes. Flights ex redispatch must plan to land with not less than 30 minutes FR. (which also happens to be the depressurised min. FR). .. .Now here's the catch - for destinations LHR and LAX, with exception ex redispatch, 60 minutes FR will be carried, plus any additional fuel the Commander deems necessary for holding.. .. .On a flight ex redispatch into LHR (or LAX) you never get to carry the additional fuel for holding. I am comfortable with 9000kgs TOD if the weather is fine and no holding. Even with a lap around good old Lambourne you should have around 5000 kgs on landing. Of course I prefer the usual 12000 +, but you occasionally have to earn your money in this industry.. .. .So now we come to the "what if" scenario. Well, there are so many that if one were to try and cover even half, you would be carrying full tanks everywhere. . .. .My final fuel figure on each flight reflects what I and my crew am comfortable with at destination or alternate. It takes into account weather, ATC requirements and aircraft performance. I confess I don't consider sudden runway closures, abnormal / emergency operations, flood or fire at the planning stage - it could ruin what started out to be a great day!. . . . <small>[ 13 March 2002, 05:22: Message edited by: Whiskery ]</small>

[Traffic]

Very interesting thread. Shows that this is a subject of critical importance to all.. .. .Twas and old BCal 707 skipper who, upon being quizzed as to why he called for more fuel than appeared necessary, said:. .. ."The only time you have too much f....g fuel is when your an on f...g fire! Now fill her up".. .. .Call me old fashioned but that statment has stayed front and centre for the past 25 years.. .. .You abrogate, or the company takes away, your right to uplift the amount of fuel you want then you have immediately taken your eye off the ball. . .. .If fuel just happens then s..t will not be far behind in a world where the please explain for diversions is more intimidating than the please explain for landing on vapour.

[Wiley]

Those making comments along the lines of "I'll carry whatever fuel I feel comfortable with and damn the accountants" work for a very different organisation to the one I do (and would like to continue working for). . .. .The fact is, at least in my airline, that this is simply not possible on many occasions, since minor annoyances like payload and max takeoff / max landing weight all too frequently intrude. (It’s almost the norm to land at LHR at MLW after carrying min CFP fuel.) If the weather's marginal, they'll often as not give me the extra fuel I ask for, but (surprisingly enough for people who are in this business to make a buck), they're not at all enthusiastic about taking off payload or kicking off passengers just because the captain wants to carry another couple of tonnes of fuel 'for mum and the kids'. . .. .Having said that, I'm of a similar mind to MTOW and his comments earlier in the thread. I'll carry company-recommended minimum fuel into LHR if that's what they want me to do, but when the 'fuel remaining' gauge reaches 'n' KGs - my min diversion fuel - (a figure I spend some time calculating well before TOPD), I'm out of there and off to my alternate. (And usually, I can bug out before reaching that figure because the truly excellent ATC that LHR enjoys keeps us all in the loop with EATs and trends.) . .. .If the weather and EAT are such that they will allow me to nominate the second runway as my alternate, I'm quite content to hang in the hold until I reach a fuel remaining figure that will allow me to LAND with my 30 minutes final reserve untouched - and I'll give the time I expect to reach that figure to ATC well ahead of that time.. .. .And if for some reason ATC are unable to allow me to start the approach when I get to that magic figure, it's time to declare an emergency, because there's no other way to describe the situation you're in. However, I'll be having a minor bleat 5 or so minutes beforehand to make sure the controller's completely aware of my situation so hopefully it never gets to that.. .. .As for the respondent who says his company allows the second runway to be nominated down to Cat II conditions, all I can say is that the pilots in that airline quite obviously have hairier chests than I've got - or ever hope to have!!! My company requires 1000' ceiling, 5000M visibility and less than 80% of max crosswind to nominate a second runway and I sincerely hope it stays at those limits. I don’t know how anyone can say that he believes a landing is 'assured' in Cat II conditions, especially if that landing is your last chance before all the noise stops.. .. .(Edited by spelling police.). . . . <small>[ 13 March 2002, 12:50: Message edited by: Wiley ]</small>

[NigelOnDraft]

Hi Wiley.... .. .&lt;&lt;As for the respondent who says his company allows the second runway to be nominated down to Cat II conditions, all I can say is that the pilots in that airline quite obviously have hairier chests than I've got - or ever hope to have!!! &gt;&gt; Was me... but I have yet to meet a Capt who would go along with it. Most are happy to CAT 1 limits, me - I would say weather good enough to find the airfield without external assistance - somewhere between 500' & 1000' with good vis underneath.. .. .I think you hit the nail on the head above. Safety is not the fuel you depart with. It's what you do (the 'gates') as it runs out. The number of people who load fuel up before departure and state "safety" as the cause. Disagree. Its the same individuals who then seem not to know what to do as it runs short... If the company want you to take CFP fuel, then fine, but set realistic gates for diverting / emergency calls / "committing". Then if CFP is not enough, they will get hassle from CAA / ATC / Pax / Beancounters over the number of calls / diversions. .. .NoD

[tired]

Wiley & Nigel - spot on, well said!

[Whiskery]

NoD -. .. . </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> Safety is not the fuel you depart with. It's what you do (the 'gates') as it runs out. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">On the strength of that statement, I would like to invite you as the guest speaker at our next CRM refresher course. . .. .Precisely !

[DownIn3Green]

I think