Do BA use LHR as their first alternate for planning purposes when flying into LHR?

[Bingaling]

Hi folks. Does anyone know the answer to the above question?

I was suggesting the same to my company however the flight planning system would not allow the flight planners nominate LHR as an alternate for a flight that is planned to LHR.

I was querying whether it would be ok to nominate your destination as your first alternate, particularly taking into account the fact that there are parallel runways with CAT III capability and the likelihood of a diversion anywhere else is very slim unless the airport were to close.

Thanks very much.

Bing

[Grasscarp]

An alternate is another airport. It is not the parallel runway of your destination. The alternate should be sufficiently far away from your destination that if weather, e.g. fog, was a problem at the destination then your alternate may be alright. The fuel to get to the alternate is part of the flight plan calculation and I have never heard of anybody wanting to use their destination as their alternate! What would you do if your destination was closed and you didnt have fuel to go anywhere else. Nightmare.

[Capetonian]

I read the original posting and thought 'this doesn't make a lot of sense' but as I'm not involved at the pointy end of aircraft I didn't want to say anything. I'm glad someone else feels the same about what seems an odd question.

[Grasscarp]

Capetonian. I am rather disturbed to think that people like Bingaling are allowed anywhere near a flight planning role, which is a responsible task, when they obviously do not have a clue about what they are doing.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Bingaling.... just because Heathrow and other airfields have two runways it does not mean that both are available for landing at the same time. What would be the point in declaring the other runway as the alternate in times of bad weather for example?

[Gulfstreamaviator]

In the usual langage we consider an alternate as an alternate airport, but soemtimes the need is for a second runway, which can be close or far... Close can be 50mrs away or 50 miles.....

For weather alternates distance matters, for a pure alternate then the second runway can count.

Glf

[Bingaling]

I appreciate where you are coming from with regards to not being able to nominate your destination as an alternate when the weather is poor and Heathrow Director, you are absolutely correct that there would be no point in nominating LHR as the alternate if the weather was poor as you would definitely require an alternate (ie other airport)

However, I just think you could hugely reduce your fuel costs over the cost of a year if, when, and only when, the weather and conditions are suitable to nominate LHR as the alternate. Gulfstreamaviator seems to think along the same lines as myself.

Grasscarp, if your destination (ie LHR) was to close then a decision on a diversion would have to be made very promptly. You would still have half an hour of fuel remaining; at least. If, at the planning stage LHR was looking a little dodgy then of course you would nominate another (separate) airfield.

I still can't see the major problem with the suggestion. On a day like today I can't see any reason why it couldn't be done. The weather is beautiful and in the absolute worst case scenario you still have 30 mins fuel remaining for an emergency.

If it is not permitted, where is it written down?

[Grasscarp]

So you want to dispatch an aircraft and in the event of a problem that prevents them landing, they should use their reserve fuel and decided on their own alternate and work out a route to it, because the dispatcher didnt want to build it into the flight plan. If they dont need to go to an alternate the fuel is not used, so you are not going to make much of a saving by not giving it to them in the first place (apart from a slight cost of transporting extra fuel). Hey what do I know anyway. I have only been in this game for over 20 years.

[JB007]

If it's public transport, it's written down in the JAR-OPS Fuel Policy in your Ops Manual Part A - possibly Section 8, Ops Procedures:

Read Alternate fuel which shall include...

The general object of the standard JAR Fuel Policy is A sufficient quantity of fuel is carried for the intended flight with a safe margin for contingencies

What your suggesting is the Account's Department's/bonus driven management's dream but I would suggest not legal! Even in a private ops environment, I would be amazed if any pilot would except it! YOUR fuel policy would significantly reduce ANY margins of decision making for a Flight Crew now 'boxed' into a corner - simply not realistic for London TMA Ops. Remember that wonderful weather day, I think Summer 2009, I was inbound to LGW when ATC at LHR had evacuated the Tower due to a fire?!? It was carnage!

In my previous airline, we nominated LHR as the alternate for LGW, this was subject to an agreement from NATS and only used in times of good weather and very few carried PLOG fuel!

The fact you can't see a problem would lead me to believe you are:
*Finance/Management/Owner (*Delete as applicable) Sorry it's harsh, but as a pilot what you're suggesting is tosh!

Cheers
JB

[Eurotraveller]

This is from JAR OPS 1.295:

(c) An operator must select at least one destination alternate for each IFR flight unless:
(1) Both:
(i) The duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing or, in the event of in-flight re-planning in accordance with JAR-OPS 1.255(d), the remaining flying time to destination does not exceed six hours,
and
(ii) Two separate runways [(See JAR-OPS 1.192)] are available and usable at the destination [aerodrome] and the appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate that for the period from one hour before until one hour after the expected time of arrival at [the] destination [aerodrome], the ceiling will be at least 2 000 ft or circling height + 500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility will be at least 5 km.

So if you have a flight under 6 hours, two separate landing surfaces at your destination airfield and the weather is within the limits described above, you do not require a destination alternate (ie you can use your destination as an alternate).

I'm not saying it's good practice but I believe it to be legal. I know of at least one airline which was considering adopting this policy at MAN but decided against it.

[763 jock]

Well, it may not be to your liking, but EU Ops does allow this procedure. There are high weather minima that apply. It's not something I fancy, but this is from our Ops Manual.

At least one destination alternate must be selected for each IFR flight
unless:
(a) Both:
(i) The duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing or,
in the event of in-flight re-planning does not exceed 6 hours
or, in the event of in flight replanning in accordance with
Section 8.1.7, the remaining flying time to destination does
not exceed 2 hours, and
(ii) Two separate runways are available and usable at the
destination aerodrome and the appropriate weather reports
or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any
combination thereof, indicate that for the period from one
hour before until one hour after the expected time of arrival the ceiling will be at least 2000 ft or circling height + 500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility will be at least 5km.

You beat me to it Eurotraveller! I've never done it and would approach it with a great deal of caution, but it can be legal given the above. Perhaps FR would like to start the ball rolling.:E

[Bingaling]

Well, that's what I was asking. So I'm correct in the fact that it is legal.

I am thinking of the scenario where you are flight planned to LHR.

You take....
1) Taxi fuel
2) Planned burn off
3) Contingency
4) Alternate fuel (which for LHR would be approx 600kgs for 737/320)
5) Final Reserve fuel (ie 30 mins)

....and finally, if you are expecting holding based on statistical flight data then you take extra fuel for holding.

I still haven't been convinced that it is a bad idea. And I'm enjoying the debate.

JB007, I remember the fire in LHR. Now, some might think that is a disaster and it's time to panic, but I don't. Stansted, Gatwick, Luton, Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham are some of the options. And with the fuel mentioned above plenty to keep you going.

763 and Eurotraveller. Well done on the research. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I know you may not agree with my theory on it but I appreciate you taking the time to post up the rules.

Rgds,

Bing

[763 jock]

LHR would probably be a non starter in the real world. I was thinking about a situation where it could be feasible.

Your destination is Las Palmas (two long separate runways), in the middle of the night. ACE and FUE are both closed after 11PM (if memory serves). So usually, TFS would be the obvious choice. I'm ignoring TFN for the sake of the argument. Just as you check in, TFS closes due to a large hole in the runway, stranded aircraft etc, so it is unavailable. LPA is CAVOK and traffic is light until the morning.

It would not be unreasonable to dispatch given the above, although I would take the fuel for TFS anyway and keep updated on the LPA conditions on the way down.

[Yellow Pen]

In response to the original question, the answer is no. BA do not nominate LHR as an alternate to LHR.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Bingaling. Have you considered noise abatement? At Heathrow, for example, the use of runways is strictly controlled and a request to land on the departure runway would have to be justified, if the runway was available.

I'm curious to know under what circumstances anyone would choose the other runway as an "alternate" assuming the weather was good..?

[JB007]

I remember the fire in LHR. Now, some might think that is a disaster and it's time to panic, but I don't. Stansted, Gatwick, Luton, Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham are some of the options. And with the fuel mentioned above plenty to keep you going.

Certainly don't remember anyone panicing - and you are correct, STN/LGW/LTN/BRS/CWL and BHX was exactly where EVERYONE was going, hope you get the point!

I'm curious to know under what circumstances anyone would choose the other runway as an "alternate" assuming the weather was good..?

I don't think they would, that is my point with regards to reality...and considering the NATS approval we needed to use LHR and would I be right in saying there was a FODCOM asking for at least 20 minutes holding fuel during arrival in peak periods in LON?!? Don't do 'Peak Periods' anymore!!!!!

Cheers
JB

[763 jock]

It would be a fool that used this for the purposes of saving fuel. However, I suspect it is in EU OPS as a "joker" card to be used when unusual circumstances prevail.

No doubt someone will prove me wrong!

[betterfromabove]

I have just stumbled across this post by accident and I REALLY hope this is a wind-up....

Bingaling - You really think 30 mins Final Reserve is what your wife and kids in the back would be comfortable with?

"Chances of LHR not being available very slim". Have you any idea about SE England runway capacities??

Christ, even VFR PPL's carry 45 mins Final Reserve as an ABSOLUTE minimum and we have juicy green fields to put down into if we need to.

I really hope you aren't working for an airline I have to travel on...

[Spitoon]

I believe that some regular operators into LHR have (or, at least, have had in the past) provision in their OPS manual to designate the second runway as the alternate in certain circumstances. As others point out, it doesn't seem very sensible.

Those who take the view that if one runway becomes blocked they'll just land on the other - and I've had the discussion with a senior level management pilot from a major carrier - obviously have never seen the chaos (albeit controlled) that ensues in a busy terminal area when not all the expected runways are available. And that's before considering the common failure modes that will make both runways unavailable - like JB's example of a fire in ATC. Still, the JARs permit it so it must be OK.....

[Bingaling]

JB007. I do get your point. Absolutely, and if you had LHR as the alternate and had taken 20 mins holding and then diverted to one of the aforementioned airports no big deal. If the airports were filling up rapidly and your fuel was going to become a serious issue then declare a fuel emergency. I still don't see the problem. Besides, only 9 aircraft diverted that day and the fire started at 0840 and was under control (ie: out at 0900) How many times has that happened in LHR in the last 20 years? I would guess that the only other times that LHR has closed has been in bad weather and on those days, hell you might even have AMS as your alternate. (I stand to be corrected though)

With regards to the FODCOM then take your 20 mins holding.

Betterfromabove. If you look carefully, I'm not saying you should plan to land with 30 mins final reserve fuel. You would still have a few hundred kilos extra for your alternate (LHR), your holding fuel (20 mins) and your contingency fuel.

Heathrow Director. The point of nominating LHR as the alternate is only to save fuel on days of fine weather and no operational problems. Of course if you have an emergency the Noise Abatement goes out the window.

[3 Point]

Don't know what BA do but, as a couple of people have already posted, it is perfectly legal to despatch without an alternate airport (OPS 1.295 as already stated by Eurotraveler). You don't take "alternate fuel" because you have no alternate; you take an extra 15 minutes reserve (Appendix 1 to OPS 1.255, 1.6b). So, you would despatch (assuming suitable weather, less than six hour flight and two separate runways) with taxi fuel, trip fuel plus contingency, standard final reserve (30 mins) plus an extra 15 minutes reserve.

If, during flight you burned the planned trip fuel and all the contingency you would still arrive at destination with 45 minutes fuel remaining.

This procedure is perfectly legal (under EU OPS), perfectly safe and I have used it several times operating into LHR in an Airbus (I'm not going to say which airline due to some of the outlandish remarks already made on here).

That said, it's often better to nominate Stansted as an alternate because then you can reduce the fuel even more as you don't need the extra 15 minutes reserve. ie if there is an alternate within 15 minutes flying time then you'd best nominate that.

Betterfromabove, you better hope your wife and kids are safe with 30 minutes final reserve; that's what OPS requires and it's what most European airlines plan for. PPL pilots on VFR flights are flying aeroplanes with far less reliable fuel quantity and consumption indications (your J3 has a bent wire after all!) and they are flying in winds which are often a far greater fraction of their TAS than airliners so are more affected by wind. OPS requires 30 minutes final reserve for turbine powered aeroplanes and that works just fine for me.

If you want to know the real answers to a point of regulation then look it up in the source document; if you come on PPrune you get lots of opinion, some of it better informed than others.

Happy landings

3 Point

[763 jock]

Betterfromabove.

It is perfectly legal to land with 30 minutes fuel remaining. Again, you may not like it, but EU OPS allows it. You can't plan for it, but you can do it.

In the LHR scenario, the operator would have to allow for a missed approach, vectors/routing and subsequent approach before getting down to 30 minutes remaining.

Taking the argument on, you could refuse "planned fuel" for the two runway CAVOK airfield with no diversion. Ops then offer Northolt as a diversion airfield for LHR (A319/BAe146 or similar?). The diversion fuel for the other runway at LHR would probably be about the same. Which would you be most comfortable with?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Northolt as a diversion from LHR? I'm not sure the boys in blue would fancy that idea.

Of course noise abatement goes in an emergency, but I didn't think we were discussing that.

What pilots and ops personnel should remember is that just because an airfield has two runways both may not be available for landing. When one is the departure runway, the final approach area may be "given away" for WIP - grass cutting, lighting maintenance, even the presence of high cranes working on or off the airport which could take an hour or so to move. My view as a controller, and one which I put to ops people donkeys years ago, is that the runway which is being used for departures should be viewed as "most likely closed" to landings then you won't go wrong.

[763 jock]

You could turn that argument through 180 degrees and say that airfield ops/ATC personnel need to be made aware that "some" operators may have filed their two runway CAVOK destination without an alternate! I seem to remember a certain SE Asian carrier arriving at LHR with very little fuel remaining on the 744 a few years ago....

I think it is largely hypothetical and I'm not aware of anyone using this rule on a day to day basis, but it is legal and creates some interesting discussion.

[Pontius]

As Yellow Pen has already stated, BA do not use LHR as a destination and alternate. Nice weather and all things being equal, LGW would normally be the filed alternate. On the day, running out of petroleum and thrashing round the LAM hold, a lot of guys will re-designate STN as their alternate and calculate their fuel accordingly.

However, just occasionally, when the weather's nice and within 6 hours etc etc, LGW might get thrown away and the fuel that gets 'freed up' is then used to increase the holding time available, if required. This is clearly not planned, so doesn't contradict the original answer of 'no' but having the 2 separate runways is sometimes used, as per the rules.

[Bingaling]

Heathrow Director, many thanks for your interesting info on the Departure runway. To be honest, I never thought of the departure runway in that sense (and it is good information to have).

That was an interesting discussion and I appreciate all your info and feedback.

Safe flying.....

[NigelOnDraft]

Our, and I suspect most, Ops manuals, effectively allow you to dispense with an Alternate (sometimes called "committing") in the latter stages of a flight.

In the event 1 runway is lost at LHR, meltdown starts :eek: You have a full runway's allocation approaching LHR, some may already have "committed", other soon will be. Meanwhile, you have a full deparature runway's allocation of departure traffic wanting to go, and if the closure is for any length of time, then mixed departure/arrivals will be considered, even actioned.

Now, no insult to the LHR ATCOs, but they are not overly experienced at this, nor are the crews, and the chance of a "smooth" integrated operation is not something I would rely on to arrive into without an alternate.

So, a proposal to set off for LHR, where you ALTN is LHR, is effectively predicting the above situation, and then committing into it :ugh:

Put it another way... in the right circs, I will "commit" to LHR (2 RWs), and other single RW airfields. I will never commit to LHR when it has gone single RW. This is not based on a whim, or divine wisdom, but thinking through a situation that did occur not many years ago, which I was fortunate enough not to be involved in, but many were, and some frightened themselves :ooh: (IIRC KLM 767 stuck 09R, 743 late GA 09L, Cx A343 aborting then stuck for a while (?) 09L).

NoD

[Peter47]

I'm not a pilot myself - more concerned with the commercial side of things, but have a question that someone may be able to answer. What are the rules when an airport en-route is nominated as the primary destination on the assumption (hope?) that the contigency allowance will not be used and it will be possible to "divert" to the scheduled destination? I know that this use to happen quite a lot in the past.

[Piltdown Man]

I think you might be referring to a technique sometimes known as "in flight re-planning." But this still means that you have to have enough fuel to get to your destination AND divert to an alternate, with reserves. The criteria determining the acceptability of an alternate nominated in flight are exactly the same as those used when planning before flight. The reason you might do this is that you were going to take a chance that you would get a better route, a continuous climb, better winds etc. When you are closer to your destination you are now able to burn the some of contingency fuel you had when you initially departed.

As to whether a parallel runway should is acceptable as an alternate, consider this. I have been flying short haul for just under 20 years and have diverted a few times. Just half of these diversions were nothing to do with weather. Two were due to fires in the terminals, some have been due to (lack of) snow clearing equipment, one for lack of de-icing fluid, two for power-cuts, one for congestion, another for a security panic. Considering each and every one of these happened with short notice suggests that it is prudent to carry fuel for a totally different airfield as the unexpected occurs with enough frequency to justify the cost of the carriage of additional fuel.

PM