Commit to destination - FUEL

[EightsOnPylons]

Scenario:

Small airport, CAVOK, Calm, nighttime.. You are not anticipating any problems but you arrive at your destination with 5 minutes of fuel above diversion fuel.

ATC says go around because an airport vehicle was doing a ramp inspection and did not vacate in time...
During go around and vectors for new approach, on the flight computer, message pops up "USING Reserve FUEL" ..

In this case I would commit to my destination instead of diverting, but is it ILLEGAL to do so? I cannot find anything in EU-OPS or anywhere regarding "Commiting to Destination" this?

Thanks

[airseb]

Captain's decision isn't it. The only obligation is to land with final reserve fuel be it at destination or divert. And even then, you could land with less, provided paperwork/bosse's office, etc.

Your scenario isn't that unusual in my operation.

[Piltdown Man]

There's nothing to say what what you are doing is incorrect. The alternate plus final holding fuel is for planning only. Once the flight has started (and the exact point where that occurs is somewhat nebulous) you don't have to have the alternate fuel in the tanks providing the destination is above landing minima. Therefore, what you are suggesting is a legal. It's also probably very sensible - but that depends on the exact situation that you are faced with.

[BOAC]

eights - In your example, an alternate is required. I think you will find solace in EUOPS 1.375.

2. however, if, as a result of an in-flight fuel check, the expected usable fuel remaining on arrival at the destination aerodrome is less than:
(i) the required alternate fuel plus final reserve fuel, the commander must take into account the traffic and the operational conditions prevailing at the destination aerodrome, at the destination alternate aerodrome and at any other adequate aerodrome, in deciding whether to proceed to the destination aerodrome or to divert so as to perform a safe landing with not less than final reserve fuel, or.........

What you suggest is common sense. It will go horrendously wrong if someone aborts on take off. In the RAF, the BAC Lightning took off short of fuel, and on recovery we had a 'priority' call we could make if we had less than div fuel which 'sterilised' the runway for us - no other movements, thus guaranteeing the landing. There is no such system in your world.

[deltahotel]

If the airfield remains open, how much fuel would you land with? If you set off for diversion airfield at short notice and fly some sort of climb, route, descent, approach how much fuel would you land with? Pretty much makes the case. Which course of action best fits the combination of 'is it safe, is it legal, is it sensible?'.

[Piltdown Man]

In your example, an alternate is required.

I don't think so. An alternate is not required. In your own words "It will go horrendously wrong if someone aborts on take off..." at your alternate. Which is why you don't have to fly to your alternate. But you have to decide for yourself.

[BOAC]

An alternate is not required. - small airfield = single runway? Where do you find the alleviation? Which is why you don't have to fly to your alternate - yes. Which Is what I said?

[Piltdown Man]

Sorry BOAC. I'm confused. Matey boy is at his destination airfield and alternate plus final reserve fuel is rapidly approaching. I'm saying he doesn't HAVE to divert, he may commit to his destination.

[BOAC]

Yes, I think you are. I'm saying he doesn't HAVE to divert, he may commit to his destination.. I am saying that too and citing 1.375. I am asking if you have a different interpretation to me from EUOPS on your words "An alternate is not required.". I cannot see that. My interpretation is that one IS required.. You say not? Perhaps your confusion is between 'being required' and 'using'?

[Piltdown Man]

I think we are at different ends. The OP's starting point was...
...but you arrive at your destination with 5 minutes of fuel above diversion fuel.
Therefore I don't think this is a planning question, it's one regarding execution. When you are overhead your destination, legally you no longer require an alternate. Section 1.375.b.2.(i) is no longer relevant. But given the example with only five minutes of "spare" fuel you'll do have to decide what you are going to do in short order. Does that make sense?

PM

[BOAC]

When you are overhead your destination, legally you no longer require an alternate. Section 1.375.b.2.(i) is no longer relevant. - not to me. Para b 1 to me..............

1. the flight must be conducted so that the expected usable fuel remaining on arrival at the destination aerodrome is not less than
(i) the required alternate fuel plus final reserve fuel......

says
a) 'arrival' is touchdown. Where else are YOU going to judge 'sufficient fuel'? It is not some nebulous 'overhead' thing.

b) You are required to be 'arriving' at your destination with reserves plus alternate. You are not 'permitted' to go below this figure unless BOTH 1.295 c i and ii are satisfied. (Obviously 'overhead' destination, i is satisfied! Thus you now only require two 'separate' runways with suitable landing aids). Thus UNTIL touchdown (ie 'in flight' as per EUOPS) you need both an alternate/s and fuel for it/them UNLESS you are able to dispense with the alternate as per c ii ('Separate' as per 1.295 j). Why else do you think two runways are specified? How do you define 'in flight'?

We both agree that commonsense and airmanship then permit a divergence from the good book when things go 'pear-shaped', but your assertion that an alternate is not required is incorrect in my understanding, and you need one UNTIL touchdown in 'normal' circumstances, excepting for 1.295 c i and ii. In my view if you are regularly accepting being somewhere 'overhead' with CMR and accepting landing with min of Reserves as 'a normal' at a single runway airfield you are stretching accepted convention somewhat.

When you divert to the alternate, you are usually also committing and landing with less fuel - yes, that is what an alternate is! Effectively when you 'commit' as per b 2 i and ii your destination becomes a pseudo alternate, so 'Reserve' applies.

[Piltdown Man]

1.295 is for pre-flight planning and is always applicable. No ifs or buts. But in flight, section 1.375 applies, which is what is being discussed. I believe subsection (b) 2.(i). implies that you don't have to divert, ie. it permits you to commit. Sensibly, it states that you have to think about what you are going to do next. Here's the text:

...however, if, as a result of an in-flight fuel check, the expected usable fuel remaining on arrival at the destination aerodrome is less than:

(i) the required alternate fuel plus final reserve fuel, the commander must take into account the traffic and the operational conditions prevailing at the destination aerodrome, at the destination alternate aerodrome and at any other adequate aerodrome, in deciding whether to proceed to the destination aerodrome or to divert...

I'll agree that I appear to be reading between the lines, but it clearly says you have the choice - which is where we came in. The reality is, it's bonkers to divert if you are overhead (or near) your destination, the weather is OK and you have no reason to believe that anything untoward is likely to occur - even if that means burning your alternate fuel. Yes, of course you could argue you still have an alternate - just not the fuel to get there. About as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

However, a few more extras have appeared. Firstly, you don't need an alternate with two runways for flights of less than six hours and secondly, the exact point a flight commences for "in-flight fuel management" is not specified. I'll argue (even if just for the hell of it) that it starts when you first burn the fuel you have calculated following compliance with 1.255.

PM

[BOAC]

We are to some extent 'Oozlum birding' here. I have repeatedly said (starting at post #4) that I agree with a commonsense 'committal' to destination in those circumstances, and that EUOPS allows this, so there is no need to go over it yet again, but your post #3 is the problem,. It says, according to you, once you are airborne, you routinely only need to plan for reserve fuel at your single runway destination - no alternate fuel, no holding fuel. Not so, and you have not given me any 'alleviation' to the alternate requirement for this scenario. The 'old' regulations used the term 'landing assured' before you committed. That is still a good mindset to use.

To summarise for the OP who has no doubt got bored and wandered off

- yes it is 'legal'
- EUOPS 1.375 covers the case

but, PM, note he/she specified "5 mins above div fuel" at go-round, not reserve..

[EightsOnPylons]

Thank you all, I enjoyed reading your discussion about this.
Best regards, 8s

[springbok449]

Yes you can commit to destination and legally use your alternate fuel in doing so, whether you chose to do so or not would depend on your circumstances on the day 8's...