PDA

View Full Version : Weather holding fuel


schlong hauler
1st Dec 2010, 21:33
After yesterday's east coast effort it has become apparent that some ATC do not understand SAM weather criteria and its application to forecast weather above the SAM but requiring weather hold. The assumption I gleaned was that if the weather said TEMPO we would have it regardless if it was above SAM. Often if the forecast is close to SAM we would carry it even though it is not required however ATC believe it would be carried. Any ATC people care to enlighten us? Such a fundamental error is hard to fathom.

Roger Sir
1st Dec 2010, 22:14
After yesterday's east coast effort it has become apparent that some ATC do not understand SAM weather criteria and its application to forecast weather above the SAM but requiring weather hold.


Enlighten me. What went wrong yesterday?

Then maybe i`ll be able to have something positive to add to this thread.

schlong hauler
1st Dec 2010, 22:42
Extensive delays based on the fact that ATC assume we have the fuel when there is no requirement to do so. Tempo weather does not mean we will have 60 minutes fuel to burn on traffic delays if the forecast is above SAM. RPT fuel policies use SAM where available. ATC yesterday assumed we use alternate weather minima. There is a big difference in minimum weather criteria. The discussion is based around the applicable alternate weather criteria and how ATC use it for their own traffic purposes. A Tempo visibility of say 3000m and base of 800' for Syd or Bne does not require 60 minutes hold fuel since the weather is above SAM but ATC think we must have it! The SAM for the above is 750'/2500m close I know but not equal or below and therefore 60 mins fuel not required. I can't make it any more specific.

KRUSTY 34
1st Dec 2010, 23:14
Prior to taxi at an outport but after engine(s) start yesterday morning, ATC inform us that Sy now requires 60 minutes holding! (Traffic) No CTMS issued, and Tempo WX on the TTF at Sy above the Alt minima!

Fortunately I earlier put on extra fuel, and after a quick calc we were able to depart without a significant delay due to the refueller being called out. Had to hold for 40 minutes though.

What about those those already airbourne? Just about everything east of Dubbo required at least 60 minutes WX holding. Can't help but think the works on 34R (LOC/DME only) would have made the situation worse.

Heard one Domestic Jet diverting to CB after not having enough fuel to hold for their landing time in SY. Only problem was, Canberra now required an alternate!!! Didn't hear a peep from ATC on that one. WX in Sy gets a bit crappy, and the whole place seems to fall apart! :rolleyes:

Skynews
1st Dec 2010, 23:27
Wouldn't this be a traffic holding issue rather than SAM.

The BOM forecast weather, regs set out the fuel requirements. If weather is worse than forecast that's a BOM crew up, or was there a specific reference to nt carrying holding fuel with a temp on the TAF/TTF?
If aircraft can take off and and, however are delayed due traffic, the persons responsible for increasing traffic holding are responsible.

I have often contemplated the situation Krusty mentioned, approaching destination and surprise holding increases! I don't have it, pan pan and paperwork I guesss.

Vampire 91
1st Dec 2010, 23:28
schlong hauler

Fair comment. It's some years since I worked in a major ATC unit so I'm out of touch with the current understanding of ATCs for assessing holding fuel. However, I recall that the problem you mentioned - the lack of understanding by ATCs about the SAM operations, has been around for many years and I suggest that the reason for this is because no one ever properly explained the company fuel policy to the ATCs. Some of us were aware of it but only because of discussions with Airline Company Ops and it became a local knowledge issue and not a national one. Additionally, at the time I understood that different operators had different requirements.

I would suggest that you pursue this one through formal channels with Airservices. They have a National Operations Centre which handles such matters.

Good luck

schlong hauler
1st Dec 2010, 23:36
Thanks for your replies. This is interesting because what we as pilots think of as weather holding fuel ATC believe is theirs for traffic flow delays. Alternate requirements and Special Alternate Minimums are different based on the equipment onboard. Atc do not make the distinction.

Roger Greendeck
1st Dec 2010, 23:37
I know it would take a bit of extra reading but as we are required to put endurance on the flight plan surely it appears on the flight strip for ATC. I know when I used to control aircraft (tactical, not ATC) I was always acutely aware of the endurance of each aircraft.

Skynews
1st Dec 2010, 23:42
I know it would take a bit of extra reading but as we are required to put endurance on the flight plan surely it appears on the flight strip for ATC. I know when I used to control aircraft (tactical, not ATC) I was always acutely aware of the endurance of each aircraft.



We are not required to put endurance on flight plans. Not since operational controlled reverted to the PIC were it rightly belongs and that was years ago, 25 -30 yes ago?

Vampire 91
2nd Dec 2010, 00:01
Schlong Hauler

Re your comment - This is interesting because what we as pilots think of as weather holding fuel ATC believe is theirs for traffic flow delays. I don't believe this is correct. As far as I'm aware ATC still consider weather induced delays and traffic induced delays separately. The problem is how do you separate traffic delays resulting from more aircraft in the system than can be processed, from delays caused by weather, when one directly impacts on the other and the outcome will be a combination of result from the two. At least you no longer have the situation where ATC added up the likely maximum delay resulting from traffic and added the delay for Tempo or Inter to give a total maximum delay and issued a traffic holding advisory on that basis.

Lookleft
2nd Dec 2010, 00:30
The last notam I got said 40 minutes holding for traffic into Sydney. At 12:10 we were given a landing time of 13:29 local!This was on top of the 15 minute delay we copped on the ground in OOL. Then we were sequenced for the LLZ approach onto 34R where ATC stated 50% of the aircraft were getting in. We got in but the aircraft behind did not. Because we are operating to third worlds best practice if there is room for the extra fuel it gets carried. If its INTER I carry TEMPO if its TEMPO I carry ALT regardless of whether its above the SLAM but below the alternate. ATC, airline ops and the BoM are all operating in their own silos so my mitigator of that threat is to have more than enough liquid greenhouse gas to make up for the holes in the cheese.

Roger Greendeck
2nd Dec 2010, 00:39
I stand corrected. It is not a requirement for submission of a flight plan although in our operations we always do. To the original point of ATC assuming how much fuel you have, if you have had the opportunity to tell them and didn't why be surprised if they don't know?

Lookleft
2nd Dec 2010, 01:08
So when do you tell them? On ACD "we have TEMPO and xxmin TFC". On first contact with Centre? The point is the legal fuel is based on the WX forecast and NOTAM regarding traffic. A subset of the WX is the SLAM which apparently ATC are not taking into account.

Jabawocky
2nd Dec 2010, 03:53
What about those those already airbourne? Just about everything east of Dubbo required at least 60 minutes WX holding. Can't help but think the works on 34R (LOC/DME only) would have made the situation worse.

Good point Krusty.....

I know of one wise old hand who was in that situation and by careful management of resources and clever negotiating he made it work :E.

All I can say is these are the days you really work for it and well done! :D

schlong hauler
2nd Dec 2010, 04:09
Great attitude. Slam and traffic hold has everything to do with it. ATC don't know and obviously don't care nor understand fuel policy. There was no traffic hold required after 0900 last night into BNE so why the delay or update of requirements. How is a pilot meant to second quess what atc are going to do when you are already airborne without prior knowledge with a finite amount of fuel. If you (ATC) anticipate there will be further TRAFFIC delays then promulgate a Notam to that effect don't use some local knowledge should know better crap. World's best practise not from our point of view. We all expect a few small delays speed reductions and vectoring but being told to hold for 15-20 minutes when there is no expectation and no advisory in place is poor management and especially when the weather is 3000m in rain. To hold out an olive branch we pilots and ATC need to see it from both sides and to look beyond our own backyards. End of rants. The PIC is ultimately responsible and for too long we have become compliant and without question.

missy
2nd Dec 2010, 05:02
My guess is that the 20 missed approaches on RWY 34R didn't help all that much.

billyt
2nd Dec 2010, 05:25
What do SLAM and GIGO stand for please.

drop bear ten
2nd Dec 2010, 05:46
Schlong hauler,

Aviation is a wonderful a mixture of Science and Art.

The Science teaches you to interpret the legal fuel requirments on a given day.

The Art is that farmyard commonsense that one develops with time to recognise when a bit more fuel might be prudent.

max1
2nd Dec 2010, 06:17
1.Airservices now have the National Operations Centre (NOC). They have a wealth of experience and should be able to explain all of this stuff.

Give them a ring and please post some of their answers here. Their 'wealth of experience' will shine through.:ooh:

As far as ATC (Air Traffic Controllers) go, the guy/girl on the end of the headset has bugger all to do with your problem. In regards to yesterday, we had planes holding up to FL390 with in excess of 40 minute delays at 4 different holding points, when we were advised to issue a Hazard alert for SY for holding up to 60 minutes. I think that horse had bolted by that time. We just get on with it.

Hopefully the US Metron system to absorb the delays on the ground will fix this problem.

As an ATC I share your frustration, we get no joy from more and more aircraft entering the holding patterns to burn more and more fuel. Appreciate that the operational ATC talking to you has bugger all input to these decisions. When we had Operational control, way back when, we would advise pilots that they needed more fuel, now it is basically left up to the companies and the PIC.

OpsNormal
2nd Dec 2010, 07:16
Hopefully the US Metron system to absorb the delays on the ground will fix this problem

That being the case, then what is the status of a published SkyFlow delay (read: ground holding) reports we digest and apply to our operations each day? Are they advisory only - we do seem to have to hold enroute even when we do wait out the published delay on the ground at the departure aerodrome, and yet (not that I would ever admit to being guilty of this here....:oh: ) when the SkyFlow delay is "trimmed" a little on the ground by the operating aircrew we don't seem to get the delays (WRT arriving at SY)...?

To the person who wondered what GIGO is/was = Garbage In, Garbage Out (meaning the system relies upon accurate information to give an accurate answer).

This is a very insightful thread, please keep it up!

Regards,

OpsN.;)

max1
2nd Dec 2010, 10:16
That being the case, then what is the status of a published SkyFlow delay (read: ground holding) reports we digest and apply to our operations each day? Are they advisory only - we do seem to have to hold enroute even when we do wait out the published delay on the ground at the departure aerodrome, and yet (not that I would ever admit to being guilty of this here.... ) when the SkyFlow delay is "trimmed" a little on the ground by the operating aircrew we don't seem to get the delays (WRT arriving at SY)...?

I may be ignorant (probably), but never heard of it.


I had extensive holding delays (40+minutes) about three weeks ago, and watched the Virgin jet get out of Port Macquarie for Sy (flight time 37 minutes) for me to hold. Go figure. Yesterday held a slot for the Pelican flight out of Williamtown and he departed fifteen minutes late.
The operational ATC will attempt to help you out but as we see with ALOFT and RTAs if everybody is not 'playing the game' this will effect the sequence.

missy
2nd Dec 2010, 12:23
CDM training is about to be conducted with the companies. With respect to GIGO, CDM is reliant on up-to-date information being shared by all parties. Not going to help much if the data is flawed, and I would guess during periods of delays through the network, disruptions, aircraft going unserviceable, then the chances of the data being remotely correct I would guess would be pretty low (inverse relationship).

How often do the companies send a delay? Very low percentage I would have thought.

Wednesday must have been a record number of missed approaches for Sydney, including some aircraft going around twice due weather.

And what's more, the RWY 34R LOC won't be fully replaced until this time next year. New AIP SUP to be issued.

le Pingouin
2nd Dec 2010, 12:50
schlong hauler, unless it's in the standard docs (AIP, MATS, & such) how are we to know anything about SAM? Particularly if it's type/airline specific. Inter means carrying 30 holding & Tempo 60 according to AIP. You'll need to enlighten me where SAM comes from and why I should need to know as a controller.

All that stuff belongs to the long deceased ops & is handled by your company now as far as I'm concerned. As a controller I can only pass on what I'm told about.

Complain to your company & get them to complain to AsA because there's nothing a controller sitting in front of a radar can do about it. Asking me over the air is pretty pointless.

sunnySA
2nd Dec 2010, 20:07
For SAM, then try this document, section 4 refers to Airport Weather Briefings.

Airport Weather Briefings (AWB) are provided for some capital city aerodromes and are used by both operators and Air Traffic Services. They are an extension to the TAF
service aimed at expanding on the information provided in the TAF.
The Other Possibilities section should include comments on other possibilities that may occur during the validity of the TAF. It can include conditions that have a less than 30% chance of occurring, or if there is an uncertainty as to the timing of an event. Particular attention should be paid to SAM (special alternate minima) conditions, noting that decisive phrases such as “conditions could drop to below SAM” are more useful to the aviation industry than “conditions could drop to SAM”.http://reg.bom.gov.au/general/reg/ash/ASH.pdf (http://http//reg.bom.gov.au/general/reg/ash/ASH.pdf)

There is additional informaton available on the registered users section of BoM site eg a Graphical airport Briefing Display. If operators, individual pilots and the APP units aren't using this information then access arrangements need to be promulgated.

schlong hauler
2nd Dec 2010, 21:58
For your information inter and tempo weather does not necessarily mean 30 or 60 minutes hold. Only if the weather for that period is at or below the alternate minima or in most RPT cases at or below the special alternate minima. I don't expect for a guy in front of a radar to have to worry about this however assumptions about an aircraft's fuel status based on GA type weather analysis is plain wrong.
Special Alternate Minima section can be found in the AIP ENR 1.5 page 31 paragraph 6.2 The aircraft navigation equipment is shown in the ATS data block of the flight plan. Every jet and probably 90% of all turboprops are capable of this basic equipment level. If holding is not promulgated for an airport I can't hold. What if we all did this just using the information supplied and flight plan fuel ordering accordingly. The ASIRs due low fuel status would make a mockery of Mum and the Kids fuel policy. A 20 minute delay in a holding pattern in level flight at 20,000' is 700-800kgs extra in a 737. I am not having a go at any individual but at a system problem. A Lack of understanding and information about such a fundamental subject like fuel and holding expectation for traffic management when we are inundated with notams about cranes miles from a runway is indicative of a department pointing in the wrong direction. GIGO.

biton
2nd Dec 2010, 22:21
schlong hauler, unless it's in the standard docs (AIP, MATS, & such) how are we to know anything about SAM?

Because it's printed on the Aerodrome chart, for all to see. Am I missing something? Jepps, terminal section page AU-26 reads:

"special alt min are available for specific approaches at some aerodromes for use by aircraft with dual ILS/VOR approach capability, ie. with duplicated LOC, G/P, marker and VOR recievers blah blah blah".

It says nothing about specific company requirements. So the back of the aerodrome chart for Syd says SLAM is 700' - 2.5km for all categories of aircraft. Therefore if the TTF for syd says Tempo BKN at 1000' and 3000m vis then technically old mate in his kingair (let alone 737/747) with dual ILS equipment is not required to carry the tempo holding fuel.

Do you mean to tell me ATC don't know about this? Or have I missed the point and you guys are talking about something more specific?

Skynews
2nd Dec 2010, 22:48
Im afraid (as a pilot) I can't see the relationship between SAM and ATC.

My understanding is they should not be holding us for traffic reasons using our weather holding fuel. i.e. if there is traffic for what ever reason, missed approaches, single runway ops whatever, that fuel should be NOTAMed, or promulgated in the AIP, as traffic holding.

If we are required to hold for weather, or carry out a missed approach due not meeting the required vis etc, that is primarily OUR decision not theirs, and we carry fuel based on weather forecasts.

By rights, and i am not suggesting this is sensible, we can plan to arrive at our destination with Fixed reserve, and variable reserve. (assuming no weather holding) with weather down to SAM.
Lets say we use our variable reserve en route, then we will land with fixed only.
If ATC decide for whatever reason they need to hold us, and that results in us arriving with less than fixed reserve, we make a PAN call and will be afforded priority, as I said I am not suggesting thats a good idea at all, simply my way of highlighting how I believe the requirements fit together.

If we are approaching and have say fuel for a required TEMPO, (lets say TS) and they are in the area ad there is a significant risk they will have an affect on our approach, all we have onboard is fixed reserve and tempo fuel and ATC start holding us, then we need to use airmanship and make a decision. That maybe making a PAN call, that maybe deciding that the TS will move on enabling us to land within the Tempo period and all is well, it may mean a diversion if possible.(This is the type of situation where I personally like to see an old head up front not a low time Captain with a cadet.)

I am not going to be happy having my 60 mins weather fuel eroded in a holding pattern at 60 nm in a holding pattern at FL200 with an ATIS indicating weather near the SAM.

Is that how you guys see it?

Having said all the above if I were flying into Sydney and there were no weather requirements, nut the weather was below the normal alternate minima, I would carry at least 60 mins + whatever traffic holding fuel, and thats the very minimum. More fuel would be considered based on weather at nearby possible alternates, Canberra, Williamtown etc etc.


TEMPO and INTER having little to do with holding fuel. They are simply a time frame for a change in weather. Too many people see Tempo and automatically think 60 mins holding, which is of course rubbish.

schlong hauler
2nd Dec 2010, 22:59
biton and skynews got it in a nut shell. I wonder what assumptions were made in SYD about my fuel status after my G/A off 34R LOC after holding for 60 minutes for TRAFFIC . I bet they were wrong.

Skynews
2nd Dec 2010, 23:00
I wonder what assumptions were made in SYD about my fuel status after my G/A off 34R LOC after holding for 60 minutes for TRAFFIC . I bet they were wrong.

If it were marginal I wouldn't be concerned about their assumptions, I would be telling them the facts.

At the end of the day ATC don't know whats in our tanks, only we do, so if for some reason its getting doubtful, tell them and they will have to work things out.

Offchocks
2nd Dec 2010, 23:15
biton

Unless I am mistaken, from what I have read here, there may be a few ATC controllers who do not understand SAM and probably don't need to.
Having said that, increasing of holding time by ATC is understandable when they see the weather changing for the worst and a probability of traffic banking up, they will know what the system will handle.
I have to say that in my 12 years of domestic ops, I never diverted or had a PAN due lack of holding fuel.

maggotdriver
3rd Dec 2010, 00:19
"Hold short runway ??" Oh sorry about that I didn't realize it was in the AIP.

We are professionals aren't we?

This has nothing to do with the PIC's command prerogative. Most companies in Australia when testing Australians (or peolple from other places:p) for command are pretty thorough in vetting their candidates and provided they have commensurate experience levels nearly all take extra fuel when commonsense dictates.

However; importantly, we make these decisions based on what the 'baseline' fuel requirements are and what we need to add. If the premise of the baseline is wrong because of systemic issues we have a problem. Not regarding common sense the fuel required at Sydney initially was 35 mins ADVISORY holding and FFR (fixed fuel reserve 30 mins) plus an approach (CARs and CAAPs). The instant that ATC can see holding requirements change due traffic they should immediately issue a hazard alert / sigmet / notam etc..

The problem I see here from what I've read is that many of the controllers think we would have TEMPO fuel. We didn't yesterday as it was below alternate criteria but not below SAM. (Note. It is now SAM not SLAM). Why didn't we have TEMPO FUEL? We were at MTOW coming from somewhere over 9 hours away and were issued with an international code grey. There was no requirement to have a TEMPO as it wasn't below the SAM however we took as much fuel as we could get on to the aircraft i.e. fueled to MTOW. If however, it was below the SAM we would have been required to carry the TEMPO i.e. offload freight.

The weather wasn't significant enough to be below the SAM however the traffic requirements would be and an amended traffic requirement should have been issued. Just because it says TEMPO does NOT mean we have it nor are we required to have it. If you know however that you are going to have significant traffic delays (I don't have one of your fancy computers in the cockpit) then duty of care would require you to amend the traffic holding.

I notice some here (chest beaters) will say take more fuel but hopefully I've pointed out that it isn't always that simple. Question to ATC bosses: If all aircraft carried only the minimum legal requirements and you didn't amend the traffic requirements, how do you land 25 aircraft at once declaring a PAN PAN?:ooh:

#1AHRS
3rd Dec 2010, 00:58
Jeez, flew in Aussie for a couple of years, had a great time but I did find myself saying on many times to upgrade trainee's after they had given the standard spiel, "Its Pilot in Command not ATC in command". Being blinded by the rules is a real aussie problem.

billyt
3rd Dec 2010, 03:19
Can someone please tell me what SAM is? TAFs, Metars, ATC holding I understand. We use them worldwide but SAM????

Capn Bloggs
3rd Dec 2010, 03:26
Can someone please tell me what SAM is? TAFs, Metars, ATC holding I understand. We use them worldwide but SAM????

Special Alternate Minima section can be found in the [Australian] AIP ENR 1.5 page 31 paragraph 6.2 from post above.

Offchocks
3rd Dec 2010, 05:18
billyt

SAM is used by Australian operators and is a special alternate minima expressed as cloud base and visibility, not all airports have the same SAM as it depends on what nav aids are available. If the forcast cloud base and visibility is above that of SAM, you don't need an alternate.

tyler_durden_80
3rd Dec 2010, 07:03
Anything to do with amount of fuel on board = P.I.C problem.
Facilitating any number of a/c to get safely on the deck asap = atc problem.

billyt
3rd Dec 2010, 09:16
Thank you Capn Bloggs and offchocks.

maggotdriver
3rd Dec 2010, 11:00
Anything to do with amount of fuel on board = P.I.C problem.
Facilitating any number of a/c to get safely on the deck asap = atc problem.

Tyler Durden, are you aware that discretionary fuel ordering is common with Australian operators as legislated for the PIC, I believe though that foreign operators don't all have the same rules. Hopefully, in this day and age we all see it as our problem.

Hempy
3rd Dec 2010, 11:27
Avianca Flight 52 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52)

Yeah, if I was running short I would probably pipe up...

divingduck
3rd Dec 2010, 16:50
I'm with Tyler on this...
I'd like a dollar/rial/dirham/euro for every time I have heard pilots complain about lack of fuel and an inability to hold etc...declare an emergency or tell me what your latest divert time to your alternate is...don't tell me that it is unacceptable, that you are "getting low on fuel" or otherwise whine and moan on the frequency.

schlong hauler
3rd Dec 2010, 21:17
Interesting that there is ammended traffic holding now promulgated into BNE. I have rung ATC several times over this and it takes a public forum to get some action. For the record 16000 hours, 10000 plus domestic 737 ops plus another couple of thousand on the 747 . I believe I know a thing or two about the operation of an aircraft. Wait and see the memos coming your way from CANBERRA.

Dick N. Cider
3rd Dec 2010, 22:22
Schlong,

Hasn't the Brisbane traffic holding been done to death in another thread? The argument is simply whether we (collectively) accept the risks associated with CROPS or say "No" and put up with single runway ops. Given that we're in for a crappy wx summer (by all accounts) it's going to be ugly.

We need either more concrete or more terminal nav gizmos.

Nobody likes traffic holding.

DNC

cattledog
3rd Dec 2010, 22:22
I think I can safely say that a line ATC doesn't have the first damn clue or care about SAM, SLAM or whatever acronym you use next.
Things change, WX changes, RWY's break etc etc.
Either you hold, divert, or declare an emergency and take priority. Your fuel carriage is a matter for you and your company. Interest level - YAWN.

Oh and I look forward to the mountain of paperwork from the Canberra NOC, now that is FUNNY.
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

tonto papadopolous
5th Dec 2010, 11:33
My basic understanding is:
If the actual conditions are above the minima, but below the lower safe, instrument approaches will be in use.

This use of instrument approaches will reduce the rate of arrivals due to slower speeds down final, plus the preclusion of visual separation.

This reduced rate of arrivals may cause delays (demand v supply) even though the conditions are relatively benign, at that instant.

If the original forecast conditions (TEMPO or INTER) gave cause to carry holding fuel in excess of the current delay, a holding fuel NOTAM will not be issued. (even though the cause of the delay at that very instant is not the TEMPO or INTER)

Clear as mud?
In other words, dont expect a NOTAM for holding fuel if the forecast conditions gave rise to the possibility of holding in the first place. (ie: below the absolute lowest minima) The grey area comes when differing aircraft can make the approach in marginal conditions, or when it comes to clearing the log-jam when the weather improves (as I think somebody mentioned on page 2)

Cheers,

Kelly Slater
5th Dec 2010, 23:11
As an example, if Melbourne TTF had TEMPO vis 3000 meters in rain, the vast majority of RPT aircraft would not require 60 minutes holding fuel. The question is, does ATC see it this way or do they see the TEMPO and assume 60 minutes fuel is carried? Having said that, when a pilot sees conditions such as these, it should be glaringly obvious that if the weather is in fact down to 3000 meters, things will be going slowly and delays will be inevitable. Sometimes he will have to decide between payload and extra fuel, even though the fuel is not legally required. Ultimate responsibility rests with the Pilot in command. Thats why he gets or at least used to get the big bucks.

goddamit
6th Dec 2010, 02:28
Pretty simple really.

PIC makes the decision re fuel & wears it. No excuses. As a PIC you read between the lines. Have plan AB&C ready to go. If you're unsure about your fuel load prior to departure, you prob haven't got enough. ATC will process as many a/c as they can.

Years ago I remember when wx was on the deck at SYD, wind was a light ese. They were using 34L & R WTF! for ages most were missing out. We were wondering why no one said 'require 16R'. Finally someone did & they got in.(16R has lower minimas & app lighting.)

As for ATC knowing about you fuel use & what you carry..why would they need to know that? They will process you ASAP. If that isn't good enough you push them with 'requires' then a PAN & or divert requirement. Basic pilot sh!t I thought.

Difference between knowledge & wisdom I guess.

grrowler
6th Dec 2010, 03:17
I've operated into SY and BN thousands of times and to suggest that any pilot who operates regularly into these (or any other for that matter) ports doesn't know their responsibility for fuel and have backup plans in place, has very little knowledge or respect for professional pilots.

While I have never held for longer than indicated by the WX/ notam, I think the point trying to be made is that if ATC can't process aircraft within the time indicated on the traffic holding notam, issue an updated one. Also pretty simple really...

maggotdriver
6th Dec 2010, 08:18
grrowler

Thanks for that. Somebody got it!:D

max1
6th Dec 2010, 09:03
Fair enough ggrowler and maggot driver,

But in the environment that we ALL now work in it is no use people on here directing their vitriol at the operational ATC working your aircraft. Declare a PAN and get priority if required.
I don't get stuck into the pilot when my bag goes missing or the service is cancelled, that is not the pilots area of responsibility. As putting out the Notams is not the OPERATIONAL ATCs area of responsibilty.
Have a go at ASA managerment by all means, direct your frustrations at the NOC (good luck), but the guy/girl on the end of the headset is not there to bugger up your day.

Angle of Attack
6th Dec 2010, 10:22
max1
But in the environment that we ALL now work in it is no use people on here directing their vitriol at the operational ATC working your aircraft. Declare a PAN and get priority if required.

I would beg to differ they did not direct vitriol to any ATC'ers just to Pilots who dont carry enough fuel! Sydney is an automatic INTER in CAVOK if weather is crap well make it a double TEMPO that has put me in good steed over the years!:ok:

A380-800 Driver
Ek provides fuel for an alternate regardless of wx.

All well and good but until you are doing 5 sectors a day with 30 min turnarounds this is beyond you mate!

EK_Bus Driver
6th Dec 2010, 13:29
A380 Driver: Not trying to stir the Pot, but you are missing the point Dude. RPT domestic Ops in OZ don't require an Alternate, unless it's below Alternate Minima or SAM's. EK Ops DO. Regardless of the weather. Not coz we are special, only because of the OM-A Fuel policy. We use Approach Minima to the Runway most likely to be used at the Flight Planning Stage, then fuel for 2 Alternates, not SAM's. Chalk & Cheese Mate. And we don't carry anything for Thunderstorms, can't quite figure that one out after 9 years! :ooh:

For the record we usually carry Cooly' For BNE, YMAV for MEL and YSCB for SYD. Which is about as bloody useful as tits on a bull! :ugh:

Tankengine
6th Dec 2010, 23:56
A380 driver: Do you have just a bare alternate or alt + ATC holding?
A bare alternate is of little use if they put you in a hold for 15 mins without any fanfare. If TS come in then fuel to hold for a while will get you to your destination while Altn fuel will get you there!:ouch:

le Pingouin
7th Dec 2010, 14:26
Question for the fuel watchers amongst us: Over the last few days around ML there have been significant deviations around weather - some probably added 20 minutes or more flight time.

I can't imagine this could be specifically planned for so why aren't we hearing a great wailing & gnashing of teeth?:E

Surely you don't carry some for "Mum"........? :eek:

I don't disagree with the need to publish amended traffic holding NOTAMs, but are you expecting this to always be well ahead of time? The problem is life ain't so predictable. The NOTAMs are published based on expected conditions & if reality decides to be different they're wrong.

Skynews
7th Dec 2010, 20:08
Question for the fuel watchers amongst us: Over the last few days around ML there have been significant deviations around weather - some probably added 20 minutes or more flight time.

20 mins flight time? In a jet that's approximately another 150 track miles, not 150 off track 150 track miles extra!

In any case, that's variable reserve.

Bula
7th Dec 2010, 21:24
My Question.. with the ILS 34R being out of service, was there any amendment to the SLAM criteria due to an extended outage of a VHF approach aid?

grrowler
8th Dec 2010, 00:08
I can't imagine this could be specifically planned for
Generally a look at the SIGWX, area forecast and radars will indicate if some ducking and weaving may be required, as well as potentially lower cruise levels, and extra fuel is carried for that.

As has been indicated, aircraft will generally carry fuel to get from A to B (plus a % variable), hold for the period INDICATED on wx/ notam, do an approach, miss out, then bug out to an alternate(again with variable), do another approach and land with Fixed Reserve. The alternate fuel may not/ probably won't be carried if the destination has multiple useable runways.

Ivasrus
8th Dec 2010, 00:48
Bula, good question. I'd like to know the answer. At the time, the 34R LOC was servicable, so the LOC-Y approach is suitable (SAM doesn't apply to LOC approach). In that case, there was only one runway with ILS and SAM. So some aircraft required 34L, especially after a 34R go round, which blew out the delays. At one point I think a hazard alert was issued for holding in excess of the published traffic holding NOTAM. It will only get more complicated when the 34R LOC gets taken out; RNAV could work but not all aircraft equipped. The weather was extraordinary for 34 runways but when it's 16 and the 16L ILS is being replaced we'll see a repeat of these shenanigans undoubtedly.

le Pingouin
8th Dec 2010, 11:07
20 mins flight time? In a jet that's approximately another 150 track miles, not 150 off track 150 track miles extra!They did get to AD via BLT, assorted headings to 80 S of ML, Cape Ottway, off the coast, MTG & I lost interest after that.

In any case, that's variable reserve.Unexpectedly large deviations. Unexpectedly large traffic delays. What's the difference?

le Pingouin
8th Dec 2010, 11:16
Generally a look at the SIGWX, area forecast and radars will indicate if some ducking and weaving may be required, as well as potentially lower cruise levels, and extra fuel is carried for that.So..... Why don't the likes of schlong hauler look at the forecast, consider the time of day & think "hmmm, might be some extra delays due traffic" & load a bit more on?

Skynews
8th Dec 2010, 12:04
So..... Why don't the likes of schlong hauler look at the forecast, consider the time of day & think "hmmm, might be some extra delays due traffic" & load a bit more on?

He may well do, but he may also have payload, MTOW due aircraft limits. runway limits, climb limits, and so on. If there is weather on a forecast there is no question we would allow for it. We would also add some for anti icing, possible lower levels due CAT ++++ If there is no traffic holding well, maybe maybe not, a judgement call, do we offload MORE pax freight when there is no traffic holding?

In general the system must be working OK, how many aircraft are running out of fuel or declaring fuel emergencies?

Adamastor
9th Dec 2010, 04:33
So it's taken us four pages to get to the point where we understand that:

1) Schlonghauler flew to an aerodrome without having alternate fuel, despite knowing full well that the GP was unserviceable on his probable arrival runway thus annulling it as a SAM approach, and that the actual weather was well below SAM anyway (see below).

2) Despite not having the alternate fuel, held for 60 mins without a murmur, then accepted an approach to the aforementioned runway, failing to require a more suitable one.

3) Went around.

4) This is all ATC's fault because they don't understand his operation.

Add in the fact that the ATIS and TTFs were showing cloud SCT003 from 0804L that morning and all I can say is, awwwsurrrrrrre!!!

EK_Bus Driver
9th Dec 2010, 05:06
Adamastor, very well said :D

Finally some common sense. I think it's called "Airmanship" and "Command decision making". If the weather's [email protected] and the approach is marginal for GP inop or for whatever reason and you're not happy with minimum Fuel. TAKE More! Enough for holding AND another Airport if you can, especially when you can justify it. And if other Guys are not getting in from a LLZ approach, if there's another more suitable runway with an ILS, use the word "Require".

I always use the Company's weather/Notam package as my way of justifying additional Fuel, not just for the crossword or Soduko :}

maggotdriver
9th Dec 2010, 10:48
Adamastor

A) Wrong. No need to. Read AIP. You want me, or him, to carry an alternate for SCT at 300'? Refer again AIP.

B) No need to, fortunately he obviously had enough fuel. Despite the traffic as far as I'm aware nobody declared a PAN that morning.

C) Big deal. Half the airplanes did off that runway.

D) Some (notice I said some) in ATC would be better off reading an AIP than writing on PPrune.

From AIC H19/10
1.3 ATC will adjust traffic management to accommodate the absence of the RWY 34R ILS (or components thereof) during periods when instrument approaches are required.

(However, we accept no responsibility in reference to the amount, when it will be notified and to whom it will be notified. Good luck, thankfully those pilots are professionals and often carry extra fuel!:ok:)

Chapi
9th Dec 2010, 11:04
My recollection is that ops control by ATC disappeared about 20 years ago.

So all this stuff about how much fuel to carry for weather, traffic, diversions has been company/pilot stuff for a long time.

When the pilots get it wrong and declares an emergency - that's when it becomes a problem for ATC (and the pilot).

Adamastor
9th Dec 2010, 12:51
Truly frightening stuff.

Sorry, md. My subtlety was clearly missed on you, though not the bus driver.

I'm fully aware of the AIP provisions. I also never said that they HAD to carry it. I said they DIDN'T carry it despite SCT003 and no glidepath. If you'd like to keep flying to YSSY on a day like that and sprout the books to us, then by all means do, but do us a favour and FFS make it solo ops. :yuk:

P.S. In accordance with the AIC, traffic management was heavily regulated that entire day, and notified to airline ops departments with more than 12 hours notice, but let's not open the CTMS can of worms - I wouldn't be able to show you the precious manual!!! :E

maggotdriver
9th Dec 2010, 22:47
You're right. I'll tell my bosses that I'm offloading 5 tonnes of freight and putting on 5 tonnes of fuel every time there's a code grey in Sydney. That's because even though the forecast doesn't and didn't require an alternate nor a Tempo a few guys in ATC reckon I should have one because of possible traffic delays in 12 hours time more than their own department had just promulgated. EK Driver, how many times in the last year have you offloaded freight for fuel at MTOW based on possible traffic (not weather) holding? Thought so.

Nobody diverted so we all had adequate fuel including schlonghauler. The point is ATC aren't even aware of the fuel requirements of the AIP in some cases yet they think it's OK to absorb our discretionary holding fuel for their traffic delays. We understand things are dynamic and it changes, we do however want to be kept up to date. Small request. Rant over!:ugh:

schlong hauler
10th Dec 2010, 00:36
KIDS

The original reason for the post was to give pilots a heads up about holding fuel requirements and ATC. If the two groups don't understand each other's specific considerations then it raises the need for further discussions. Why all the vitriol? A key component is to stay objective and safe. MET were caught out here which happens from time to time. Fuel planning 101 how long is a piece of string? Sounds like ATC consider theirs longer!!!

grrowler
10th Dec 2010, 01:24
Deciding we may want extra fuel for approaches or diversion due to weather being close to the minima is one thing, using that fuel carving circles in the sky because ATC can't process us in the indicated traffic holding thing is another.

Seeing as we both work in the same environment, surely it can't hurt to have some understanding of the other side of the fence. I know it goes both ways but answers like "why should we care about weather requirements" or "just declare a PAN" are fairly useless...

le Pingouin
10th Dec 2010, 04:57
From a controller perspective fuel is fuel is fuel. You either have enough or you don't. Your engines will burn it without favour no matter what reason it was loaded for & that's what I care about.

Skynews
10th Dec 2010, 09:44
From a controller perspective fuel is fuel is fuel. You either have enough or you don't. Your engines will burn it without favour no matter what reason it was loaded for & that's what I care about.
You cant understand our situation with comments like that. Ex RAAF are you?

If for example we don't have traffic holding fuel, (none required) however we do have fuel for weather holding, an approach or two or even diversion fuel, all of these planned using forecast actuals and experience and we get held 60 miles out due traffic, and the weather is as forecast and we need that fuel, then your attitude may put us up the creek.

Its no different to taxiing with minimum planned fuel and holding on the ground for excessive periods. We now no longer have fuel required and either have to taxi back or re-plan airborne for to a PNR, etc

As many have already said, we usually, if possible, carry more fuel for such circumstances.

Spinnerhead
10th Dec 2010, 11:45
You cant understand our situation with comments like that. Ex RAAF are you?



Wow, this threads long enough as it is without geting started on RAAF controlers!

rotorblades
10th Dec 2010, 12:25
Im at a loss as to really what this threads about now...

If its about the NOTAMs for type/length of holding required then you cant bitch at the controller as we dont dispense or update the NOTAMS, go moan at the poeple who do.

If you cant take the hold then declare a pan to get priority or divert to alternate. Controllers cant double guess how much fuel you have on board or whether its traffic or weather fuel (it doesnt make a huge difference to us, you either have enough of it or you dont), if we are holding that much traffic to such a degree workload is normally high. There is only a limited amount of space on the runway at any one time and most controllers arent involved in the flowing system decisions into SY or BN anyway(thats what Sydney Flow & Brisbane Flow do). We have a window that tells us the delay, time to cross the feeder fix & estimated landing time post delay. We work to that, we cant just throw 30 aircraft at approach knowing they can only take 20 and already have 10 in the sequence.

Controllers dont hold or delay flights for the thrill of it - we dont get up int eh morning going "I'm gonna deliberately hold everyone for 30mins just to have a giggle", theres normally a reason. As said above, we go with what the flow want with regards to how much traffic & when they enter Terminal airspace.

These fuel/holding issues should be worked out between your company & ASA because the controller can do bugger all about it when you're up there.

With ref to an earlier post by max1 about the VB out of Port I offered the aircraft a chance to take delay on the ground as there was general holding & delays over 60mins due to nothing arriving in SY due TS overhead(and had been for about 2hours). And he said no, he'll take his chances.

If I've got the wrong point of the post then feel free to enlighten me.

Roger Sir
10th Dec 2010, 19:09
My 2 cents worth....

Like Rotorblades i`ve kinda lost what this thread is about but one point i`d like to add.

In a radar enviroment doesn`t AIP state that aircraft should be informed when a delay of more than 5 minutes can be expected? I don`t have a copy in front of me but any time an aircraft is delayed by more than 5 minutes we give you a landing time. From this information surely any pilot can quickly assess his fuel state?

Ok, some days when the weather is ordinary the landing times may be a little inaccurate but, as someone stated earlier, we don`t go out of our way to bugger anybody about.

Anybody heard anything from the NOC yet? If you have could we have a gander thanks.....:rolleyes:

le Pingouin
10th Dec 2010, 19:13
You cant understand our situation with comments like that. Ex RAAF are you?Not ex RAAF. I understand changed conditions mean you may have less fuel than you need/want.


If for example we don't have traffic holding fuel, (none required) however we do have fuel for weather holding, an approach or two or even diversion fuel, all of these planned using forecast actuals and experience and we get held 60 miles out due traffic, and the weather is as forecast and we need that fuel, then your attitude may put us up the creek.
As a line controller I have no knowledge of your actual fuel planning on the day & no input to the process that generates traffic holding NOTAMs. My "attitude" can have absolutely no influence on anything to do with your fuel situation. If the flow system tells me you're number 53 to land then I pass on the required delay to you. Again, I have absolutely no ability to influence this.

You either have enough fuel or you tell me you don't & what you want to do. On days when there are big delays I probably wouldn't have time to think about fuel even if I wanted to - too busy keeping you apart.

As has been said before - take it up with your company to take up with AsA as it's a systemic problem. Put in reports. There's no point in us doing it because we don't have the specifics of the events.

Skynews
10th Dec 2010, 23:46
take it up with your company to take up with AsA as it's a systemic problem. Put in reports

I dont have an issue with it at all. Like I said earlier I believe the system works OK as do you guys.
I see the thread has drifted to a discussion on how both sides of the fence see different holding fuel requirements, nothing more nothing less.